That is no money. It is like the one the company that just filed bankrupt Syltronics that makes solar panel received from Obama admin. They got $536K. This is no money. Govts should put money in ee companies even as the Chinese are doing
Obama gave the solar panel company Solyndra something like $535 Million, that is some real money. If you were referring to that, then your off by x1000. That is as big or bigger than what the Chinese are doing for individual companies, certainly seems like that should have been enough to get a business going.
Not sure why giving this piddly amount of money is even worth an article, unless there is an order of magnitude larger follow-on investment planned.
In Europe many people think $1.1 million for a technology investment is a LOT of money.
Typically VC investments in European companies are smaller than those in U.S. companies at the same stage of development by a factor of 2 or more.
I often think these amounts will barely pay for business cards and office furniture, let alone serious engineering. So how will Ikon get a digital chip out the door on this money?
Well maybe they will get more money.
The founders are experienced with backgrounds at Parthus Technologies, so maybe they have a lot of their own money to pay for masks and wafer runs.
The amount landed by the Bank means that the LEDs are getting accepted more and more, at many different levels, in this case the banks has provided funding for a driver IC that is too good for technological development.
I would be interested to learn what their proposition is, what can they bring to the party. Mind you I used to think we'd tried all the ways to arrange FETs and inductors untul Cuk came along. That is the fascination of analog design. Anyone know what they offer? The website is a little quiet...
You could probably fund a group of 4-8 designers and if they knew what they were doing, they could come up with a design. This would obviously be fabless. This sounds like they're trying to kick off an effort, not completely fund a company.
Maybe that's a better way to fund start ups: show me what you got, prove it and I'll advance more. In today's economy it makes sense and real ideas will come to fruition in new products soon after. But maybe it is also cautionary moves by Europe's VCs, in general.
That is the standard way VCs and startups work. It just seems that in the U.S. the startups are good at getting twice as much using the argument that it is better to find out if the idea is a good one or a bad one quickly.
Not sure what the argument is about. Pretty much everyone starts up small, your own funds ,family,angel money etc. Sure,$1M is not much to develop a chip but you can probably get close to a tapeout or do an MPW run. More money might follow if the product looks attractive a year from now. As Peter says there are regional difference in level of funding but the mechanism of getting the company off the ground are pretty much the same everywhere...Kris
I am surprised by the small amount invested here myself! When I was just a young engineer (ah the good old days 1980s) I was part of a startup company with 25 employees and a capital burn rate of (if memory serves) upwards of 1 million a month. That included saleries, office space, significant numbers of prototypes, outsourced mechanical design, etc.. Still, it did not seem like we had more money than we needed in those days. The founders must be spending a lot of their own money for this startup.
I agree, $1M/month seems pretty high for a startup in the 80s.
Today, a very small startup -- say around 10 employees, maybe 6 of whom are engineers -- should be able to get by on a burn rate of $100k/month, maybe a little less in Ireland, where salary costs are lower than in the U.S.
But that low burn rate doesn't include much for equipment leases, and certainly doesn't include mask costs for an IC development.
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.