JB’s Circuit

Design for the Consumer Era is seen as the next iteration of the infamous Design-for-X paradigm shift by keynote presenter at DesignCon 2010.

One seldom hears anything new or earthshaking at keynote presentations. Instead, good keynote addresses are like filters and amplifiers that simplify complex messages while refreshing their meaning. This is how I would characterize the message delivered by Dr Alex Shubat – CEO and Co-founder of Virage Logic - at Wednesday’s lunchtime keynote at DesignCon 2010.

His keynote focused on the technology and business trends that are pushing SoC designers and companies alike to move beyond the theme of reusability. Design reuse (DFR-Design for Reusability) was a big driver in the ’90s and ’00s. Reuse was part of the productivity era that started with the creation of design automation in the ’80s.

Shubat reminded his audience this productivity push was overlapped by today’s ongoing focus on manufacturability which is highlighted by such well-used acronyms as DFM, DFT and DFY, all of which led to the latest Design-for-X terminology for this new decade, namely, Design for Consumer Era (DFC). Interestingly, this seems very similar to the Department of Defense’s Design-to-Cost (DTC) realization during the military cost cutting era of the ’80s and ’90s – without the emphasis on consumerism.

Still, many would argue that the Design-for-Consumer approach is very similar to the Design-to-Cost method in the recognition that cost or rather shrinking profit margins are a key driver in design architectures.

Adding a slight spin to this latest “design” iteration came from a quick chat after the keynote with Brani Buric, executive VP of marketing and sales at Virage Logic. Buric suggested that Design-for-Profitability (DFP) might be an even better phrase to capture the latest reality adjustment for EDA design tool vendors and semiconductor companies.

Regardless of the “D-word” terminology, the SoC design challenges remain frustratingly the same, summed up by increasing complexity, shrinking Time-to-Market and (now) lower profit margins. Shubat concluded his presentation by noting the trend of shrinking size in electronics. Yesterday’s printed-circuit boards are now today’s complex chips that will become tomorrow’s reusable IP.

Some will note that ending suggests a return to reusability, in contrast to the keynote title of “Going beyond Reusability.” But as Shubat explained during his talk, reusability in the ’90s was intended to handle complexity. Today, reusability is seen as the best way to handle complexity as well as cost. In the growing world of electronic consumerism, volumes are high, profit margins are low, and cost (or profitability?) becomes the next “X” for which we need to design.

Reference on DFX:
EDA Could Learn a Lot from Systems Engineering

Funny video by Colin Warwick:

DesignCon 2010 Video Contest: Another Day In The Life Of an Agilent EEsof EDA Chiphead

Colin’s Blog on Chip Design

The good news is the economic improvements in the semiconductor market. But let’s remember that true recovery is still a long ways off.

For example, Intel recently posted a huge jump in 4Q09 profit of $2.3 billion, or 40 cents a share, compared with a profit of $234 million, or 4 cents a share, for the year-earlier period. Quoting from a consensus survey by Thomson Reuters: “Revenue was $10.6 billion, up from $8.2 billion for the same quarter in the year-earlier period.” The article notes that this profitable quarter was due primarily to cost cutting measures.

The fact that this huge profit was achieved primarily by shrinking the corporation is nothing special to the semiconductor market. This is the way almost every successful company has achieved profits during this recession.

Does that mean the economy is improving, at least in the short term? A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reminds us that, “… since a peak in 2005, Intel’s revenue is down 9.5% and its earnings are down nearly 50%. The company’s work force? It’s at 2003 levels.”

Will smaller semiconductor companies be capable of maintaining the innovation needed to create new products that drive consumer and corporate spending? That depends greatly upon how companies have cut back on their workforce, the data for which is difficult to find.

Still, the outlook is encouraging. iSuppli recently reported that, “after a 6.7 percent drop in 2009, the global consumer electronics market is expected to achieve a mild recovery in 2010, with revenue expanding by 1.6 percent partly because of improving sales of LCD-TVs, digital set-top boxes (STBs) and appliances.” Not terribly innovative products, but growth in any sector is still good.

Whether that growth leads to a long term economic recover is hard to tell. We’ll find out together.

My quest was simply to determine the low-power requirements necessary to receive good marks in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Greener Electronics.” As with most such quests, mine led me through a thicket of related standards. But it wasn’t what I found that was surprising. What was missing turned out to be the real shocker!

At the recent CES 2010, Greenpeace announced the ecological winners and losers in its latest “Guide to Greener Electronics” report. To achieve good marks, companies are ranked by how well they meet the following goals:
– Clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances.
– Take-back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.
– Reduce the climate impacts of their operations and product.

These goals represent a full system-wide, cradle-to-grave approach to product development, manufacturing and end-of-life disposal. Not surprisingly, few electronic companies rank successfully in all three areas.

What does this greener electronics guide mean to chip and board level designers? At first glance, not much. In fact, I had difficulty locating the actual requirements document upon which the ranking system is based. After much searching, I found the “Ranking Criteria Explained – January 2010” specification.

Hidden in the depths of this high-level spec is the portion that pertains to low-power architectural design: “Energy efficiency of new models (companies score double on this criterion).” This section, in turn, points to the government’s Energy Star standard as the basis for the ranking criteria, “rating the energy performance of three broad groups of products: external power adapters, computers (including gaming consoles) and televisions.” Several standards for each of these group categories were also cited.

Digging a bit further, I found that new models of power chargers, PCs, consoles and TVs must not only meet the Energy Star requirements, but that 30% of these new models of devices must exceed the those requirements by 50% or more in sleep and standby/no-load modes.

What do all of these requirements mean to low-power chip and board level designers? That’s the problem. Nobody seems to know how this end-product power constraint from Energy Star is allocated to the board or the chip level. I’ve talked with representatives from Power Forward Initiative (PFI), the United Power Format (UPF) and even the Power Architecture spec, but none of these organizations have talked with the higher level electronic standard groups, as represented by the U.S. government-backed Energy Star program.

Is this a real problem? In theory, once you’ve somehow achieved a successful Energy Star ranking, then all of your derivative products just need to meet the legacy power budgets. But what if you hope to develop a new product? Or if the EnergyStar criteria changes? Yes, there are tools that track requirements changes. But many of these tools have poor flow-down, that is, from an architectural level down to the board, package and chip designers.

Is it realistic to expect that these very different power-oriented organizational bodies will speak to one another? Of course not, which means that the onus for top-down power resource allocation probably will fall to the automated tool vendors in the EDA chip and board-level markets.

To their credit, the major EDA vendors, CAD companies and related design management tool suppliers have been putting more hooks into their tools to help smooth out system-level product development. Will these efforts be enough to meet the demands of an emerging ecologically driven consumer base? Time will tell.

Great interview about the science fiction and its effect on technology. Spoke with Lou Anders, Sci-Fi Editorial Director at Pyr Imprints

Here was Lou’s response:

I’m interviewed today at System-Level Design Community, by the very nice John Blyler, who I got to spend some time with recently in Portland, Oregan at the recent OryCon. We talk about science fiction’s role in inspiring science, the effect science developments has on the genre, gaming, the Matrix trilogies, and genetic engineering. It was a long conversation, so he is condensing and paraphrasing some of what I said, but doing a good job of capturing a highly-caffeinated Lou and making sense of it.

Still, I’m pretty sure I never said this bit, (but I wish I had):

Anders: Maybe, but maybe not. Remember the quote by John Schaar: “The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created—created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination.”

I think he’s misremembering when I quoted something I got from Robert Anton Wilson: “The future begins first in imagination, then in will, then in reality.” But I like this quote above, and now I’ve seen myself “say” it, I’ll start using it more, retroactively authenticating this usage here. (Nice one that, huh?)

We also talk some about David Louis Edelman’s Jump 225 trilogy, (affording me the opportunity to try out the new integration of Amazon Associates and Blogger). Meanwhile, John was a great guy and I wish we’d had time to talk longer than we did.

Dead right, Lou, about the quote. Here’s what I transcribed from our talk:
[Lou] “Who was it who said; “The future begins first in the imagination, then in will, then in reality?” If you can’t imagine it, you can not build it.”

I was trying to find the author of that quote, which I thought might be John Schaar. I scribbled as much in my story before checking with you and sent it off the copy edit. I returned from travel to find the article online and the quote “misquoted.” My mistake, no one else’s. Sorry about that.

Did really enjoy our chat, though! Will post a couple more videos clips before Christmas. Cheers. – John

The headlines look promising for the semiconductor industry. In the latest news, Texas Instruments (TI) and Xilinx are prospering amid a rising demand for chips. TI reported that it grew 19% from a year ago, while Xilinx expects revenues to rise between 16% to20% compared to it’s second period. Other chip companies enjoying rebounds include Marvell Technology, Altera and Microchip, as recently reported in the Wall Street Journal. Intel is also doing well with its revenue sharing hitting a four-year high, as indicated by a recent iSuppli report.

Which markets reflect the largest share of this growth? Those details are a bit sketchier. Early last year, TI did  shift a large percent of its business to low power and analog mixed signal (AMS) technology rather than digital chips – especially in the areas of medical, data storage and industrial equipment.

Xilinx continues to increase market share against traditional ASIC vendors, especially as economics favor standard products over customized ASICs in global recession markets. (Has anyone plotted Makimoto’s Wave beyond 2007?)

These happy economic tidings are in contrast to the acquisition trends that have occurred this year. The most noticeable trend in the later is the move by major chip (and EDA) venders to purchase software companies – from embedded operating systems to application development. As Ed Sperling points out in a recent blog; “Not all parts of the industry are poised for significant growth in the future …The value has shifted from just hardware or software to hardware and software.” [5 Reasons For Change]

What does this all mean? For the immediate future, the semiconductor industry is experiencing a rebound. In the long run, though, hardware alone will not be enough. Software must be part of the total long term revenue and technical picture.

The lecture didn’t always seem well grounded in fact, but the lecturer was full of fresh ideas and thoughtful viewpoints.

Last night, my wife and I had the pleasure of listening to the famous physicist Freeman Dyson talk about the future of mankind. This was part of an ongoing lecture series sponsored by Mentor Graphics among others for the Institute of Science, Engineering and Public Policy (ISEPP).

 
Figure: Famous physicist Freeman Dyson talks with Mentor Graphic’s Ry Schwark following an ISEEP lecture.

Dr Dyson talked about many things, but for this blog I’m only covering those that directly or indirectly related to the world of semiconductor technology. The talk started with his personal observations about the need for unilateral destruction of nuclear weapons, while the remainder of his discussion centered on the importance of bio-technology.

His comments about the origins and growth of bio-technology seemed a mix of fact and personal opinions. For example, Freeman compared the domestication of biotechnology to the analogous evolution of computers. At first, computers were big, massive and very complicated machines. He shared the infamous 1950s quote attributed to IBM’s past president – Thomas J. Watson – that there was a potential market for only 18 electronic computers in the US.

Since that time, though, computers have gotten smaller and more powerful, leading  Freeman to conclude that computers have now become domesticated. From my perspective, this seemed like a oddly agrarian choice of words, since “domesticated” usually refers to the taming of plants or animals for the service of humanity. Even a layman in technology would have said that computers have become a commodity, meaning that computers are readily affordable and available to most users. Using the phrase of “computer domestication” suggests a lack of appreciation for the countless manhours spent in R&D, architecting, testing and manufacturing required to give birth to the electronic age that so many people take for granted.

Some may argue that this is just a problem of semantics, but it highlights the growing gap of technical literacy among even the most educated and respected of our community.

Later on, Dr. Dyson observed that biotech, not nanotech, was the faster growing area of technology. He mentioned that nanotech had been around for almost 50 years. I assume he was referring to Feynman’s casual mention in the late 1950’s of building atomic level molecular machine.

In contrast, biotechnology is still in its infancy, yet has become far more common place that nanotechnology in a shorter period of time. At least for this comment, I believe that Dyson was equating biotechnology with “gene splicing,” which was first demonstrated in the early 1980s.  But this is hardly a fair comparison, as he indirectly confirms in later comments about the relative ease of gene splicing and current availability to the public via home gene-slicing kits and inexpensive DNA analyzers. He postulated that gene splicing would soon become so common that small farmers across the planet would use it to improve the yield of their crops.

Coming from the semiconductor work, I would argue that building atomic level nano machines is somewhat more involved that gene splicing appears to be. Few semiconductor visionaries predict armchair engineers will easily build nano-bots in their garages anytime soon.

There was one question that the geek in me wanted to ask Dr. Dyson, but just couldn’t. That question concerned the mention of the Dyson Sphere  in an episode of Star Trek. In the late 1950s,  Feeman theorized the possibility of creating a enormous spherical structure around a star. Lifeforms would grow around the interior of the sphere by absorbing the energy of the star in the center of the sphere.

Instead of asking this question, I suggested to him that he must have been more of a mathematician than a physicist, judging from his early work in electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. He heartily agreed, restating his early comment during the lecture that he was part of a (relatively) younger group of scientists that were more interested in tiding-up the details left over from more revolutionary thinkers like Richard Feynman, Sin-itiro Tomonaga and Julian Schwinger. The modesty of the man in his 80’s was endearing.

Freeman’s humbleness, combined with his obvious eagerness for new ideas and theories, was inspiring. I only hope that I do as well when (if) reaching his age.

Even now, chip companies are taking their best guess at which markets will experience sizable growth in the near future. These “guesses” are reflected in the types of ASIC projects that today’s designers are architecting today with virtual prototypes for software and FPGAs for hardware.

What are these markets? Our recent survey data (see Figure) indicates that FPGA-based prototyping of ASICs are focused on the following market segments:

• Embedded
• Wireless networking
• All areas of consumer electronics (video, audio, games)
• Medical and industrial

Figure: Comparisons between a 2008 versus a 2009 survey show growth potential in both medical and industrial chip markets.

These trends complement early observations about future growth in the semiconductor market: “Semiconductor Growth – When and Where?“  But these trends go further by highlighting the growing importance of both the medical and industrial business segments.

What role will EDA play in these markets? Clues to answer that question may come from an ongoing “EDA Tools and Technology” survey, which I’ll report on later.

Hi all. Yesterday, I launched a new survey – “EDA Technology and Tools,” which runs through next Wed (Nov 25). There will be a drawing for twenty, $15 Amazon (or Dangdang) certificates. See below for details.

BTW: Congrats to the winners from the FPGA Survey. 

Cheers. — John

+++++++
EDA Technology and Tool survey
Nov 9, 2009 through Nov 25, 2009
First 200 eligible for 20 Amazon gift certificates

Hello. We are conducting a global survey on EDA Technology and Tools and would appreciate about 10 minutes of your time to answer a number of key questions. Please answer all questions so we have a comprehensive data set.

Extension Media (publishers of Chip Design, Embedded Intel® Solutions – North America and China, System-Level Design and Low-Power Engineering portals) is conducting this research study focusing on the evolving trends in EDA tool usages and technology. We would like to receive input from EDA tool users, chip designers-manufacturers, software designers and system engineers-architects working in the EDA and semiconductor industries.

Go to EDA Survey

http://www.chipdesignmag.com/survey/EDA09/

In appreciation for your time, 20 respondents will be selected at random to receive a $15.00 gift certificate from Amazon.com. [Chinese respondents living outside the US will be entered to win gift certificates from either Dangdang.com or Joyo.com]

The drawing will be held on December 3, 2009. To qualify, respondents must complete the survey by Thursday, November 25, 2009 AND complete all of the required qualification data (indicated with an asterisk) and a majority of the remaining questions..

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

– John Blyler, Editor-in-Chief

Is an economic recovery underway in the semiconductor business? If so, what markets are most likely to benefit from this recovery?

A number of economic research firms support the claim that the semiconductor market is in a moderate upturn. For example, iSuppli predicts that revenue will rise to 10.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008 – not that 4Q2008 was a great quarter. In fact, global semiconductor revenue is expected to decline in 2009 for the second consecutive year. Still, an upturn in the last quarter of 2009 would be a most welcomed sign.

Another source – the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) – recently reported that worldwide sales of semiconductors in August were $19.1 billion, an increase of 5 percent from July 2009, though year to date sales were down by 21.3 percent from this same time last year. The rate of sales decline has slowed from the first six months of 2009 during which sales declines by 25 percent year-on-year. All monthly sales numbers represent a three-month moving average of global semiconductor sales.

Another research firm that tracks global chip sales is e-forecasting.com. This firm recently announced that the North American Semiconductor Chip Sales leading indicator went up 4.4 percent in August to a reading of 176.8, after an increase of 4.1 percent in July.  This indicator represents a “composite index that forecasts six months ahead, on average, business activity in the region for sales for semiconductors.”

As a point of reference, the global economy is also doing better – at least better than this same time last year. E-forecasting expects US GDP Q3 growth to be revised to 4.2 percent from an advance estimate today of 3.5 percent.
Cautious Recovery

Though both the US economy and semiconductor markets are poised for growth, several indicators will temper that upturn. These indicators include the continued rise in the US unemployment rate, which is expected to grow to an average of 10 percent by next year. Another problem is the struggling credit and banking markets as well as the rising foreclosures in the housing market. All of these factors should keep US consumer spending at a very cautious level.

By contrast, China’s consumer spending is set to rebound in 2010, thanks in part to various government stimuli like the “Home Appliance Products to Rural Area” program. This stimili has helped to expand the domestic LCD-TV market in China. Regardless of local stimuli, China’s semiconductor market is expected to rebound vigorously in 2010 as exports of electronic products recover from the global economic crisis, according to iSuppli Corp.
Market Growth

What semiconductor markets are best situated to benefit from any upturn in the economy? According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dept. of Commerce, final sales of computers subtracted 0.11 percentage point from the third-quarter 2009 change in real GDP after subtracting 0.04 percentage point from the second-quarter change.

Our own data – Chip Design Trends (CDT) – supports this decline in the PC market by predicting that fewer new chip designs are being targeted for PC applications. By contrast, the embedded systems market is expected to continue to grow (see Figure).

Figure: In the computer market, more designers are performing ASIC prototypes and verification on applications destined for the embedded systems market vs the traditional PC market. (Chip Design Trends – ASIC Prototyping survey 2009)

Consumer electronics will also see a rebound, as exports form China are expected to improve significantly next year. iSuppli predicts that the big export markets in China will be 3G smart phones, netbooks, Blu-ray DVD players, LCD-TVs, energy meters, surveillance and medical electronics.

Will growth in these markets be strong enough to generate new jobs? That’s the big question that, as yet, remains unpredicted.

Where do you see growth in the semiconductor market? Let me know by taking this quick poll. Thx. — JB

<iframe width=’500′ height=’300′ frameborder=’0′ src=’http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t7BFEb–umDA-ega_mf1LYQ&single=true&gid=0&output=html&widget=true’></iframe>

<iframe src=”http://spreadsheets.google.com/embeddedform?key=0AlFN05T_DYG_dDdCRkViLS11bURBLWVnYV9tZjFMWVE” width=”760″ height=”573″ frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″>Loading…</iframe>