A question was asked yesterday about the scope of work/complexity of a customer moving from an ArcticLink III BX design to an ArcticLink III VX design. This chart provides an easy primer (click to embiggen)
As you can see, the scope of work is not great. The pinouts are identical, meaning there are no (read: zero) board changes required. Board changes are costly, time-consuming, and can be an expensive hurdle to overcome. The identical footprint and pinout of the BX and VX allows a change of device without any of these hurdles.
At a driver level, the existing BX driver is re-used, with additional code added to set and modify the VEE/DPO registers on the VX devices. As with all CSSP engagements, QuickLogic does provide the driver to customers should they choose, with VEE/DPO settings having been agreed upon during a calibration session with the customer.
All this adds up to the BX being a great starting point, with an immediate and easy upgrade path to a VEE and DPO-enabled ArcticLink III VX device with no risk.
Hi Paul
Trying to connect the dots
These additional features VX-BX ….. cost of producing chips and identical foot print pinout…..just migrate to VX and turn on the features the customer needs OEM (something tells me it is not like that?), also could you just not always provide the VX and some how have the end user decide if they would like VEE/DPO….for a cost?
Thanks
BAMA
Hello BAMA,
The transition from BX to VX is essentially what you have written — migrate the actual chip from a BX to a VX, add additional code to the software drivers (QL-provided) that turn on and set VEE/DPO parameters (determined during a calibration exercise), and the device is good to go. Finally, to address your last question, there is no reason that an OEM couldn’t allow the end user to decide whether or not to use VEE/DPO for an additional cost (to the end user).
-Paul
Hi Paul
What in the business model prevents you from just giving the VX to every OEM and charging the end user to turn on the features they are willing to pay for? For example: I go to Verizon and buy the Galaxy XXX. Verizon tells me my phone comes with these improved options from QuickLogic. End user can accept the options in which Verizon checks box and when the Phone turns on a download occurs. Or they can go to Quicklogic website to turn it on at later date. You send them an email every month to see if they want it? Like consignment.
Hello BAMA,
The model that you reference is a very common model in the software market. In this market, the vast majority of overall cost a product is seen during the pre-production phase (development, testing, etc…). Essentially, your costs for the product are done (excluding support) when you release, and so there really isn’t a ‘cost per unit’, especially in the age of downloading software
However, in the semiconductor market, the vast majority of overall cost of a product is seen in the production phase, in particular the actual cost of the physical silicon. This is the reason semiconductor companies spend sizable amounts of resources on silicon cost reduction initiatives like yield improvement programs, smaller process nodes, wafer size expansions, die shrinks, etc…
I don’t know of any semiconductor companies who give away their silicon with the aim of a ‘end user turn on’ financial model. I am all for thinking differently and asking ‘why’ or ‘why not’, but I don’t believe that this strategy would be appropriate or responsible for us to take.
Thanks for the question, Paul
Hi Paul, who are your main competitors when it comes to selling the BX,VX? What roadblocks are you coming up against when you are approaching Appl,Samsung ,others when attempting to make a sale?
Hey Terence,
In the BX space, there are bridge devices from companies like Toshiba, Texas Instruments, and Solomon Systech.
In the VX space, there are no companies that offer a single chip solution with bridging, display improvement, and power savings technologies. As such, we don’t really believe we have any true direct VX competitors. To be fair, I should note that some of the aforementioned companies do offer bridge chips with CABC on-board. CABC is a content-dependent technology (power savings only happen with low contrast video), and is VERY close to what we call IBC technology in the ArcticLink III VX. (primer here: http://quicklogic.wpengine.com/corporate/as-promised/). Even though there are some similarities, VEE/DPO (with IBC) is so far beyond CABC that is really apples and oranges.
As far as roadblocks, I believe QL has mentioned these before, but we continue to face situations where a customer feels what they have is ‘good enough’, or BOM cost pressures may negate the use of a VX. Additionally, the business model of the BX (and some of the VX parts) requires a mismatched display/processor, which is obviously not the case in every phone or tablet.
-Paul
If you get them to buy the BX what is going to change with “we continue to face situations where a customer feels what they have is ‘good enough’, or BOM cost pressures may negate the use of a VX. A little confused on how QUIK is going to change a companies mind on VX technology if they feel it doesnt add to there product?
Terrence,
These are good questions, and thanks for being so active on our site.
Firstly, no OEM has ever told us that they don’t feel that VEE and DPO would add to/benefit their product. I think we’ve probably beaten this subject to death over why they would/wouldn’t use VEE, and you have rightly pointed out some of the reasons that OEM’s wouldn’t.
So here is why BX helps combat those reasons:
Let’s say for the sake of argument that OEM ‘X’ has chosen to use the BX for a MIPI->LVDS bridge and they’ve gotten it up and running on their design. The OEM has already allocated the PCB real estate and cost of design and integration work. This also makes the BX a necessity, as the display won’t function without it. Now, let’s pick up the conversation where VX is being considered but BOM cost is at play…
* OEM X’s design work (and cost) is already sunk through the BX integration. The design cost to move to VX is almost nothing–an hour of so of software work plus VEE calibration, all done in conjunction with QuickLogic. Now compare that to a cold start with a VX device, where OEM X has invested nothing. Convincing them to spend just a couple more hours to upgrade a part they already use is potentially a lot easier than convincing them to start from scratch. Cost is much lower.
* There is no extra PCB space needing to be allocated when moving from BX to VX. They must use the BX for the system to operate, and we’ve established that BX is amongst, if not the smallest display bridge(s) available. No extra cost, either in PCB space or design work.
* OEM X is already paying a price per unit for BX silicon. The incremental price difference between BX and VX is not huge (sorry–I can’t discuss specifics). Convincing someone to pay a little more for an upgrade on something they already use is generally easier than convincing someone to pay for something they don’t use currently.
On the ‘good enough’ point, we believe that a BX, placed on a customer form factor system, allows us to further combat this view. Backing up a bit, we generally demonstrate the capabilities of VEE through our internal demo systems, customer products with VEE, and things like the hacked iPad (that by this point should have it’s own frequent flier account). While all these are very good in their own right, nothing beats being able to demonstrate VEE’s abilities on a customer-developed system. Working with the customer, QuickLogic takes a few samples of the customers system, puts a VX device into the BX location, and makes the necessary software/calibration additions. The customer can now, in their lab and on a system they have 100% knowledge and control of, verify how good VEE/DPO really are. Once they see how VEE betters their system, perhaps the customer realizes that what they have simply isn’t good enough? My experience is that it’s easy for customers to say what they have is good enough…until their own hardware proves them wrong.
-Paul
Thanks for your response. Also how long do you think the bridge business is sustainable? Arent processors’ and displays’ interfaces sooner or later going to match?
5+ years after the introduction of the first smartphone, there are still 10’s of millions of bridges sold. I don’t think they are going away anytime soon!
So what is your strategy with companies that don’t require any display bridges?. Are you pretty much saying it’s hard to sell to them and you are targeting only the available ~60mil handsets?.
No, neither I (or QuickLogic) is saying anything of the sort. Boiled down:
* If a company does need a display bridge, we can offer them ArcticLink III VX5 or BX5 devices (in all sorts of MIPI or RGB to MIPI or RGB or LVDS architectures).
* If a company doesn’t need a display bridge, our ArcticLink III VX3 (MIPI-MIPI) or ArcticLink II VX2 (RGB-RGB) lines are both very viable options.
* If a company needs a bridging and duplication device in one, we can offer them ArcticLink III VX6 or BX6 devices.
The introduction of the BX in no way changes our belief in the attractiveness and advantages of VEE and DPO, and in no way should be construed as QuickLogic ‘giving up’ on selling into non-bridge applications.
Hi Andy
Thanks for the response. I’m sure this is not where business models should be discussed. As an engineer I am always thinking outside the box and family is always saying WHAT? My brain is revolving around your technology being an App. not silicon. You just need silicon to turn it on that is why I describe it as I do.
Can you clarify some confusion from the conference call. With the hurricane and all it was at a tough time so not as many questions as usual were asked or answered. Andy stated some design wins may be pushed into Q1 from Q4 because of a management shortfall that won’t happen again, but is QUIK still scheduled for the 4th quarter and 1st quarter phone releases that were previously stated on the Q2 conference call? And are these other designs we missed new OEM’s or just the same but different phones?
Thanks
Hello RF,
You can listen to the 3rd qtr conference call, as well as get a transcript, at http://ir.quicklogic.com/events.cfm
I believe the answers to you questions about timing can be found in the transcript/audio (in particular page 8 of the transcript). Regarding your question about new vs existing, I unfortunately cannot comment on this due to confidentiality.
Paul
Paul, It seems QUIK is still chasing opportunities instead of anticipating them. 1920×1200 seems limiting when tablets are already at 2560×1600(Nexus 10). Do you guys have an answer for this?
Terrence,
It is true that some tablets are certainly above the 1920 x 1200 resolution of the ArcticLink III. However, with the exception of the Nexus10 and iPad, I don’t believe there are any mass production tablets (or smartphones, for that matter) that exceed the 1920 x 1080 resolution, which certainly leaves quite a large addressable market for the ArcticLink III (VX and BX).
Paul
Post from Domino Analytics Forum–Since VEE did not sell, BX should be judged on its own and not as a entry to a “premium” upgrade. Why is BX better than other bridge chips, leaving VEE out of the discussion?
Terrence,
I know that you didn’t make the comment on the forum, and thanks for bringing it to the public.
Firstly…the ArcticLink III VX has been qualified for production for less than a quarter — to make any assumptions or statements about the sellability of a product based on <3 months is simply not responsible.
Onto BX, we believe we are well positioned competitively. We offer more bridging variants than other suppliers, certainly. Moreover, we are told that we are generally smaller in size, consume lower power, have better lead times, and enable lower-cost PCBs due to our package design/pad layout. Please note that these are not blanket statements for every variant versus every competitive device — these are general attributes we’ve been told by third parties (OEMs, ecosystem partners) and we believe through competitive research.
Paul
To clarify something…when I say ‘we are told…’ in respect to our BX strengths, it is not to say we haven’t done our due diligence on our product positioning, roadmaps, etc… I use the passive tense because the I believe that the words of 3rd parties about our technology should carry a tremendous amount of weight.