It is interesting to note that in 2009 EyeSight was rubbing shoulders with Nokia, one year ago the technology was on the Ceva MM2000 platform ...and now Ceva is pushing some money EyeSight's way so they can have another tilt at the market on MM3000.
It rather suggests that Ceva thinks the technology is promising and likes having it around but that it is "ahead" of market acceptance. Possibly this is "keep-alive" money in the hope that an EyeSight design win will come good in 2012.
eyeSight has been around since 2005 so it's not a new iteration of technology and this is not their first round of funding. In fact, it's in use by several companies already: http://www.pcworld.com/article/243294/new_tech_lets_you_look_like_a_jedi_while_unlocking_your_phone.html
It's a good move by both companies (CEVA and eyeSight). Offering eyeSight for the CEVA-MM3000 can not only improve real-time performance, but also lower the cost of deployment of this technology because it would not require any separate hardware or chip to be added. Plus, eyeSight technology is all software-based, which means it can be easily adopted and upgraded to support further UIs in the future without a requirement to change the hardware architecture. It also requires a standard camera – no need for multiple or special cameras – reducing the BOM.
This is an interesting story ... but lacks the context to explain the significance. There are competing technologies out there which are currently in use. It seems like a risky prospect to be investing in a new iteration of a technology when the competitor is already deployed. How do they compare?
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.