commbasics

Wow.  Judging from the response (in the blog comments, emails and phone calls I got) to the earlier post I think I hit a nerve.  Nobody in semiconductors or EDA likes to be told they are not innovating.  But the VCs that responded, as well as some people in EDA, where generally in agreement with me.  I think it may come down to the definition of the term. I did some looking and found a blog that actually puts it in a way that meets my definition.  It's called Broken Bulbs .  Simply put, it is the  "the profitable implementation of ideas." That's where I think the semi industry is missing it, because they have not been profitable in a long time.  The reason it isn't profitable, from the top end custom chip all the way down to the EDA tool, is because they are not concentrating on innovation.  They are patching holes and it may be time just to throw the cloth away. But let's look at the profitability iss...

I'm preparing presentations for all kinds of sectors on social media strategies and I'm currently looking at market dynamics.  For many years I've said that good marketing on mediocre products always beats good products with mediocre marketing.  I still believe that.  Today, however, I've come to realize something else while watching a Microsoft commercial about why people should buy a Windows-based machine: A product will succeed in the market because it's cheaper, even if it is technologically inferior, especially in today's economy. That's the entire message of the commercial and, in the end, it's why Windows-based machines continue to outsell Apple.  And in this current economy, that is the trump card. In World War II, Germany had superior tank technology.  The were better armed, had better targeting optics, had better armor, better drive trains... they outclassed all opponents.  But when a tank crew got their assig...