TI’s product is developed for a focused medical application. It targets a narrow market segment – a segment with a significant potential due to the rise of low cost, portable medical devices. Customers can efficiently build a medical device around this product since it is already developed and tested for that focused application. For some other application based on photometry, but with different sensor characteristics, TI’s product would largely be inadequate.
Systemcom’s solution was developed with a different philosophy in mind. It targets potential customers who use different sensor types used in today’s market but also targets sensors that will be introduced and commercially available in the near future. Applications for Systemcom’s product using suitable sensors are found across multiple vertical market segments -- medical and biomedical (pulse oximeters like TI’s product, glucose meters, etc), environmental, automotive, industrial, communication and cutting-edge mobile devices segments. All Systemcom building blocks were designed as IP modules-- the modular approach allows a tailored and optimized solution for a particular application -- e.g., number of gain stages to reach an overall amplification figure. Based on the particular requirements from a customer, Systemcom can quickly provide an optimized product - either in the form of an IP module or ASIC. This significantly reduces the development cost due to an already optimized design on the block level and allows a very fast time-to-market introduction. Otherwise product integration into the end-system would require a more extensive effort due to additional application development and testing not performed earlier in the development phase. For a small vendor, the benefits of a shorter and cost-effective development cycle would prevail in the overall cost analysis.
The above analysis validates the fundamental differences in the market approach among large and small vendors.
• A large vendor develops a dedicated IC with well-defined and limited functionality covering the needs of targeted customers.
• A small and highly specialized analog vendor develops a more general product for various applications in the form of IP modules and ASICs with customization features and strong support for integration into larger end-systems.
There is plenty of room in the market for both approaches. Customers benefit from the two similar products that are offered, each with an emphasis on different application and system characteristics.
Agree much. Just a handfull of startup with good product structure and understand products specific need and deep well market understanding will success to become turnover generating companies. Not a companies that just throwing some random power up with full spectrum add on. Thanks
Front-end (of development) opportunity is all
well and fine, but moving it to production by
convincing some major player to take a chance
on your shoestring startup, is a remote fantasy.
Almost every major company has handcuffed itself
to a raft of internal and external specs and
required vendor certifications, which would bury
a startup in paper and make-work. And as soon as
you, the shoestring guy, adopt this ever-heavier
tortoise shell as required, there goes your once
Transitioning from a "content creator" to a
product revenue based company is a long, hard
So what????Where is they now? For the competition sake, what this Systemcom doing now with their solution, is they start selling its, how well this product fair, how about major players reaction etc. other than some products specification you show there. Can you obtain me some data or news to show me clearly and lastly I'm like to see small companies thrive. Thanks.
I am intrigued by the article and by the discussion it has stirred up.
I obtained the datasheet for Systemcom’s product (at its web, through registration). Article’s point was that there are approaches where there are opportunities for small companies in competition with very capable and competent giants….
I noticed that AFE44xx with the gain of 4 and 1Mohm gain of TIA gives 4Mohm in total. SC-I-AFE-180F110 on the other hand provides 64kohm (in TIA) and 1296 (PGA) which gives 80Mohms in total. It means bigger and, as it seems, more programmable gain for SC-I-AFE-180F110, giving quite adaptable solution, while TI's is sharply focused to the specific application.
In summary, one would highly welcome both approaches from the customers' point of view -- it offers them vendor choices and flexibility. Also, note, the SC-I-AFE-180F110 datasheet states that the chip I/O accepts 3.3V logic levels.
There are several other dimmensions of the product that was not considered, what makes this article, more marcom than technical. Doing the product focused to specific applications, it is a strong trend in analog. Why offer more than the application requires ????? That´s why TI is at US$ 14 billion level and this startup will take some time to double the current revenue.
Prove please and what this upcoming companies doses that TI or ADI or other well established companies cannot do if they found its important and will make money. They can incorporate the many of the best system in their one products if needed but not do so because of specific needed (referring to Systemcom solution to TI).
If we are talking about treat no need to mention those Chinese specialist even a number of US small analog companies alone can become treat to the giants in specific applications. Thanks.
Well, neither TI and ADI apparently agree with you -- they both see the threat from fast growing analog specialists in China, for example...
One can also look into who is that "unknown" Petrov Group.... In 2012 they published a seminal 400+ pages strategy analysis of TI - this time post-National acquisition. They posted extensive in-depth excerpts from that report on their Web page.
They have also published numerous strategy reports on Linear, Maxim, National, Intersil, TI, etc.
@sranje, we are not talking about some trivial digital stuff this is serious analog, you cannot beat TI or ADI for performance, These folks have invested plenty to get to this level, be it proprietary process development or design...
hmmm - I found it useful and interesting.
Are all four of you above working for TI? TI is a GREAT company - we agree but -- do I detect a pro-TI bias?
I actually checked on "little un-known start-up company" - it has been in business for 20+ years and its customers included Intel, Digital, Bosch, etc....