Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>
alex_m1
User Rank
CEO
Re: Broken Model
alex_m1   4/5/2014 10:58:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Scott:I don't get something. There must be some reason companies don't just price their components higher, and it's not wall street , becaue wall street wouldn't mind higher profits.

Maybe the microcontrollers and bluetooth devices are mostly commodities and are mostly built into commodity products. If you won't sell cheap, some ther guy will.

Heck , i if i want i can just go get a bluetooth core to build my bluetooth design on. There are 42 such cores availble at [1]. Imagine what that must do to prices.

But you as an MCU seller, says: not true. I just added this great peripherials for this expensive chip. I am not a commodity. So the board designer buys a cheaper chip and uses software, a 50 cents FPGA or a million other tricks to solve his problem for cheaper. Yes maybe that won't be the most optimal design but still, it'll be cheapr and most designs are cost constrained. And anyway , in a minute and half a competitor will rise.

As for your comparison with software: the marginal price of most software is ZERO. most of the price in those billion dollar software companies is in community and network effects. The x86 companies have managed to create those effects into their chips and hence their value, but most chip companies can't.

Some other business models for apps are the free-to-play model , which manipulates users psychologically into paying for virtual goods. I trully hope there won't be such model applicable for chips.

 [1]http://www.design-reuse.com/sip/bluetooth-c-192/

Scott Elder
User Rank
Manager
Broken Model
Scott Elder   4/4/2014 11:14:16 PM
NO RATINGS
Sanghi says that the model is broken.  Here is an example why.
 A 19 year-old person can go on the internet, buy a bunch of 50 cent parts overnight, build a prototype system with Bluetooth, Wifi, Arm processors, etc. and test the product interest on Kickstarter.  If he's lucky, he'll sell $50,000 worth of product, pull in another $300,000 from keen investors who monitor those sites, and build a sustaining business in less than two years selling a few million dollars in hardware.  And the semiconductor companies that enable this--the ones that get 50 cents--well they get a whopping $10,000 only if and only when the young person's company makes a few million.
 
The economics of this broken model don't make sense.  Intensive research and development with multiple PhDs on the staff, sophisticated multi-million dollar tools, and complex supply chains have little value anymore.  It is all reduced to 50 cent parts.
 
Now that it is back to basics for the old-school semiconductor companies, selling pieces parts, one $70,000 purchase order at a time, it's time to rethink how those 50 cent parts are sold.  The idea that the price of a semiconductor device should be based upon the cost of goods is out-dated.  What's the cost of goods sold for software downloaded on the internet?  Music downloaded?  Who knows.  Who cares.  But somehow Wall Street establishes billion dollar valuations for those IP companies without worrying about COGS.  But in the semiconductor space it is all about gross margin; the multiple on cost of goods sold--a business model that died in the middle of the dot-com revolution.


Scott Elder
User Rank
Manager
Re: Why is Google making their own chips?
Scott Elder   4/4/2014 11:10:33 PM
NO RATINGS
@daleste

<<Just throw a few software guys together and have them design the chip we need>>

Your prognosis is not how it is being done.  Those system companies hire the same design engineers previously employed in the semiconductor companies that are now laying off engineers, they buy their wafers from TSMC, buy their tools from Cadence, and license their ARM cores just like the semiconductor companies do.  There is no secret sauce anymore.  It's all available off the street.  Don't kid yourself.

daleste
User Rank
CEO
Re: Why is Google making their own chips?
daleste   4/4/2014 9:41:21 PM
After many years in the industry watching customers try to do their own design and coming back asking us to do it for them, I think Google will probably fail at their quest to build their own.  They will probably under estimate the cost and under resource the effort.  Just throw a few software guys together and have them design the chip we need.  Seems like a good idea to get what we want.  Problem is that they will have to make and learn from all the mistakes that the large semi companies have been through over the years.  The delays and costs will eventually kill the effort.

P_Khare
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Why is Google making their own chips?
P_Khare   4/4/2014 5:20:20 PM
NO RATINGS
@pshune.

It's not design. As you have mentioned his quote in your para 1 "....based on expected advances in process technology are over...." Process Technology is the keyword here. His views are perfectly in line with other articles appearing these days about Moore's law coming to an end. Double-digit growth can not be sustained indefinitely.

lcovey
User Rank
Rookie
EDA, IP and Semi live like hermits
lcovey   4/4/2014 2:18:28 PM
NO RATINGS
I had several conversations with chip, EDA and IP people at EE Live and the one thing I got out of it is very few know what is going on in the market.  There are EDA guys that have built great tools, but they rely on marketing practices that died 20 years ago, so no one really know what they have (including them).  The semi guys are squeezing their tool and material suppliers to cut costs and, at the same, time, killing technology advances that could do the cost-cutting job for them, and the IP guys are chasing after each others customers and ignoring potential new markets for thier ideas.

I think Sanghi is probably right about the future, but it doesn't have to be that way.

pshune
User Rank
Rookie
Why is Google making their own chips?
pshune   4/4/2014 11:42:35 AM
NO RATINGS
Microchip CEO Steve Sanghi  said "The days of forward-pricing chips based on expected advances in process technology are over. The industry has to change its practices -- you have to make money today, because no one will let you make it tomorrow."  

Intel recently announced job cuts of over 5,000 employees and closed Fab 42 in Chandler, AZ for the foreseeable future.  Intel stated the reason was they could not respond to the customer's requirements for tablets and low-power systems on a chip (SoC). In a recent job posting Google said "Our computational challenges are so big, complex and unique we just can't purchase off-the-shelf hardware. We've got to make it ourselves." Really.

I think it is a sad day when chip companies are mothballing fabs, laying off employees and eeiking out miniscule rasies to their design engineers while their potential customers are designing their own chips. I disagree with Steve Sanghi's comment when he says "The go-go days of double-digit revenue growth are over as the chip business settles into a middle age measured by mid-single-digit annual growth."  Why can't Intel, Microchip and all the other chip makers respond quickly, creatively and cost effectively to the changing demands of the chip market? Is it because they are still using the chip design tools and processes of the past?  

Gabe Moretti commented in his article The Approaching Discontinuity, "The world of EDA is about to change. The subtle signs are there for all to see, and the coming reality is so different to be scary to some. Thus better not to talk about it. The changes will include how ICs are designed, developed, and verified. They will involve designers, tools developers, and manufacturers, and force an integration that the EDA industry has not experienced so far." 

So why aren't EDA companies building better tools?  Everyone in the industry knows this is needed, but where are the solutions?  Do the entrenched EDA tool suppliers simply think they don't need to change? Are the chip design teams and CAD groups so focused on saving their jobs today that they don't see how this will damage the bottom line tomorrow?  When Google announces it is going to circumvent the entire industry and do it themselves, shouldn't chip makers hear a voice in their head saying "Danger Will Robinson. Danger!"?

Without pressure on EDA companies to start building software the chip designers need to stay competitive sales will continue to erode and more layoffs will ensue. If the chip companies are going to survive they are going to have to make big changes immediately including dragging their current EDA suppliers kicking and screaming into the 21st century . . . or find one who is already there.

 

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: More mergers etc.
rick merritt   4/4/2014 9:28:51 AM
NO RATINGS
@Fuller: Great perspective!

FYI, I heard so much about the need and interest in offering design servcies for IoT last week. An opportunity for your EDA/IP folks?

Brian Fuller2
User Rank
Blogger
More mergers etc.
Brian Fuller2   4/3/2014 5:01:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Rick great piece as always. First off, I'll say Sanghi has been a rain cloud for some time, but his success as a CEO is unquestioned. I think he's correct in saying there will be more mergers among established semiconductor companies. Companies in general get to a point where they have so much culture and history that they lose the ability to take risks. This is not just in the semiconductor business. 

Will there be a very interesting world of semiconductor development in the coming years? Absolutely! Think about it: One data point right now is systems companies in the cloud and consumer electronics spaces are building their own semiconductor design teams because they can (and must) optimize silicon for their own vast and enormous businesses. 

At the other end of the spectrum, there are startups. After I bumped into Sanghi at the ACE Awards Tuesday night I then bumped into Andreas Olofsson, CEO of Adapteva. You've written extensively about him and his company and its Kickstarter funding story. 

Sitting in between are EDA and IP companies, whose businesses need to change. They're acting on it because everyone knows we need silicon and systems innovation and everyone knows engineering teams need to be more productive. We abstract more, shift value propositions from one sector to the next as the industry matures. 

Pretty? No. But business evolution never is. 

 

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Silicon blues
krisi   4/3/2014 2:44:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Mergers are tradionally diffcult in the semiconductor design space...I see layoffs and belly-ups

<<   <   Page 4 / 5   >   >>


Most Recent Comments
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

Vetinari Clock: Decisions, Decisions, Decisions …
Max Maxfield
24 comments
Things are bouncing merrily along with regard to my uber-cool Vetinari Clock project. The wooden cabinet is being handcrafted by my chum Bob (a master carpenter) using an amazing ...

Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock

Jolt Awards: The Best Books
Jolt Judges and Andrew Binstock
1 Comment
As we do every year, Dr. Dobb's recognizes the best books of the last 12 months via the Jolt Awards -- our cycle of product awards given out every two months in each of six categories. No ...

Engineering Investigations

Air Conditioner Falls From Window, Still Works
Engineering Investigations
2 comments
It's autumn in New England. The leaves are turning to red, orange, and gold, my roses are in their second bloom, and it's time to remove the air conditioner from the window. On September ...

David Blaza

The Other Tesla
David Blaza
5 comments
I find myself going to Kickstarter and Indiegogo on a regular basis these days because they have become real innovation marketplaces. As far as I'm concerned, this is where a lot of cool ...