This Place is Monstrous

OK, I really would love a robot

The Roof Could Use Some Work

Reflow Oven For Sale (You Transport)

Because honestly, you never know when a machinist might want to get some exercise

A Heidelberg Printing Press

Chris Gammell: Can you please explain your background?

Mike Demler: Explaining it may not be that easy, but I’ll give it a try.

I grew up in the city of Buffalo at the peak of the U.S. space program, and had an early interest in science. My parents nurtured that a lot, and my Dad always had some TV parts around from his part-time repair business. Those were the influences on my decision to study electronics in high school, and then as an EE student at the University of Buffalo.

In the summer after my junior year, I vividly remember reading the book “Analog Integrated Circuit Design” by Alan Grebene. It’s probably more accurate to say I tried to read it, as I know I didn’t comprehend it all so I kept borrowing it from our public library. I very much wish that I had a copy today. I was fascinated by the combination of electronics and physics involved in actually being able to create something in silicon, and that’s when I decided what I wanted to do… I wanted to design integrated circuits.

It wasn’t easy, as UB was about as far as you could get from silicon valley both geographically and academically, but through lots of luck, some independent study, the help of our department chairman and being in the right place at the right time… I got my first job as a Product Engineer for Texas Instruments in Lubbock, TX. That was my launching pad. Someone once told me that ‘TI’ stood for Training Institute, and it certainly was for me. I completed an MSEE at SMU after moving to Dallas, then went back to NY and the GE R&D Labs. We developed some very advanced (for the time) analog technology there, and my TI experience prompted me to move on to GE-Datel where I commercialized the semiconductor process and led development of a new ADC product line. After GE once again exited semiconductors, I took on a similar role starting the semiconductor product line at Unitrode-Micro Networks. I was working there when I wrote the book “High-Speed Analog-to-Digital Conversion”.

Starting up new product lines led me from engineering to sales, marketing and business development. It was during the dot-com startup/IPO boom, and I moved into EDA at that point. I worked for small pre-IPO companies like Meta-Software, then did a startup in Antrim Design Systems that moved me to California. I have also worked for Cadence and Synopsys, and completed an MBA a few years ago. Now I work as an industry analyst, focusing on new disruptive technologies in mobile wireless.

CG: How does your experience in the EDA industry and the semiconductor industry affect your work now?

MD: I’d say that it gives me a unique perspective on the role of those components in the broader electronics ecosystems, such as the wireless industry. When I was in EDA I worked for a while on vertical market strategies. Though they wish it was otherwise, EDA is a small component in a much bigger picture, and most design tools are not easily differentiated by end-market application. Now I get to have the higher-level view of where the customers of the customers are going, and I try to provide insight on how it all fits together both top-down and bottom-up.

CG: What kind of companies do you interact with as an analyst?

MD: I mostly focus on the wireless industry, and currently I am working on an analysis of the Android ecosystem. The variety of companies is almost endless, especially since I try to provide that unique point-of-view from chips to consumer electronics, to services and applications, networks, etc. There are big companies like Cisco, Intel, Qualcomm, Motorola, HTC, LG, Verizon, AT&T…. the list goes on… to numerous small companies, some that are behind the scenes that you are unlikely to hear of unless you are in the industry.

CG: How soon before a product comes out do you get to hear about it?

MD: I don’t get that much special advanced notice of future products, but I think that one of the values I provide is that because of all the sources of information I have, I can tell where things are going ahead of time. Companies sometimes provide advanced information under NDA, that could be from one quarter to a year before you see it in a product. You can also learn what sources of “unofficial” information to trust. The most pointless advanced information I get is when a PR rep send me an unsolicited press release “under embargo” before a major trade show or conference. I haven’t seen one of those yet that was a big deal.

CG: What kind of impact can your work have on the industry? Are there consequences to being right or wrong about your industry predictions?

MD: I wouldn’t presume that I influence the industry in general, but I can have an impact on individual companies that use my research and insight. I stay away from far out predictions, and you won’t see any press releases from me that say “DIGDIA forecasts X million users of Y in 2014”, that you see every day from other analyst firms. Those forecasts are vaporware designed to get repeated on the internet. If I am right about trends and I point out important factors in one of my strategic analyses it improves my credibility. If I am wrong, then not.

CG: Your blog is called "The World is Analog". How do you view the role of analog in devices today and what role do you think they'll have tomorrow?

MD: My point of view in “The World is Analog “ goes back to my answer to your first question. At the risk of being seen as a technology bigot, everything is in reality analog. That is not to say that I don’t appreciate the aspects of design that are digital, or computer science in general, etc. but nothing works unless you build it, and all devices are governed by the (analog) laws of physics. Digital is just an abstraction of the underlying analog behavior. Those analog physical aspects of a design are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore even in digital design; factors such as dynamic voltage variation, power management, statistical process variation, etc. On the other hand, analog circuit functions are enhanced by digital controls, and that inter-dependence will continue to grow going forward.

CG: What do you see as the future for electronics? What kind of devices will people own in 5, 10, 20 years from now?

MD: Electronics will continue to grow and enhance so many aspects of life. The 5-year horizon is what I am focusing on, which will be dominated by ubiquitous wireless connectivity to the internet. This is going well beyond smartphones--to other areas of consumer electronics, energy management, home security, and health and medicine. Those describe some of the broad categories of devices people will “own”. I also see bioelectronics, I suppose you can call it call it bionics, as one of the big growth areas. Today we have devices like pacemakers that help to control heart function, but imagine how nano-electronics and smart wireless sensors can be used to monitor and control other body functions. Transportation is another area where we are just beginning to see what embedded electronics can do. I think the cars that can automatically parallel park are amazing, but people seem to take an advance like that for granted. We will see more “connected vehicles”, with real time 4G wireless connections for information, traffic control and numerous other functions.

CG: It seems that you have transitioned to the business side of things from your early days in engineering. How do you interact now with managers, engineers, marketers and others in the electronics world?

MD: Well, I’ve been in all of those roles, so hopefully it helps me to better understand where people are coming from when I interact with them.

CG: Where do you view the industry itself going? Will all electronics end up in Asia? Will things ever move back towards the US?

MD: There is no “moving back”. It's like Thomas Friedman wrote in “The World is Flat”; manufacturing will always go to the lowest cost location. Everyone needs to take a global view in every industry today.

My greatest concern is education. By growing up during the Apollo space program, I benefited from a societal focus on developing advanced technology. The U.S. needs to work harder to develop more scientists and engineers amongst our own citizens. I hope that environmental concerns might stimulate the current generation of students in a similar way, but I can’t say I’m optimistic at this point.

CG: Is there a maximum growth potential for the market? Won't people stop needing devices? What happens then?

MD: No, the market for electronics devices will grow many times over where it is today. I don’t limit that statement to mean only consumer electronics devices. We can only carry or interact with so many. But the connected world is only beginning to be developed; for in-body, in-home, in-vehicle, in the environment.. the list is endless.

Many thanks to Mike for taking the time to explain his view on the (apparently analog) world. As you may have noticed from other posts on here about talking to various professions, I'm very curious about the electronics ecosystem.  I find it fascinating how different job functions look at similar situations, especially when those people are selling or buying products from one another. The customer in one scenario often turns around and becomes a supplier to someone else. The interdependencies are intriguing. You may also notice that I have been targeting people that write for their own sites or for their companies sites. While I intend to focus on the less well-known positions eventually, why not show off the great content they have already written on outside sites? Be sure to click through to their relevant posts from the links above.

Two questions:

1. Do you (the reader) enjoy seeing these perspectives? I know I always appreciate the freshness that other perspectives add to this site, but am not sure that others feel the same.
2. Do you have any questions for Mike specifically? These can be questions about the future of the industry (though I thought he gave some good explanations on the direction) or his past experiences or really anything!

Please leave your notes or questions in the comments area!

Growth is a very important component to the electronics business. It's priced into many stocks and it drives much of the electronics food chain. Moore's law has helped for a long time too. Shrinking the geometry of silicon every 18 months really required manufacturers to update their equipment often. This then drives the equipment manufacturers to advance technology to make the new fabrication possible. The analog engineers (ok, digital too) out there utilize the new chips and make requests for the next generation. The ripple effect continues all the way down the line, requiring input from the manfacturers and returning revenue to the shareholders of said manufacturers. Like I said, this growth is an assumption and is priced into how people invest in companies involved in electronics manufacturing.

There's no denying that electronics are a dirty business. Not oil-gushing-from-a-hole-in-the-ocean dirty, but still, not exactly the most environmentally friendly situation either. The chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing are not known for their safety nor their easy disposal; I've only had training on how bad they can mess people up but it goes beyond that; there are entire departments in semiconductor manufacturing facilities devoted to containing and disposing of the chemicals. Outside of the semiconductor world manufacturers have had to drastically reduce the amount of lead in products (in the solder and otherwise) but there are still elements of boards and parts that are not good for the environment. And given both the amount of turnover in the products that people consume year to year and the fact that very few products are designed for long term use, almost all electronics are bound for a landfill within a 10 year time frame (unless recycled). All of this adds up to a nasty picture for the planet.

A business built on growth and components that are not biodegradable nor regulated in their disposal. Is this model sustainable? Can manufacturers continue making products that are not safe for disposal and yet expect people to continuously update their personal electronic portfolio at home? Can manufacturers continue to crank out new devices ad nauseum and not be held responsible for the impact they make?

I do not believe the long term growth of electronics will plateau. While this may be good for my own career, part of me is very conflicted by the idea that my own success could be tied to the fact that we will have to consume more and more over time. Growth will always be driven by the next "must have device", updating of previous generation devices and bringing electronics to a greater percentage of the population. But how can we rectify the needs (or perceived needs as it may be) with the very real issues and impacts associated with modern electronics? The material and energy inputs required and the waste from technology churn all make for hundreds of miles worth of disposed and forgotten cellphones and CRT monitors which took large amounts of the earth's resources to make.

So assuming that growth of the electronics industry will continue unabated for various reasons, I think the question is better asked: Is a sustainable world possible with the electronics industry as we know it today?

I don't usually say it on this site, but I have no clue about the answer to this question. Do you? Is it possible for there to be a healthy electronics industry when taking the planet into account? How does this affect the business model and should the people that manufacture products be responsible for what happens to the at the end of the products' lifetime? Please let us know in the comments.

Either way, the title of this post looks ridiculous. And yet it is pervasive in headlines on the internet and in newsprint. Why? Because people are hungry for new ideas, new ways to try and make money and free energy (I guess those could all be classified under the money category). The reason these headlines are everywhere is because they work. They grab peoples' attention, including my own.

But wait.

There are no breakthroughs, right?. There are, but they're much more rare than the public is lead to believe. Even those breakthroughs aren't even that big of a leap from the previous discovery. That's just not how science works, people. Science is iterative. Science is boring. That's the way science is designed to be. You think up a hypothesis, you test it, you repeat based on those results. Even if you do have some huge breakthrough, you really need to test it out rigorously to determine if it truly is a breakthrough.

Because of this realization, I've decided to create a simple guideline for the news media (who will ignore it, even if they ever saw it) and for aspiring pseudo-scientists, who are probably just people trying to sell the first "technology" they get their hands on.

Step 1: Ask yourself, "Has this been done before?"

I'm guessing that yes, you have asked yourself this; and no, it has not been done before. Why else would you be trying to report on it and/or sell it to people? If this has been done before, go back to the drawing board. No one wants to hear from you. (See, this is like science!)

Step 2: If this hasn't been done before (and this technology you're investigating seems like a breakthrough), ask yourself, "WHY hasn't this been done before?"

This is the step that people miss. Either when reporting on a technology or worse, trying to "create" a new technology, they ignore this step. For example, say you've figured out that you might be able to harness the motion of trees blowing in the wind. OK, why isn't anyone doing it now? Have you considered the efficiency of the conversion process? Have you considered the economics of trying to harvest this energy? How long will the payback be for people that purchase such a system?

Step 3: If you believe you've overcome the 3 of the stumbling blocks of discovering new energy technologies (efficiency, money, ROI), what has changed?

Be specific. Saying that "it's never been done before!" will be considered an incomplete answer and you will fail the test. If you are a reporter doing a story on an energy technology that will eventually be the next big thing, say exactly what has to happen and how soon it would have to happen in order for that technology to become viable. If you are "developing" that next big thing, tell us what you overcame and possibly how you overcame it; in the event you are not allowed to divulge that info because it is a trade secret, be prepared for future scrutiny and skepticism. Shrouding a problem does not solve it.

Step 4: Determine: Are you (or the people you're reporting on) capable of delivering on a consistent basis all of the things that are promised?

Here are some examples of news stories or "inventions" I have heard about but that did not deliver:

• A new chemical compound that can burn hotter and longer than fuel sources currently used but is extremely expensive to make (process). Since it was sold as a disruptive technology, this could not deliver because disruptive technologies must be economically feasible.
• A new processing technique that is based upon ideal lab conditions and low volume manufacturing. Data was not based on a large sample size with many permutations of input variables so the promised (laboratory) conditions could not be delivered.
• A microenergy harvester that was not capable of delivering because the efficiency of the converter was not calculated with realistin inputs and operating conditions. As such, the advertised output power could not be achieved.
• A device based on permanent magnets that requires less energy put in than can be recovered. NOTE: This can never deliver as promised, see laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics.

I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't attempt to develop new technologies nor should they only do research on things that are immediately economically viable. That is short sighted and many past inventions would have never been achieved with that mindset. The people I'm reaching out to are the so called "reporters" out there and the so called "inventors". Basically what I'm saying is that I too am hungry to hear about the next big thing. I look often and I find the same story each time. There was either a miscalculation or a misquote or a fancy-pants marketer trying to sell his big dumb ultra-capacitor that no one has seen to this day (p.s. it's 2010. We're still waiting!).

I know I've been guilty of it too, getting overzealous about under-developed new technologies. I'm a far cry from mainstream media though and I've yet to start "Gammell Energy Industries" to sell a ghost product. So if you're a reporter/marketer/inventor/whatever, please be gentle with my hope for technologies that will help solve problems in the world. When you lie about a new product or technologies' capabilities, it only dashes the hopes of others and removes focus from solving the problem at hand.

I was intrigued. I had never thought of that before. Why would anyone ever try to develop an arts community first? Where are the jobs? Well folks, we have a bona fide Chicken and Egg paradox here. It really goes both ways. What happens if a community only has day jobs and no culture? What happens if you develop a thriving arts community before there are "Economic Drivers" and jobs for people moving there?  Does the absence of one element slow the growth of the other?

I would tend to think the jobs come first. And of course when I think jobs I think of technical jobs, not those silly financial jobs that got us into this mess of a recession. I mostly think of technical jobs first because I've never really experienced anything else and I've heard technical jobs can have a multiplicative effect (helping to create some of the other jobs I'm not as fond of). But what happens in locations where there are only jobs and no culture to go along with it? Who really wants to live there?

An example is contained within Eric Weiner's book, The Geography of Bliss (which I first read about at Get Rich Slowly). He is traveling the world, looking to explain why some locales are happier than others. In the midst of his travels, he goes to Qatar (one of the richest regions in the world) where he encounters a city booming with jobs (mostly for migrant workers) to fill the "need" of those rich from petrodollars. However, he notes the absence of culture and even references how the richest from that country travel the world buying up impressive art collections in a hope to obtain culture. The result is a city full of people being shuttled to and from chain restaurants and malls, without any interesting things in between. Even the history museum is filled with artifacts toil and struggle in the desert...and not much else. Because the jobs in the region are scarce, no one really wants to be there, but no one working there can really leave.

The other extreme is when a city has a strong art and culture community but is lacking in jobs. An example is New York City in the current recession. Even though the current unemployment numbers are hovering around 10.3%, people continue to move to the city. Why? Because you can't find many other places in the world with a similar art and culture scene. Where else can you find so many museums in a 10 mile radius? But when it comes to being practical? No, not so much. The fact that the unemployment is only 10.3% is likely because of the high costs associated with living in or even near the city.

So back to the original example. Would starting an arts community allow for eventual development of a thriving economy? It depends. Are there other nearby communities that can feed into this new community? Are those other communities lacking in culture or interesting events of their own, thereby necessitating people in that community to travel? Are there people in the existing community that will be benefactors to the new community? And most importantly, are there people willing to move to and develop a new arts and culture based community?

If there is a willing population, both moving to and surrounding a new (or revitalized) community, then I believe it would be possible to use arts and culture to build up a local economy. I think that it is a non-standard way to draw young and artistic people into a new place and to centralize events and gatherings; this, in turn, could help to draw people that aren't contributing to the art and cultural scene directly but want to experience and patronize it. I know that Cleveland, with excessive sprawl and thinly populated suburbs, could really benefit from a community such as this (really it will be supplementing many other creative and culturally rich regions). Although the travel required between regions is undesirable, I think creating an arts community can really help to bring people together, which is really what drives economic growth over the long term. Do I think there will ever be large corporations moving in and bringing thousands of jobs to this revitalized community? No, I don't; but that's not really the point anyway.

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard of other communities built first around cultural and artistic endeavors that later blossomed into vibrant communities. If you have ever heard of one or have an opinion about what they're trying in Cleveland, please leave a note in the comments.