Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
KurtShuler
User Rank
Blogger
Semico IMPACT keynote slides
KurtShuler   11/11/2013 2:56:44 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi everyone,

Your excellent comments and questions inspired me to make this the topic of my keynote speech at Semico IMPACT on Wednesday. You can download the slides I used and read a review of my speech at http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2920-can-intel-catch-samsung-can-anybody-catch-samsung.html

Thanks for all your help!

Kurt

JG-2
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Not Buying It
JG-2   10/15/2013 2:13:09 PM
NO RATINGS
Hey Kurt - thanks for the reply.   Indeed we DO agree - for the small slice of high value and high volume semiconductors.   I think we can further agree that we can not determine the shape of the iceberg from the visible tip.  Trends at the top end do make a huge difference to semiconductor companies,  especially those over-exposed to a small number of sockets, but the majority of big names are well-diversified.  The decades long trend of disaggregation indeed has allowed more systems companies to conveniently re-aggregate (per your examples) but this is, in my opinion,  an exception that proves the rule rather than a industry-wide trend.   So I do agree with more of your article than I disagree,  Kurt, if you do not mind putting your conclusion and article title in the minority! Finally, I appreciate the willingness to put your views out there and in so doing to suffer the slings and arrows of...  different viewpoints.

Jim

KurtShuler
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Not Buying It
KurtShuler   10/15/2013 1:33:57 PM
NO RATINGS
Jim, my point was to bring awareness to this trend. I'm sorry if you thought it was false advertising of my views.

I thought I was nuanced in explaining that this is occurring with big companies who are in growing markets with high value semiconductor content, and have a need to differentiate. Right now this is happening in mobile and servers. Although these markets may be a small slice of semiconductor volume, then do encompass a huge amount of semiconductor industry monetary value. Semiconductor companies making SoCs for these markets need to keep an eye on this.

I will leave it to analysts like Will Strauss, Jim McGregor, and Nathan Brookwood and firms like Semico, Linley Group, Gartner and IHS iSuppli to research this and supply the next level of quantitative detail and facts. They get paid to do that. I was stating my observations in my little part of the industry.

Kurt

betajet
User Rank
CEO
Re: I kicked a hornet's nest
betajet   10/14/2013 8:14:42 PM
NO RATINGS
When I design a hardware/software system -- typically using an FPGA for the hardware -- I have limited resources (logic cells) for hardware and plenty of memory for software.  Thus I put into hardware only what needs to be there because it has to have high performance and/or low latency.  Everything else goes into the software.  This keeps the hardware relatively simple, and throws the complexity into software.  Software is a cheap way to perform complex functions, but it's really hard to design for and test all the odd conditions that can occur, and recover from errors gracefully.

With an SRAM-based FPGA, I have the luxury of being able to fix hardware bugs in later releases of the software.  Even so, the hardware bugs rarely survive long and most releases are software updates and keep the same FPGA hardware.

Regarding software quality in general: it's pretty rare for any large program to work perfectly, and users have long ago set their expectations accordingly.

KurtShuler
User Rank
Blogger
Re: I kicked a hornet's nest
KurtShuler   10/14/2013 6:43:08 PM
NO RATINGS
I like the idea. The smart-a$$ in me thinks the reason why software is so buggy compared to hardware is because the software folks always say, "Just ship it now! We can fix the bugs with a patch later." If the hardware folks tried this, it would be bad. (Understatement intended.)

Kurt

JG-2
User Rank
Rookie
Not Buying It
JG-2   10/14/2013 6:00:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Kurt,  it seems your background would make for a far more nuanced read of the situation. You cite Apple, Microsoft, and Google and draw conclusions from a small slice of the market.  Systems companies are going to spend $3 or $100 a part and buy from semis if they can avoid the millions, the time, and the risk of designing their own chips.  But yes, they will design their own if that is what they need to do to differentiate.   There is no new trend here.  No new threat to semi companies.   You have to look at each industry and the volumes and the differentiation strategies and the newness of their markets to determine where the integration (and integration expense/risk) will occur.  A wake up call is not needed  - the integration pendulum swings at different rates for different markets and there are hundreds of these markets, each with their own answer. 

Am I being overly dismissive of this story if I call it fluff with a hard-hitting tag line to get readers attention?  I guess it worked on me,  so at least the second part of that is true.

Jim Gobes

CEO - Intrinsix Corp.

Todd Bezenek
User Rank
Rookie
Re: I kicked a hornet's nest
Todd Bezenek   10/14/2013 5:25:57 PM
NO RATINGS
Kurt,

Nice negative-to-positive turn-around.

For a future story, I am interested in seeing a discussion of why 70% of software projects fail or are plagued by endless bugs, but VLSI designs which share many similarities to large software projects can tape-out successfully.  What can the software guys learn from the hardware guys?

I recently heard David Patterson (computer architecture researcher) was teaching software engineering this year.  Perhaps the hardware guys are already starting to teach the software guys a thing or two. :-)

Do you have a blog post to add?

-Todd

KurtShuler
User Rank
Blogger
Re: I kicked a hornet's nest
KurtShuler   10/14/2013 12:48:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Todd,

There's no pay for play with EE Times. I don't advertise with them or pay any fees. I just love to write and love our industry. So they invited me to contribute on a monthly basis.

The coffee choking was probably due to the fact that almost all of my company's customers are semiconductor vendors rather than OEMs or systems houses. The customer base is changing though, hence this article.

I'm glad you liked the article. I need to think of a topic for next month. Any ideas?

Kurt

Todd Bezenek
User Rank
Rookie
Re: I kicked a hornet's nest
Todd Bezenek   10/14/2013 12:28:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Your CEO probably choked on his coffee because he realized his company just spent several thousand dollars having its marketing VP write an article for EE Times.

Good article.  We have graduate students who spin up their own chips every day.  Sooner or later companies were going to realize they could do it too.

-Todd

KurtShuler
User Rank
Blogger
I kicked a hornet's nest
KurtShuler   10/11/2013 6:01:29 PM
NO RATINGS
I should have guessed this article would cause some good discussion when my CEO read a draft and choked on his coffee!

This "OEMs making their own chips" trend seemed innocuous to me, and it's been very obvious to me and my company's sales team that this is occurring.

I think there is sufficient evidence in the marketplace to claim that some of the most innovative consumer product companies are "re-verticalizing", at least for their most important products that require differentiation. What I don't have a clear answer for is, "Why?"

I have a hypothesis that it is actually the software that is driving systems companies to design their own chips. When I was at TI, we offered operating system board support packages and driver software along with our OMAP phone chips. Software was not a core competence (buzzword alert!) of TI, and it took many years and lots of money to do it sufficiently well. TI were experts on the chip, but not on software.

When we look at a company like Google, Facebook or Microsoft, these companies are experts at software, but are looking to create innovative battery-operated devices. If they buy merchant silicon, they have to buy a chip that was designed for no particular OS, tool chain, application or form factor in mind. If they design their own chip, they have total control over all these things as well as exclusive access to the end product.

I don't think every OEM will choose to design their own chips, only the ones that can get an advantage through innovation (higher pricing) or significantly lower costs. I imagine the economic hurdle rate to design one's own chip is quite huge. Apple and Microsoft have determined that some of their product lines meet this hurdle rate, and Google and Facebook may have, too.

In any case, we're lucky to be in an industry that innovates not only with technology, but also with new business models. It keeps all of us from being replaced with computers ;-)

Kurt

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Book Review: Deadly Odds by Allen Wyler
Max Maxfield
11 comments
Generally speaking, when it comes to settling down with a good book, I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and science fantasy. Having said this, I do spend a lot of time reading ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
14 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).