I received a plethora of e-mails regarding my recent article, entitled "Semi IP sector is a lost cause"
Then, I asked for the IP vendors themselves to respond to a set of questions. Here's one letter to the editor from Doug McKenney, engineering director at LSI:
Editor,
My views on the IP subject:
EET: Explain why IP is not a lost cause. (Semi IP can accelerate the time to market for a design is not a good reason. We already know that.)
McKenney: Selling IP is a way for a smaller company to make some revenue as they try to grow, so it is not a lost cause. It is definitely a challenge to grow a long term business from selling IP. It is an avenue to revenue for a very small company or start up. It is an avenue to revenue for established companies like ARM, Synopsys, Mentor. I do think it is a lost cause for the companies in the middle, unless the business plan is not built around IP directly. eASIC and Open Silicon are examples of this.
EET:ARM has a decent business model. Does anyone else have one? Or, for that matter, what is the future business model for IP? Can anyone make any real money in the business?
McKenney: RTL IP has little resale value, unless there is a lot of infrastructure to back it up, like ARM processors have. GDS2 IP has more value, and it is only easier to target multiple foundries due to all the process partnerships today. As I mentioned, indirect IP business models may be a way to make money, like eASIC, eSilicon or Open Silicon. These companies can be a one stop shop for IP, but so can EDA companies like Synopsys and Mentor.
EET: IP even required as we go to the 45-nm node and beyond? If so, what IP is really critical in future designs?
McKenney: IP is definitely required as we go to 45 nm and beyond. Mixed signal IP gets faster and tougher to design in every technology. High speed interfaces are key. Mixed signal IP has a lot of resale value if the developers have an established reputation of high quality. IP would be tough to sell without ways to convince customers of the quality, and to convince them takes a lot of capital investment.
EET: For years, quality and lack of manufacturability has dogged IP. My perception: IP is a nightmare in the real world. Has this changed or not? My guess: No. With the demise of the VSI Alliance (VSIA), IP quality will remain unchecked.
McKenney: IP is still a nightmare in the real world. It is getting harder and harder to build quality analog IP. Each technology node presents new challenges in transistor model development and ways to manage the process variability. And the IP must be thoroughly evaluated in silicon across process, temperature and voltage, before using it in a production part. This is critical since the EDA tools cannot find every potential issue. This is especially true in the early days of a technology node. As a node matures, the models more closely reflect reality.
EET:Finally, why should I bother writing about IP in the first place -- if it is indeed a lost cause? With the cutbacks at EE Times, I'm very busy these days and would rather write about growth markets and hot companies. Working on my golf game seems like a better idea.
McKenney: Golf sounds like more fun!
Regards,
Doug McKenney
Engineering director at LSI