It makes sense. All of the various parts of the IoT need to communicate. They'll be passing data around, and the data may be big. Being able to compress it on the fly to reduce the bandwidth needed to send it is pretty much a necessity, and being able to encrypt it for security likewise. Having that capability means Exar can offer a more complete solutions portfolio.
I agree with DiNardo on fabs. Given the enormous costs of building and updating them, anyone making chips has to ask "Do we need our own, or can we concentrate on design and contract with someone else to actually make our chips?" The answer is almost certainly "Let someone else make them", There are an enormous number of chips that don't require bleeding edge process technologies that someone like GlobalFoundries or TMSC can make with ease, and your only concern will be "Who has the capacity to fill my order in the desired time frame?"
I was amused by his comment "At Crosslink Partners, seven of us reviewed 1,200 business plans a year, held 300 meetings, did deep diligence on 60 companies, and then made six investments, which means a partner in a good year did one deal. It wasn't enough to keep me busy and excited."
Reviewing 1,200 business plans, holding 300 meetings, and deep diligence on 60 companies sounds like more than enough to keep the average person entirely too busy.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.