I honestly think this is fundamentally impossible. Factory tech and Agile just don't mix. Failing in software is cheap, but with silicon, no matter how low the tape-out costs are, every failure costs you a massive amount of physical time. Also, open-source EDA tools are currently stuck on legacy nodes. Considering the huge gap with state-of-the-art nodes, why would anyone even bother?
Software monetization works because of scale-out. (The fatal flaw of SaaS is the endless pressure to update, completely ruining the idea of 'finished' software.) But hardware? Once it's taped out, it’s a physical endpoint that needs no maintenance. How are you supposed to charge a monthly subscription for that
Why couldn't a company committed to mask fabrication and wafer fabrication, in concept, perform these steps daily, or several times daily? Multiple prototype designs could be grouped together so multiple customers can realize a new design instance in the same iteration.
With an appropriate debug core in the same wafer, designers who'd completed a tape-out could connect to their chip well enough to repeat their design-verification tests on this real hardware, remotely even (no need to physically handle the device 'til you're certain it's working.) Once satisfied, customers could promote their design to be bonded out for installation into their PCB.
"Sure thing boss, we'll add an extra USART core to this afternoon's tape out."
Regarding hardware, it's not entirely true that it doesn't need maintenance/development. See "stepping" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepping_level. There are sometimes ways to tweak the masks to fix a "silicon bug".
To add to this: the downstream customers also hate change, just as much as people hate Windows updates. They much prefer being able to buy the same chip for 10 years.
(here at Medium-Size-Fabless-Semi-Inc, I'm in the middle of revving a bunch of parts that are about 10 years old, not because we want to add new features to them but because the process node is so obsolete it's becoming difficult to fab. Yes, they're getting new features, but that's not the primary driver of business)
On the other hand, because parts are physical objects, you can charge money for them. Piracy is .. not nonexistant (ask FTDI) but not a major concern.
There are some interesting corners for rapid-rev electronics, but there's a decision tree:
- can I do this with a microcontroller?
- if not, how about an FPGA?
- ok, there really is no alternative to ASIC, is the market size enough to support that?
Pharma companies developing new molecules spend millions to patent all chemicals close to their target chemical, to avoid that a competitor might be able to jump in with a similar product. This is before they even know whether it works. If variation is cheap why not run directly 5-50 versions of the chip and see which works best?
Support, customization and specialization are important, but I think most of all companies pay for sharing responsibilities with the vendor. Whoever is in charge of making decisions is way less likely to suffer consequences of a botched tech adoption if the company paid for a contract in which operational responsibilities are shared than having saved a few bucks in exchange for absorbing the complexity of rolling out their own setup.
"back-door free" - crucial stuff unless you like having big brother (and his friends) stand behind you each time you look at a screen. Parasitic behavior is (and will be) the new sustainable advantage. Also finding new ways to escape and deflect (or hide from) prosecution. That's why some people have the "love of power" and not the "power of love" - they depend on those that do. They'll vacuum up all your communications and use the best AI on it to one-up you. Tracking and predicting spending patterns is (and will be) more important too. Supermarkets always consolidate their own brands into the most popular external ones. They own the shelf-space and sales process. Why just supermarkets? Why not "AI" companies? Do you like having your finances gang-raped? Make sure you're "back-door free" - it's fascism-free too hopefully.
11 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadWith an appropriate debug core in the same wafer, designers who'd completed a tape-out could connect to their chip well enough to repeat their design-verification tests on this real hardware, remotely even (no need to physically handle the device 'til you're certain it's working.) Once satisfied, customers could promote their design to be bonded out for installation into their PCB.
"Sure thing boss, we'll add an extra USART core to this afternoon's tape out."
(here at Medium-Size-Fabless-Semi-Inc, I'm in the middle of revving a bunch of parts that are about 10 years old, not because we want to add new features to them but because the process node is so obsolete it's becoming difficult to fab. Yes, they're getting new features, but that's not the primary driver of business)
On the other hand, because parts are physical objects, you can charge money for them. Piracy is .. not nonexistant (ask FTDI) but not a major concern.
There are some interesting corners for rapid-rev electronics, but there's a decision tree:
On the other hand, having it public makes exploits more likely since everyone can take a look.
For software this is beneficial, any fixed bug or exploit is then available to everyone and can be easily deployed.
I'm not very familiar with hardware but it seems like it would require new chips to be manufacturered to really fix any issues.