This looks like a good deal for Lattice. Other than the product, SB has a lot of great FPGA veterans on staff.
I agree with the comment that the math doesn't appear to work out for the VCs, but I do not think we know the full story here.
SB had two fundamental issues, 1) being a startup, and 2) socket life. Lattice solved #1 but in doing so inherited the socket life issue.
SB's niche FPGA business survives mainly on getting designed in (ie., socket wins) to high-volume products such as cell phones. Because cell phones have a short life cycle there's frequent opportunity for a device to get designed out. SB's FPGAs are typically targeted for a 'design out' because the functionality they provide usually gets pulled into a custom chip. In other words, SB FPGAs are a good temporary solution to time-to-market.
Once their investers started to understand the nature of the beast I suppose Lattice started looking like an extension to writing on the wall, and good exit strategy for execs with stock options.
Good point. I had forgotten that that was the total. In view of this, an interesting transaction. Perhaps SiliconBlue simply believed they had reached the limits of what they could accomplish as a small, independent startup.
Perhaps someone more skilled than me in such matters as this can explain how the VCs allowed this to happen. Do the math: someone is going to get disappointed, either the VCs or the staff, considering the offer is not even $5M more than the funding according to my math.
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.