@ NE01. Samsung may not be a good model to learn from neither. Samsung and Hynix alike are using money from the nation to feed the various development over the past 20 years. Samsung's philosophy is pretty much: dominate the market with tons of investment borrowed from the market, hopefully it can breath longer than competition, once the competition are gone, it can demand better payback. In contrast, Japanese semiconductor IC companies are still governed by the old guards who grew up in the manufacturing-driven mentality, not the market-driven mentality. Plus, most Japanese engineers and management could not speak English well, hence they have a lot of problem to understand what the market wants. In contast, I recall that Samsung announced many years ago that all documentation must be published in English first. A good example is: 3 years ago, in one of the visit to a customer in Taiwan, I went to the meeting with 9 colleagues, two from Japan HQ, two from US HQ, two from local office, 3 from the sales agent in Taiwan. Of the 10 people, I was speaking 80% of time, the sales/marketing person from Japan HQ only questioned on schedule and desired pricing with very broken English. I am certain that he didn't understand most of what transpired between customer and the engineer from US HQ and me. The 5 people from Taiwan office and sales agent barely made any comment. Similar situation happened again and again, perhaps in lesser scale in the subsequent customer visits. Just imagine the lost in the operation efficiency and the travel costs for these Japanese managers! How can Japanese semiconductor companies survive with such kind of operation effiicency?
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.