Skip to content →

Tag: silicon

Reading the Tea Leaves on PlayStation 4 Announcement

Sony’s announcement of the PlayStation 4 today has gotten a wide array of responses from the internet (including, amusingly, dismay at the fact that Sony never actually showed the console itself). What was interesting to me was less the console itself but what is revealed about the tech industry in the pretty big changes Sony made over the PlayStation’s previous incarnations. They give a sign of things to come as we await the “XBox 720” (or whatever they call it), Valve’s “Steambox” console, and (what I ultimately think will prevail) the next generation of mobile platform-based consoles like Green Throttle.

  • Sony switched to a more standard PC technology architecture over its old custom supercomputer-like Cell architecture. This is probably due to the increasingly ridiculous costs of putting together custom chips as well as the difficulties for developers in writing software for exotic hardware: Verge link
  • New controller that includes new interface modalities which capture some of the new types of user experiences that users have grown accustomed to from the mobile world (touch, motion) and from Microsoft’s wildly successful Kinect product via their “Eye Camera” (2 1280×800 f/2.0 cameras with 4 channel microphone array): Verge link
  • Strong emphasis during the announcement on streaming cloud gameplay: It looks like Sony is trying to make the most of its $380M acquisition of Gaikai to
    • demo service letting users try the full versions of the games immediately as opposed to after downloading a large, not always available demo
    • drive instant play for downloaded games (because you can stream the game from the cloud while it downloads in the background)
    • provide support for games for the PS3/2/1 without dedicated hardware (and maybe even non-PlayStation games on the platform?)

    Verge link

  • Focus on more social interactions via saving/streaming/uploading video of gameplay: the success of sites like Machinima hint at the types of social engagement that console gamers enjoy. So given the push in the mobile/web gaming world to “social”, it makes perfect sense for Sony to embrace this (so much so that apparently Sony will have dedicated hardware to support video compression/recording/uploading in the background) even if it means support for third party services like UStream (Verge link)
  • Second screen interactivity: The idea of the console as the be-all-end-all site of experience is now thoroughly dead. According to the announcement, the PlayStation 4 includes the ability to “stream” gameplay to handheld PlayStation Vitas (Verge link) as well as the ability to deliver special content/functionality that goes alongside content to iOS/Android phones and tablets (Verge link). A lot of parallels to Microsoft’s XBox Smart Glass announcement last year and the numerous guys trying to put together a second screen experience for TVs and set-top boxes

Regardless of if the PS4 succeeds, these are interesting changes from Sony’s usual extremely locked-down, heavily customized MO and while there are still plenty of details to be described, I think it shows just how much the rise of horizontal platforms, the boom in mobile, the maturation of the cloud as a content delivery platform, and the importance of social engagement have pervaded every element of the tech industry.

(Update: as per Pat Miller’s comments, I’ve corrected some of the previous statements I made about the PlayStation 4’s use of Gaikai technology)

2 Comments

Qualcomm Trying to Up its PR with Snapdragon Stadium

I’m very partial towards “enabling technologies” – the underlying technology that makes stuff tick. That’s one reason I’m so interested in semiconductors: much of the technology we see today has its origins in something that a chip or semiconductor product enabled. But, despite the key role they (and other enabling technologies) play in creating the products that we know and love, most people have no idea what “chips” or “semiconductors” are.

Part of that ignorance is deliberate – chip companies exist to help electronics/product companies, not steal the spotlight. The only exception to that rule that I can think of is Intel which has spent a fair amount over the years on its “Intel Inside” branding and the numerous Intel Inside commercials that have popped up.

While NVIDIA has been good at generating buzz amongst enthusiasts, I would maintain that no other semiconductor company has quite succeeded at matching Intel in terms of getting public brand awareness – an awareness that probably has helped Intel command a higher price point because the public thinks (whether wrongly or rightly) that computers with “Intel inside” are better.

Well Qualcomm looks like they want to upset that. Qualcomm make chips that go into mobile phones and tablets and has benefitted greatly from the rise in smartphones and tablets over the past few years, getting to the point where some might say they have a shot at being a real rival for Intel in terms of importance and reach. But for years, the most your typical non-techy person might have heard about them is the fact that they have the naming rights to San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium – home of the San Diego Chargers and former home of the San Diego Padres.

Well, on December 16th, in what is probably a very interesting test by Qualcomm to see if they can boost the consumer awareness of the Snapdragon product line they’re aiming at the next-generation of mobile phones and tablets, Qualcomm announced it will rename Qualcomm Stadium to Snapdragon Stadium for 10 days (coinciding with the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl and Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl) – check out the pictures from the Qualcomm blog below!

dsc_8635_0

cropped

Will this work? Well, if the goal is to get millions of people to, overnight, buy phones with Snapdragon chips inside – the answer is probably a no. Running this sort of rebranding for only 10 days for games that aren’t the SuperBowl just won’t deliver the right PR boost. But, as a test to see if their consumer branding efforts raises consumer awareness about the chips that power their phones, and potentially demand for “those Snapdragon watchamacallits” in particular? This might be just what the doctor ordered.

I, for one, am hopeful that it does work – I’m a sucker for seeing enabling technologies and the companies behind them like Qualcomm and Intel get the credit they deserve for making our devices work better, and, frankly, having more people talk about the chips in their phones/tablets will push device manufacturers and chip companies to innovate faster.

(Image credit: Qualcomm blog)

Leave a Comment

Apple to buy Intrinsity?

I recently read an interesting rumor off of tech blog Ars Technica that Apple has acquired small processor company Intrinsity – who’s website is, as of the time of this writing, down.

imageIn the popular tech press, very few self-professed gadget fans are aware of the nuances of the chip technology which powers their favorite devices. So, first question, what does Intrinsity and why would Apple be interested in them? Intrinsity is a chip design company known for its expertise in making existing processor designs faster and more efficient. They’ve been retained in the past by ATI (the graphics chip company which is now part of AMD) to enhance their GPU offering, Applied Micro (formerly AMCC) to help speed up their embedded processors, and more recently were used by Samsung (and presumably Apple) to speed up the ARM processor technology which powers the applications on the iPhone and the iPad.

Second question, then, would Apple do it? Questions about Apple are very difficult to answer – in part because of the extreme amount of hype and rumor surrounding them, but also because they tend to “think different” about business strategy. Normally, my intuition would say that this deal is unlikely to make much sense. I’ll admit I haven’t looked at the deal terms or Intrinisty’s finances, but my guess is Intrinsity has a flourishing business with other chip companies which would probably be jeopardized by Apple’s acquisition (especially now that Apple is itself sort of a chip design company and will probably want to de-emphasize the rest of Intrinsity’s activities). An acquisition like this could also be risky as Apple’s core strengths lie in building and designing a small number of well-integrated hardware/software products. While most analysts suspect that Apple contributed a huge amount to the design of the Samsung chip that’s currently in the iPhone, Apple is unlikely to have a culture or set of corporate processes that match Intrinsity’s, and I suspect nursing a chip technology group while also pushing the edge on product design and innovation at some point just becomes too difficult to do (which may partially explain the exodus of PA Semi, Apple’s other chip company purchase, engineers post-acquisition).

Of course, Apple is not your ordinary technology company, and there are definitely major benefits Apple could gain from this. The most obvious is that Apple can avoid paying licensing, royalty, and service fees to Intrinsity (which can be quite large if Apple continues to ship as many products as it does now) if it brings them in-house. Strategically, if Intrinsity is truly as good as they claim (I’ve read my fair share of rumors that the A4 processor in the iPad was a joint development effort from Samsung, Apple, and Intrinsity), then Apple may also want to take this valuable chess piece off the table for its competitors. Its no secret that major chip vendors like Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, and Intel see the mobile chip space as the next hot growth area – Apple could perceive leaving Intrinsity out there as a major risk to maintaining its own device performance against the very impressive Snapdragon, Tegra, and OMAP (and potentially Intel Atom) product lines. imageThis is a similar move to what Apple did with its equity stake in Imagination Technologies, the company that licenses the graphics technology that powers the iPhone, the Palm Pre, and Motorola’s Droid. Its widely believed that, had Imagination been willing (and had Intel not also increased its stake in Imagination), Imagination would currently be an Apple division – highlighting Apple’s preference to not license technology which could potentially remain available to its competitors, but to bring it in-house.

image

So, in the end, does an Apple-Intrinsity deal make sense? Or is this just a rumor to be dismissed? It’s hard to say for sure (especially without knowing much about Intrinsity’s finances or the price offered), but if Intrinsity has key talent or intellectual property that Apple needs for its new devices, then Apple’s extremely high volume (and thus large payments to Intrinsity) could be the basis for fairly sizable financial benefits from such a deal. More importantly, on a strategic level, Apple’s need to maintain a performance lead over new Android (and Symbian and Windows Phone 7) devices could be all the justification needed for swallowing this attractive asset (note: AnandTech’s preliminary review shows the iPad outperforming Google’s Nexus One on web rendering speed – although how much of this is due to the iPad having a bigger battery is up for debate). Its hard to say for sure without knowing much about how profitable Intrinsity is, how much of its business comes from Apple/Samsung, and what sort of price Apple can negotiate, but there is definitely a lot of reason to do it.

(logo credit) (logo credit) (smartphone cartoon credit)

One Comment