• An article about Jack Ganssle's presentation about managing embedded firmware projects
• The early morning session on social media at ESC Boston
• A synopsis of the speech of Hugh Herr, Tuesday keynote speaker

Any comments can be left here or on the specific article pages.

I imagine if a doctor was diagnosing the medical condition of the embedded community, he would walk into the tiny exam room, take one look at the embedded community sitting there in its socks and underwear on the crinkly disposable exam table cover and say:

"Yup, still fragmented."

What do I mean by this? It means that even with my posturing about the need for community AND my lack of expertise in the topic, there are some undeniable rifts in the embedded community. And they will always be there. Why?

1. Too many vendors with their own pieces of silicon
   • Guess what? Companies like making money! Amazing, right? I can name at least 5 monstrous companies that produce independent silicon chips, almost always with similar cores that rhyme with "schlARM". They have their niche areas and peripherals that are used in that segment; examples areas that a vendor might try to target are motor control, display processing, low cost, low power or RF. But in the end, the very things that distinguish them from their competitors and therefore allow them make money, also drives the community apart.
2. Too many closed doors
   • Another problem on the vendor side can be the amount of information provided to the people working on their chips. Without open access to the information, users are forced into the "camps" of the vendors in order to access features buried within the silicon. Less mobility between chips means more fragmentation.
3. Too much software
   • Well what about abstraction? For those out there that are more on the analog side of things, abstraction is writing code that isn't controlling something directly. Think about it like you're a teacher. You care a lot about turning the lights off in your classroom and want to teach your kids about why it's important in order to save energy. In a non-abstracted case, you would tell each of the kids to turn the lights off when it's their turn. Perhaps Wednesday it's Johnny and Thursday it's Susie. So you tell them directly. Abstraction in the simplest sense would be assigning Bobby to remember whose turn it is each day of the week. That way, you only have to tell Bobby to have someone turn off the lights; it's the same every time. Bringing it back to processors and the embedded community, if things were abstracted, you could always tell "Bobby" to do the same thing and he would have close to the same response each time. Well there is such a thing that even the layman such as me is familiar with: operating systems. But this isn't like the PC world where the choices have been culled down to a select two or three. There are embedded versions of larger OSes (think Win CE or Embedded Linux) and RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems) which are an even lighter version of their half cousins named previously. Beyond that there are superloops and other small implementations. The point is, there are a lo00000t of choices for software for a looooot  of different processors. It's fragmented. But why all the trouble? Why do we need so many choices?
4. Too many market segments
   • It's true. That's why embedded has been growing steadily for the past 20 years and will likely continue to keep growing. There are a lot of  different needs! I guarantee you that engineers working on high-reliability industrial controls don't care that much about Android. Sure, it could work, but it's a new OS with lots of potential bugs and doesn't really fit the needs. Similarly, handset makers don't want to use reliable code from 10 years ago because all the reliability in the world doesn't make a flashy new interface for mobile, web-enabled handsets. Chip vendors pick and choose to play to specific segments, as do the software vendors, creating hundreds of potential combinations; it's much more likely that whatever current developers are working on though is a much smaller combinatorial subset. And so the fragmentation continues.

I know that analog is my niche and that there are some very compelling cases for using it in different areas of electronics. But I'm not stupid; there was a reason I took interest in the embedded space and why you should do the same. Everyone will continue to expect more from their devices, whether scientific, consumer or somewhere in between; if you're on the internet reading this post, you're likely used to the benefits of Moore's Law and will continue to be.

What I'm trying to say is that there is value in learning about embedded systems; learning about some component of embedded computing is better than ignoring it. As software continues ascending into further levels of abstraction (think Python instead of C), there will be fewer people around that know how to reach down into silicon and flip a bit. Knowing how to do so not only will help you in your day to day tasks, but could make you a very employable engineer/programmer.

And who knows, perhaps embedded design will be the next black magic, much like analog is considered today!

What a whirlwind day. I started at 7:30 am and I ended at 10:30 pm, my mind still reeling. I was talking Beagle Boards and Agile processes in the morning and discussing the media (with the media) and visiting hackerspaces in the evening. But the best part about it? I felt like there were a lot of people around me that cared about similar stuff to what I do.

I am lucky enough to work with some of these people as well. But the nerd population in Cleveland isn't at the critical mass that occurs at conferences nor at hackerspaces. So yesterday was a great opportunity to converse on some of the topics I love with people who were interested to hear it (in person of course, I realize there are many great people who "listen" to me on this site...thanks!).

The theme I kept finding throughout the day (or perhaps was seeking), was figuring out where the communities are and why hardware engineers (or even embedded engineers) don't seem to congregate in one place. This started in the morning talking to James Grenning, a consultant and coach on Agile methodologies; I got talking to him and found that many of the same issues I've seen in trying to find analog communities, he has also seen in the embedded community. "Where are they?" we ask. "Why doesn't there seem to be as much involvement online from the electronics community?". James specializes in bringing Agile to the embedded community; easy to find people to speak with about the Agile part, less so for the embedded folks.

Towards the end of the day, I had the opportunity to talk to the folks at Element 14, a new engineering community site. I had heard about them earlier in the day; they were on the conference floor giving away iPads and the usual conference swag.  How does a "community" site have the money to attend a conference though? I later found out that they are a subsidiary of Premier Farnell, one of the top 10 electronics components distributors and recent acquirers of the EAGLE CAD program. As of right now, I'm underwhelmed with the site itself (NI uses the same interface and it's not all that friendly to the eye nor the user), but not necessarily the content. It seems to have some involvement right now, but not the levels that I really desire (I'm hard to please!); I do like that they have qualified "experts" on hand, but haven't taken a good enough look at them yet to judge how "expert" they might be (assuming I could even tell something like that). I will keep an eye on Element 14 though, because of one of their innovative programs: linking manufacturers to customers. They offer beta services, as in finding and requesting feedback from users on a range of products. In terms of value a site can have for both the user and the sponsors, I believe this is a strong one.

Next I got to meet Karen Field, the head of the new EETimes community, EELife. While this site hasn't been released yet, the article I saw on it looked like a fancy implementation of a location to share info with other engineers. In fact, it may have been a little too fancy--the release of the site was pushed out from its proposed date. Still, I'm hopeful that the site could actually bring people together. EETimes has a great following in print and online; if there's one place that people might think to go to first, EETimes might have the name recognition to do it.

Here's the thought that keeps irking me though: the corporate world isn't great at "social". It doesn't help that engineers aren't quite social creatures by nature. Sure, some companies use social media to their advantage, but a lot more are using it wrong.

I got a chance to talk to Jason Kridner about why this might be. Jason is one of the many passionate members behind the Beagle Board group, a high powered open-source hardware board based on the TI OMAP processor (though Jason explained that the Beagle Board is a separate entity in every way from TI). When I asked him why communities such as the Beagle Board developers come together, he stated it simply and succinctly: "They unite behind a common purpose". In the case of the Beagle Board, it's about having a high power processor on an open platform (possibly contrasted with a slightly simpler Arduino board using an AVR processor, also on an open platform). And the community shows; there are many open projects you can pull down from the GIT tree and start immediately on your Beagle Board. The ones that excite me most are the DIYdrone types of projects.

At the meet and greet later in the evening, I started talking with some conference attendees that also happened to be members of the local hackerspace. They invited me to attend one of their weekly meetings at their location. The Pumping Station 1 (PS1) hackerspace/makerspace has been around for about 2 years now and is one of the only in Chicago as of now (more are forming). It was great seeing this area of shared tools, DIY projects and a general atmosphere of collaboration, for no reason more than these people wanted to make stuff in their spare time. And one of the things I found most interesting is that many of the projects going on at the space were embedded projects! The desire to have things talk wireless almost demands that you start to delve into low level code and be able to get your device talking to another device. So while I came to learn about the broad range of sensors and embedded devices this week, I ended up finding the lower-end (in terms of system complexity) but used for unique and intricate implementations (they had built their own MakerBot to CNC parts right there in the lab...amazing!).

So what was the conclusion to my small quest for finding community among the different factions of the electronics industry? There isn't one general location or place to gather. And possibly for good reason. It's more like a democratic republic in that way, where members get to vote with their feet. Say a platform really starts to bog down and no one is developing on it anymore. People aren't tied to it because the "community" is locked in; instead they just pick up and move platforms. "Don't like the PIC anymore? Switch to an OMAP! OMAP too expensive? Switch to an AVR!" So perhaps the real need is instead an active listing of where to find all these different communities, in whatever form they take; message boards, blogs, video tutorials, anything and everything--as long as the list stays current, it will be valuable. In fact it would be much more valuable than trying to pull in every single person into one platform.

I didn't come to these two conferences for this purpose. I could have looked for it at home while browsing the web (I've done that before too). But in the midst of walking among many smart people and many products made by other smart people I've collected hints. Where to look and who to talk to in order to find the most people interested in technology, in whatever form or level of complexity it may take.

Harry Gries is an EDA consultant with over 20 years in the electronics industry in various roles. He now consults for different companies and also writes a blog about his experience called "Harry...The ASIC Guy". I love hearing about the different pieces of the electronics food chain and Harry was nice enough to take some time to talk to me about his work. Let's see what he had to say...

CG: Could you please explain your educational and professional background and how you got to where you are today?

Harry The ASIC Guy (HTAG): My education began when I was raised by wolves in the Northern Territory of Manitoba. That prepared me well for a stint at MIT and USC, after which I was abducted by aliens for a fortnight. I then spent 7 years as a digital designer at TRW, 14 years at Synopsys as an AE, consultant, consulting and program manager. Synopsys and I parted ways and I have been doing independent consulting for 3 years now. A good friend of mine tricked me into writing a blog, so now I'm stuck doing that as well.

CG: What are some of the large changes you see from industry to industry? How does company culture vary from sector to sector?

HTAG: Let's start with EDA, which did not really exist when the aliens dropped me off in 1985. There were a few companies who did polygon pushing tools and workstations and circuit complexity was in the 1000s of gates. Most large semiconductor companies had their own fabs and their own tools. Gate arrays and standard cell design was just getting started, but you had to use the vendor's tools. Now, of course, almost all design tools are made by "EDA companies".

As far as the differences between industries and sectors, I'm not sure that is such a big difference culturally. The company culture is set from the top. If you have Aart DeGeus as your founder, then you have a very technology focused culture. If you have Gerry Hsu (former Avant! CEO), then you have a culture of "win at all costs".

CG: How hard was it for you to jump from being a designer to being in EDA? What kinds of skills would someone looking to get into the industry need?

HTAG: The biggest difference is clearly the "soft skills" of how to deal with people, especially customers, and understanding the sales process. For me it was a pretty easy transition because I had some aptitude and I really had a passion for evangelizing the technology and helping others. If someone wanted to make that change, they would benefit from training and practice on communicating effectively, dealing with difficult people, presentation skills, influence skills, etc.

CG: With regards to the EDA industry, how much further ahead of the curve does the software end up being? For instance, is EDA working on software necessary to define the 13 nm node currently?

HTAG: As you know, the industry is never at a single point. Rather, there is a spectrum of design nodes being used with some small percentage at the most advanced nodes. Most EDA tools are being developed to address these new nodes, often in partnership with the semiconductor manufacturers developing the process node or the semiconductor designers planning to use them. The big EDA companies are really the only ones, for the most part, that have the resources to do this joint development. Whatever is the newest node being developed, some EDA company is probably involved.

CG: You have written about the nature of the industry and how there being few players affecting the nature of the system. What kinds of limitations do you see in the industry due to the economies of scale (TSMC dominance, for instance)?

HTAG: Consolidation is a fact in any industry and a good thing in EDA. Think of it as natural selection whereby the good ideas get gobbled up and live on with more funding (and the innovators are rewarded); the bad ideas die out. Most small EDA companies would want to be bought out as their "exit". At the same time, there are some "lifestyle companies" also in EDA where the founders are happy just making a good living developing their tools and selling them without having to "sell out" to a larger company. For all these small companies, the cost of sales is a key factor because they cannot afford to have a larger world-wide sales direct force as the larger EDA companies have. That's where technologies like Xuropa come into play, that enable these smaller companies to do more with less and be global without hiring a global sales force.

CG: What drives the requirements placed upon new technology in the EDA space? How are the products developed? Are there a lot of interactions with specific big name designers (i.e. Intel) or does it shade more to the manufacturers (TSMC)?

HTAG: In fact, a handful of key customers usually drive the requirements, especially for small companies. When I was at Synopsys, Intel's needs was the driver for a number of years. Basically, the larger the customer, the greater the clout. Other customers factor in, but not as much. The most advanced physical design capabilities of the tools are often a collaboration between the EDA company and the semiconductor manufacturers (e.g. TSMC) and the also the designers (e.g. Qualcomm). Increasingly, EDA tools are focusing on the higher-levels and you are seeing partnerships with software companies, e.g. Cadence partnering with Wind River.

CG: A good chunk of chip design is written and validated in code. This contrasts with much more low level design decisions in the past. In your opinion how has this changed the industry and has this been a good or bad thing? Where will this go in the future, specifically for analog?

HTAG: Being a digital designer and not an analog designer, it's all written in code. Obviously, the productivity is much higher with the higher level of abstraction and the tools are able to optimize the design much better and faster than someone by hand. So it's all good.

For analog, I am not as tied in but I know that similar attempts are being tried; they use the idea that analog circuits can be optimized based on a set of constraints. I think this is a good thing as long as the design works.  Digital is easy in that regard, just meet timing and retain functionality and it's pretty much correct. For analog there is so much more (jitter, noise margin, performance across process variation, CMRR, phase margin, etc, etc). I think it will be a while before analog designers trust optimization tools.

CG:It seems that the EDA industry has a strong showing of bloggers as compared to system level board engineers or even chip designers. What kinds of benefits have you seen in your own industry from having a network of bloggers and what about EDA promotes having so many people write about it?

HTAG: I think blogging is just one form of communication and since EDA people are already communicators (with their customers), they have felt more comfortable blogging than design engineers. Many of the EDA bloggers are in marketing types of positions at their companies or are independent consultants like me, so the objective is to start a conversation with customers that would be difficult to have in other ways. A result is that this builds credibility for themselves that then accrues to their company. I think there has also been a ton of sharing and learning due to these blogs and that has benefited the entire industry. On a personal level, I know so many more people due to the blog and that network is of great value.

CG: How has your career changed since moving back out of the EDA space and into consulting? What kind of work have you been doing lately?  How has your experience helped you in consulting?

HTAG: It is interesting to have been on the EDA side and then move back into the design side. Whenever I communicate with an EDA company, whether a presentation or a tool evaluation or any conversation, I can easily put myself in their shoes and know where they are coming from. On the one hand, I can spot clearly manipulative practices such as spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about a competitor and I can read between the lines to gain insights that others would miss. On the other hand, I also understand the legitimate reasons that EDA companies make certain decisions, such as limiting the length of tool evaluations, qualifying an opportunity, etc.

Most recently I've been working on some new technology development at a new process node. It's been interesting because I've been able to dig deeper into how digital libraries are developed, characterized, and tested and I've also learned a lot more about the mixed-signal and analog world and also the semiconductor process.

Many thanks to Harry for taking the time to answer some questions about his industry and how he views the electronics world. If you have any questions, please leave them in the comments or pop over to Harry's main site and leave a comment there.

Not me. I almost did that a while back, but no. Not me.

Television.

Normally I wouldn't write about it. A digital television standard is long overdue and in the end this will be a good thing. When you compare Analog vs Digital, there are many more benefits on the digital side of things: lower power for transmission, better bandwidth of signal, more bandwidth usage over the spectrum. All of these are good things. I can even talk about how those digital signals still have lots of analog components as they're transmitted over the airwaves: multipath, signal loss, power calculation, reception problems, etc.

But no. I'd rather point something else out:

Technology adoption is driven by human nature. It must be adopted before it can help people.

Sure, the digital signals will be great. High Definition pictures and you don't have to give a dime to those lovely cable companies. Lower power generation required to transmit the signals will help save the environment by lowering the carbon footprint. But until the switch actually happens (today...maybe), no one gets the benefits. The switchover has been delayed to now from this past February. Lawmakers deemed the country unready to make the switchover at that time. I mean, if people can't watch TV, how will the politicians get their message out to the masses?

No matter how many new devices are introduced into the marketplace and no matter how available they make DTV switcher boxes, people still will not change until pushed. They will not go out and get the digital box or call their local politician until one day they turn on their television and the signal is not there. That is what will drive the final changeover. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a little bit more leeway from politicians before stations are officially told to shut off the analog transmitters.

This problem isn't exclusive to television. This has happened for the past 30 years in conservation and renewable energy.  Regardless of how many times climate change experts point out we're killing the planet, nothing moves until there is a scare that oil is running out (it is) or natural gas won't always be available (it won't) or coal is filthy (it is) or the power just goes out. Then people change their tune; they change gears and start thinking about buying that solar array or that home wind turbine. They start recycling again because they think it will start to help (it will, but what about the past 10 years of bottles you put in the landfill?). But the thing is, you need to think about buying the solar cells now, when there isn't a 6 month backlog of installation requests and prices are jacked up due to demand. And Solar might even already be an affordable option for you.

I'm sure people will say there's an economic aspect of it for DTV and that the people that use analog signals the most can't afford the converter boxes. Perhaps that has some truth to it. But the point remains that no matter the technology, until that last group resistant or indifferent to change decides to go out and do something about it, those people can't be helped.

What about you? Have you made the switchover yet? If not, why? Leave a note in the comments.