Slashdot Mirror
How The IoT Will Change The Chip (techcrunch.com)
"Get ready for some big changes in the 'silicon' of Silicon Valley," writes tech CEO Narbeh Derhacobian who argues that the need to build tens of billions of connected sensor devices will change the way computers get built. "Just like smartphone owners like to pick and choose which apps they want, IoT manufacturers may want to shop for components individually without being locked into a single fab." An anonymous reader summarizes his article on TechCrunch:
Thousands of different hardware devices, each selling around one million units, "would suggest the need for a much greater diversity of chip configurations than we've seen to date." Currently smartphones are engineered using a "System on a Chip" design where all the components are "locked into a single manufacturing process," but Derhacobian predicts chip manufacturers will continue a trend of moving towards a "System in a Package" approach -- "packing components closely together, without the complete, end-to-end integration... In a smart, connected world, sensor requirements could vary greatly from factory to factory, not to mention between industries as varied as agriculture, urban planning and automotive."
"In some ways, the great trends of the PC and smartphone eras were toward standardization of devices. Apple's great vision was understanding that people prefer a beautiful, integrated package, and don't need many choices in hardware. But in software it's generally the opposite. People have different needs, and want to select the apps and programs that work best for them."
"In some ways, the great trends of the PC and smartphone eras were toward standardization of devices. Apple's great vision was understanding that people prefer a beautiful, integrated package, and don't need many choices in hardware. But in software it's generally the opposite. People have different needs, and want to select the apps and programs that work best for them."
If you value privacy, don't use IoT. It's a ridiculous security hole.
Whenever spinning up silicon, either general purpose or purpose-built, one of the most pressing questions is 'what is the total addressable market value for the segment in which it will be used, and what share of the market is it likely to get?'. Until IoT finds its killer app its unlikely to get much love from silicon vendors.
Funny how the article is written by a CEO of a company currently using 45nm fab about why they should be used over a SOC in 14nm fab...
I think this only shows how isolated some people are from the rest of the world. Nothing new to see here.
SoC is the way it will be, however, BGA is a PIA for home builders.
Unless you have a rework station (costing circa. 150 Euro upwards), the chips home builders want are BGA only not socketed.
For example, Intel Core M is BGA only, no socket packaging available at all. They killed ATOM and replaced with Core M.
So we are left with mini-ITX boards and Pi SoC for home builders.
I didn't realize until now that iOS apps run Android.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/...
I'm not saying the article is wrong, because I'm not really sure if it actually says anything.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They'd grab whatever components were cheapest at the time and put them together to build a PC. You'd buy one Acer model PC, really like it and recommend it to a friend who would buy the exact same model, and his would come with completely different components and suck. It's how Acer earned their reputation as a low-rate PC manufacturer that they're still trying to shake today. Routers occasionally run into this problem as well, as hardware changes from revision 2 to revision 3 result in incompatibilities or different behaviors even though two routers are "the same model."
If you want to dumb down the software and use non-standardized hardware, be my guest. But you'd better make damn sure the user experience is consistent across all the different hardware versions you're using. Otherwise you're saving money on the front end just to end up paying more at the support end.
... the need to build tens of billions of connected sensor devices ...
There is no "need" for the IoT. We've been getting along fine w/o it and don't really see any point to 99% of it.
Thanks anyway Narbeh.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's all going to be software. The hardware will be so cheap that they'll just include everything and disable what they don't need. The time of the specialized microcontroller is coming to an end. The IoT is where home computers were in the 80s: Lots of neat ideas, many different approaches, but ultimately ripe for a standard platform.
The big advance in such microfabrication is the ability to print right on the chip the multi-gig EULA explaining all the ways that you've compromised your privacy by using IOT.
...immediately identifies themselves as someone I need not take seriously.
Nobody rational GIVES A SHIT about connecting their coffeemaker to the internet.
Anyone reasonably skeptical will have nothing to do with the idea of connecting their front door locks to the internet.
Short version: it's the latest stupid internet fad, interesting only to the circle-jerk of people promoting such things.
-Styopa
Shoulda gotten a name change when he imported himself on that h1b.
So instead of connecting chips via a circuit board, connect chips directly. It sounds like a good idea, but I think the conclusion, that it would enable every IoT manufacturer to customize their chip configurations, is wrong. It would be expensive due to economies of scale, and I don't see why IoT devices can't use the plain old circuit board. Do IoT devices need to be super small and super power efficient? However, I do see that it might benefit smartphone manufacturers, where size and power consumption matter. However, it is likely that suppliers would offer chip configurations for narrower use cases.
Till security is fixed, the notion is not only preposterous but dangerous.
Something's fishy about this article. I'm not sure if my superpower to detect P.R. campaigns has developed to the point where I can get it in just one post, but my senses are tingling about this story. Let's see if there are a rash of IoT stories over the rest of the weekend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Everything claimed as revolutionary changes have been happening over the past 5 years.
Welcome to 2008... oh and us hackers have been screwing around making our own fully open iOT devices for the past 2 years already on a "single chip" device. the ESP 8266 is already destroying the arduino and other platforms rapidly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There will be a need to build billions of sensors (for what?). This is an assumption of facts not in evidence.
So, because of that false premise we are going to revert 50 years of technology and start building things using discrete components again?
Taken to the extreme, we will be building things using discrete transistors rather than integrated circuits because "billions" of devices need to be built.
What a crock load of hooey!
For IoT you want a system-on-a-chip with a BLE / Bluetooth Smart radio. The big three there are Nordic, TI, and Dialog, and there are a couple others.
All three supply chips with non-BGA packaging options.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You can get a Bluetooth enabled coffee mug to keep your Cappuccino at the perfect temperature.
Yet they still haven't fixed the problem of getting "universal remote controls" (The All-in-one and the jumbo sized silver rectangle types) to work with all televisions, satellite boxes and DVD players. How difficult is it for an industry to agree on a common set of microcontroller signals?
There are a lot products that have very poor security. There is a huge risk that vulnerabilities in these products will expose business and home networks.