By John Blyler, JB Systems

Both soft (hardware) and software IP should dominate in the IoT market. But for which segments will that growth occur? See what the experts from IPExtreme, Atmel, GarySmithEDA, Semico Research and Jama Software are thinking.

The Internet-of-Things will significantly increase the diversity and amount of semiconductor IP. But what will be the specific trends among the hardware and software IP communities? Experts from both domains shared there perceptions including,  Warren Savage, President and CEO of IPExtreme; Patrick Sullivan, VP of Marketing, MCU Business Unit for Atmel; Gary Smith, Founder and Chief Analyst for Gary Smith EDA; Richard Wawrzyniak, Senior Market Analyst for ASIC & SoC at Semico Research, and; Eric Nguyen, Director of Business Intelligence at Jama Software. What follows is a portion of their responses. — JB

Blyler: Do you expect an accelerated growth of both hardware and software IP (maybe subsystem IP) due to the growth of the IoT? What are the growth trends for electronic hardware and software IP?

Savage: I don’t think that there is anything special about the Internet-of-Things (IoT) from an intellectual property (IP) perspective.   The prospect of IoT simply means there is going to be a lot more silicon in the world as we start attaching networking to things that previously were not connected. As a natural evolution of the semiconductor market, hardware and software IP is going to keep growing and will outpace everything else for the foreseeable future. Subsystems are a natural artifact of that maturing as well as customers wanting to do more and more with less people, outsourcing whole functions of chips to be delivered from their IP supplier who is likely an expert in that subject matter.

Sullivan: The largest growth will be in software IP for hardware IPs that already exists in order to connect devices to the Internet. Developers that are not familiar with wireless applications will find themselves making connected devices, and for suppliers to have context aware stacks and other IP tailored for the different IoT usage models will be crucial. i.e.; just having a ZigBee stack is not sufficient. You need a version for healthcare, a version for lighting, and so on.

Security is also going to be an important factor for both securing communication between IoT devices and the cloud (SSL/TLS technologies), and also to authenticate that firmware images running on connected devices have not been tampered with. Addressing these needs may require additional software development of IoT devices, and potentially specialized hardware components as well.

On the hardware side, the main focus will continue to be power consumption reduction as well as range and quality improvements.

Smith: Yes, growth in hardware and software IP will increase with the IoT expansion. However, the IoT market comprise multiple segments. To get accurate growth figures you would need to explore them all (see Table).

Table: Markets for the Internet-of-Things. (Courtesy of GarySmithEDA.com)

Wawrzyniak: I do expect some acceleration of revenues derived from IP going into IoT applications. At this point it is hard to determine just how much acceleration there will be since we are just at the very beginning of this trend. It also will depend upon which types of IP are chosen as the ones most favored by SoC designers. For example, if designers select of one of the wireless IP types as the preeminent solution, then this might be more expensive (generate more IP revenue over time) than say ZigBee.

Given the sheer volume of IoT applications and silicon being projected, it is possible that once a specific process geometry is decided on as the optimum type to use, the IP characterized for that geometry might actually be less expensive than the same IP at another geometry. Volume will drive cost in this case. All these factors will go into figuring out how much additional IP revenue will be generated. I would say a safe estimate today would be on the order of 10%.Wawrzyniak: I do expect some acceleration of revenues derived from IP going into IoT applications. At this point it is hard to determine just how much acceleration there will be since we are just at the very beginning of this trend. It also will depend upon which types of IP are chosen as the ones most favored by SoC designers. For example, if designers select of one of the wireless IP types as the preeminent solution, then this might be more expensive (generate more IP revenue over time) than say ZigBee.

I also think it’s likely that IP Subsystems will be created for IoT applications. Again, this depends on how complex the silicon solution will need to be. If we are talking lightbulbs, then it is hard to imagine that an IP Subsystem will be needed. On the other hand, a relatively complex chip might require an IP subsystem, e.g., a Sensor Fusion Hub subsystem. Sensors will certainly be everywhere in the IoT, so why not create a subsystem that deals with this part of the solution and ties it all together from the designer

Hard IP will probably be more expensive than Soft IP. I would say that Soft IP will be used more in these types of SoCs. I would estimate that it could be as high as a 70 – 30 split in favor of Soft IP.

Nguyen: Absolutely, the growth of IoT will not only open new markets such as wearable technologies and home automation but will also cause disruption in existing due to software based services being delivered through connected devices. Technology products are evolving from electro-mechanical based IP competitive differentiation to customer experience differentiation powered by software applications running on optimized hardware.

The trends in hardware and software IP are accelerating the rate of innovation for customer facing products, which in turn will have a direct impact throughout the supply chain. Software producers must mange the interdependencies not only across their product lines but also across the various technologies they’ll be deployed on (i.e. iOS, Android, Web, integrated into 3rd party technology) or various subsystems. The connected aspect of these technologies allows vendors to continually update the offerings and therefore evolve the customer experience throughout the life of the physical technology.

The performance demands of continuously evolving software heavy products is also driving accelerated innovations throughout the supply chain, specifically hardware components such as Systems on Chip, Systems in a Package, sensor technology, and battery/power management.

Final product producers are also accelerating release cycles and therefore driving the need to more easily integrate sub-components. This demand is driving the demand for Systems in a Package (SiP) technologies, which incorporate the chips, drivers, and software within a physical sub-component package that can easily integrated into the overall system. Semiconductor companies must now coordinate the growing complexity of silicon, software, and documentation development while accelerating their ability to incorporate market feedback into product roadmaps, R&D, and ultimate manufacturing and delivery to customers; all the while ensuring they can meet per unit cost targets.

Blyler: Thank you.

By John Blyler

More on Moore’s Law; Thought-Controlled Cameras; Neurons on Chip; IP Bag; Quantum Dots and blogs.

Here’s a mixed of semiconductor-related articles and blogs that caught my attention this week:

• Can our computers continue to get smaller and more powerful? – Have we reached the limits to computation? In a review article in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, Igor Markov of the University of Michigan reviews limiting factors in the development of computing systems to help determine what is achievable, identifying “loose” limits and viable opportunities for advancements through the use of emerging technologies. His research for this project was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
• Thought-Controlled Camera Confirms IoT Trends – Software start-ups will dominate growth in the Internet-of-Things (IoT) as demonstrated by MindRDR’s application that combines Google Glass and Neurosky biosensor hardware.
• Brain-inspired chip fits 1m ‘neurons’ on postage stamp – Scientists have produced a new computer chip that mimics the organization of the brain, and squeezed in one million computational units called “neurons”. They describe it as a supercomputer the size of a postage stamp. Each neuron on the chip connects to 256 others, and together they can pick out the key features in a visual scene in real time, using very little power.

Figure: TrueNorth is the first single, self-contained chip to achieve 256 million individually programmable synapses on chip which is a new paradigm. (TrueNorth Core Array, Courtesy of IBM)

• (Potato) Chip Bags IP – The latest research from MIT, Microsoft and Adobe on recovering speech from the vibrations of ordinary objects confirms the growing importance of software IP.
• With sharp focus, quantum dot makers scale up to meet demand – This Reuters article discusses the huge growth in the demand quantum dots, the semiconductor crystals that use less power and are cheaper than organic LEDs.

Industry Blogs:

• Kathryn Kranen discusses Jasper, formal verification and the Cadence Acquisition.
• Mentor’s Colin Walls shares his love of writing, especially embedded software articles about assembly language to software IP.
• Another interesting blog from Mentor. This time, Christopher Hallinan explores hardware and software complexity via th Yocto Project.
• Summer is a time for big trips. Synopsys’s Tom d Schutter recently shared an adventure with his family through the westernUS states. That trip sparked comparisons with the task of staring a virtual prototyping project. Finding similarities between function trace information and the unexpected buffalo crossings atYellowstoneNational Park is not an easy task, but Tom pulls it off.
• Satellite Crowdfunding, Then and Now – Did you know that the first satellite sent up by theUnited Stateswas originally planned to be crowdfunded? Did you also know that the newest amateur satellite sent up in the third quarter of next year will be crowdfunded as well? by Hamilton Carter

Here are the brief observations on noteworthy presentations, cool demonstrations and hall-way chats from the Chip Design editorial staff covering DAC 2014.

Report from Gabe Moretti:

EDA is Alive and Ready for Another Year of Growth

+++++++++++++

Report from Hamilton Carter:

DAC Meanderings, 51st DAC (6/3)

Here are the brief observations on noteworthy presentations, cool demonstrations and hall-way chats from the editorial staff covering “Day 1″ at DAC 2014 – John Blyler, Gabe Moretti and Hamilton Carter.

++++++++++++

DAC Report from Hamilton Carter:

Puuurrrple, so much purple!  The stage at the packed Synopsys, Samsung, ARM briefing this morning was backed by ceiling to floor Synopsys-purple curtains.  The Samsung vision video played on the two large screens on either side of the stage.  To steal a phrase from “Love Actually”, Samsung’s vision is that “touch-screens are… everywhere” .  Among the envisioned apps were a touch screen floor for your kids’ room, complete with planetarium app; a touchscreen window for your Town-Car so you can adjust the thermostat in the car as your driver taxis you to your destintion; and finally a touchscreen gadget for the kitchen that when laid flat weighs the food and registers the number of calories in the amount you’ve sliced off on its cutting board tough screen, displays the recipe you’re using when upright, and finally, get ready for it… checks the ‘safety’ of your food displaying an all clear icon complete with a rad safe emblem.  Apparently the future isn’t completely utopian!

Phil Dworsky, director of strategic alliances, for Synopsys introduced the three featured speakers, Kelvin Low, of Samsung, Glenn Dukes of Synopsys, and Rob Aitken from ARM, and things got under way.  The key impetus of the presentation was that the Samsung/Synopsys/ARM collaboration on 14 nm 3D finfet technology is ready to go.  The technology has been rolled out on 30 test chips and 5 customer chips that are going into production.

Most of the emphasis was on the 14 nm process nodes, but the speakers were also quick to point out that the 28 nm node wasn’t going away anytime soon  With its single patterning, and reduced power consumption, it’s seen as a perfect fit for mobile devices that don’t need the cutting edge of performance yet.

Interesting bits:

• It was nice to visit with Sanjay Gupta, previously of IBM Austin, who is now at Qualcomm, San Diego.
• While smart phones have been outshipping PCs for a while, tablets are now predicted to outship PCs starting in 2015.
• Bryan Bailey of verification fame was one of the raffle winners.  He’s now a part of the IoT!
• IoT predictions are still in the Carl Sagan range, there will be ‘billions and billions’.
• Samsung GLOBALFOUNDRIES has a fab, Fab8, in Saratoga, NY.
• Last year’s buzzword was ‘metric driven’, this year’s is ‘ecosystem’ so far.  The vision being plugged is collaborations of companies and/or tools that work as a ‘seamless, [goes without saying], ecosystem’.

Catching up with Amiq

I got to catch up with Christian from Amiq this morning.  Since they’re planted squarely in the IDE business, Amiq gets the fun job of working directly with silicon design and verification engineers.  There products on display this year include their Eclipse based work environment, with support for e, and SystemVerilog built in, their verification-code-centric linting tool Verissimo, and their documentation generation system Specador.

IC Manage

I’m always drawn in by a good ‘wrap a measurable, or at least documentable flow around your design process story’, so I dropped by the IC Manage booth this morning.

Their product encapsulates many of the vagaries of the IC development flow into a configuration management tool.  The backbone of the tool can be customized to the customer’s specific flow via scripts, and it provides a real-time updated HTML based view of what engineers are up to as project development unfolds.

++++++++++++++++

DAC Report from Gabe Moretti:

Power Management and IP

Who is really your customer? Competitor? Well-known EDA analyst Gary Smith forecasts the future.

Gary Smith began his annual pre-DAC overview by reminding his audience that in the world of system design (see Figure 1), the OEM was not necessarily a “manufacturer”. In today’s dynamic semiconductor world, the OEM can range from a company buying the platform design, manufacturing the system-on-chip (SoC) at a foundry, wrapping plastic around it and taking it to market (e.g., low end cell phones), to a vertically integrated company that outsources manufacturing (e.g., high-end Apple cell phones).

“With such a range of possible OEM scenarios, you need to understand who is your customer and who is your competitor,” explained Smith. “And the relationships almost change day by day. The key is to develop an ecosystem as stable as ARM’s in this changing world of relationship.”

Figure 1: System design consists of a large continuum, as Smith reminded his EDA audience with his slide from 1996.

System Design (note the capitals) refers to the larger design effort that includes many domains, i.e., hardware, software, electronic, mechanical and more. For the chip design community, system design requires new skills, new marketing and a new organization to participate in the system-level markets that include industrial, consumer, telecom, EDA/Computing, automotive and Mil-Aero. Gary mentioned that, of the big three EDA companies, only Mentor Graphics was actively participating in these markets – for now.

To successfully perform system design across these major markets, serious players must have an expert or multiple experts for each vertical or subset of that vertical. “The expert – most likely a geeky engineer and not a marketing person, drives product definition, but more importantly market access,” said Smith. Not surprisingly, these experts must come from the industry you are addressing.

What role does intellectual property play in this world of system design? “IP” is the key to productivity, therefore low cost design? Or is “IP” a meaningless buzzword used to impress Wall Street?

I