Despite the huge growth of all things mobile, I agree with your comments about the over-hype of mobility.
For the most part, we are only mobile for short periods of time between stationary locations A and B. Once we have settled in at a fixed location, we cannot satisfy all of our computing and access needs with that mobile device and its tiny screen.
A great list of myths - especially #5. As usual, reader comments have enriched Peter's original piece. Frank Eory is right. Fabless works well for a few big players (and the foundries, of course). I might be biased, but I see a consensus here that we need to keep the bean counters where they are needed and well away from strategic planning where they can do the most damage.
I found myth6 interresting. Basically the main issue of silicon industry is not cycle or ASP or whatever. It is more to understand how consumers will behave in the future and what are the unsatisfied needs which have to be satisfied and that needs new silicon chips. When we look at a lot of applications they can be addresed with the chips already existing no need to new designs as it was the case in the past. So silicon market will change and may be future biz model will be more in integration of existing basic blocks than really developping very new chips which is now extremly costly with a return on investement less and less guarantee.
I strongly believe that the need of real company vision is key for the future instead of beans counter just defining a strategy based on cost reduction and for sure not at all sustainable on the long term
I agree that it is incredibly naive to say that the semiconductor market has 'matured'. We have gotten to the point where Moore's law is only the first hurdle, and the next ten years will be every bit as entertaining and as brutal as the last twenty.
Myth #7: The PC is dead
Pundits have been led astray by the fact that people need mobility too... yes, t-o-o. Foolish, shallow pundits! The desktop will return to strength once everybody has mobility solved for the moment. Whether Microsoft comes along for the ride is much more of a question than it used to be, and deservedly so.
Myth 2 and 3 are complementary. The way i look at both of them is; until average selling price of ICs keeps on falling the market will not mature as there will be room to add or upgrade the product. And incentive for companies to invest in RnD to find upgrade. For example, the laptops or TVs or mobiles. They are becoming better, cheaper and integrated.
I agree. I have seen business groups that concentrate so much on the bottom line that they forget to run the business. The finance guys are important to make sure that the business can continue, but they can't be the ones making the business and product decisions.
About Myth 5, I am not convinced about the relation between age of the company and success for a fabless firm. I guess the "top 40" mentioned here is based on revenues. I guess if a company is around for more years, most probably they will have many product lines and therefore more revenues. How about "top 40" fabless companies based on "profit margins"? There must be more young companies in that list.
How true is Myth #6, as the bean-counters have taken over, the focus has become increasingly short term. I can't help thinking there will be some casualties in the next few years as companies favour short term gain over long term strategic thinking.
I certainly agree, many semiconductor chip companies could use more Critical thinking and less reliance on the prevailing market zeitgeist. It takes vision and ability think outside of the wall-streets box. Some examples are companies that have been mavericks to the prevailing market zeitgeist and grown because of it; Intel with their growing U.S. Fab base and creating new markets (netbooks) and Apple developing new products and markets. Companies that have succumbed to the prevailing market zeitgeist have down sized, sold off their prized possessions; for example, Texas Instruments shutting down their R&D and Fab development and following the analog market.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.