RVN! 26 Banner revised (800 x 100 px) (600 x 100 px)

Digital Retaliation of Iran – Top 6 Likely Cyber Attacks

Digital Retaliation of Iran – Top 6 Likely Cyber Attacks
by Matthew Rosenquist on 01-13-2020 at 10:00 am

Digital Retaliation of Iran – Top 6 Likely Cyberattacks

The United States and allies’ national cyber response may soon be tested with the latest escalating conflict in the middle east. The U.S. conducted an airstrike that killed a revered Iranian general while in Iraq. This was in retaliation to a number of attacks against U.S. personnel and most recently the U.S. embassy in Iraq that was purported to be orchestrated by Iran and specifically General Qassem Soleimani who was killed in the airstrike. Soleimani, also spelled Suleimani, was the top military official for Iran and a very powerful figure in the region. Iran has vowed to retaliate.

Iran has significant resources, both traditional kinetic weapons as well as mature cyber warfare capabilities. Direct military attacks could draw both countries into an undesired war. Political condemnation is likely to be seen as insufficient by the Iranian leadership. The other play is to go down the route of cyberattacks.

Cyber attacks, attributed to Iran, have taken place in the past but most were denied by the government and overall not too severe. Many in the cybersecurity community, including myself, believe that for years Iran has been conducting digital reconnaissance and spoiling attacks to gain footholds in western critical infrastructure that could be used at a later date as beachheads for large-scale attacks.

This may now be the moment that Iran chooses to use their nation-state supported cyber warriors to directly target the United States government, economy, and critical infrastructure. Unlike the clandestineness and denials of the past, attacks would likely be openly attributed as retaliation by Teheran and intended to cause enough harm to show strength and be a deterrent for future acts.

Here are my predictions for how Iran will respond with cyberattacks against the United States. These are the six potential attacks that Iran might choose to pursue. Most likely one of the following will occur or be attempted, in the coming weeks.

Top 6 Likely Cyber Attacks by Iran:

  • Cyber attacks disrupting U.S. regional electrical power grids. The goal would be a shut-down for several hours to a few days, in a major urban center.
  • Cyber attacks against North American telecommunications and Internet services, to disrupt the availability for several days across a modest region of the country.
  • Damaging attacks to U.S. government servers, data, and digital services. Likely targets would be the Pentagon facilities and other Department of Defense (DoD) bases around the world. The objective would be to disrupt intelligence, logistics, communications, planning, and operations.
  • Digital attacks against the U.S. Executive branch, including the White House or Embassies around the world. Also with a goal of disrupting communications, logistics, services, and operations.
  • Cyber attacks against the financial sectors to temporarily impact the economy. Specific targets might include one or more of the U.S. exchanges, major banking services, and Federal Reserve. Perhaps taking down the stock markets, federal lending functions, disrupting inter-banking transfers, or interfering with financial services (ATMs, deposits, withdraws, bill-payments, etc.) in a limited way for a few days would send shockwaves throughout the public.
  • Cyber attacks against U.S. oil production, refining, and distribution capabilities. This has a two-fold impact. It raises the price of global oil and it may force the U.S. to once again rely externally on other nations for petroleum, bringing relevance back to the Persian Gulf and the power that Iran has to control the Strait of Hormuz.

Most of these attacks would be designed to be temporary and given as a show-of-force as to what Iran can and is willing to do. They would want attacks to be public and potentially inconvenience U.S. citizens. There is a balance, however. Iran will want to convey strength and may also seek to convince Americans that the U.S. government cannot protect their nation’s critical infrastructure so as to cause infighting among the voters. I believe Iran would not want to go so far as to cause serious harm to the citizen population as it may unify and embolden Americans and her allies to war. The U.S. has a tremendously formidable military and is willing to deploy it when the country is unified against an enemy. Not many countries want to poke that tiger.

In another scenario, the United States may not be the direct target. Instead, U.S. allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, or pro-American leaders in Iraq, might be pursued.

Lastly, there is a chance that digital attacks might accompany kinetic strikes. Many U.S. allies are well within the range of Iranian missiles, military insurgents, and asymmetric warfare practices. This may include terrorist attacks and the kidnapping of Americans, diplomats or workers, from U.S. companies abroad. It worked as leverage against America during the Iran hostage crisis, where diplomats and citizens were held for 444 days in the besieged U.S. Embassy in Teheran (Nov 1979 – Jan 1981).

Predicting the Next Evolution of Cyberwar 
I am concerned that the response to the recent regional conflicts, potentially by both sides, will include cyber-attacks. Any digital attacks by a nation-state inadvertently pushes forward the evolution of cyberwar and sets new standards for what is deemed plausible for future responses. It is an escalation that can impact people across the globe. The world of warfare is about to change again. It will not be limited by geography, distance, or brute military might like in the past. This time, it will include the emergence of the digital battlefield.


The Tech Week that was January 6-10 2020

The Tech Week that was January 6-10 2020
by Mark Dyson on 01-13-2020 at 6:00 am

Semiconductor Weekly Summary

Happy New Year to everyone.. lets hope 2020 is a great year.. The indicators are all pointing in the right direction but it will not take much to derail it if external factors change. Here is my weekly summary of all the important news from the semiconductor industry around the world.

2020 is starting very differently from 2019 with much optimism around. This article in Semiconductor Engineering surveys CEO’s across the industry to get their views on 2020. 5G, AI and big data are all factors that should be big this year and help drive the recovery.

CES was held last week with many new consumer ideas on display. Smart homes was certainly one of the hot topics with smart speakers for the shower, smart frying pans that weight your food and smart cooker hobs that you can control by voice, smart shelves for monitoring your groceries amongst some of the items on display. One item that would certainly be useful in Singapore was a device that instantly cools the object placed in it, like a reverse microwave, it can cool a can of beer in 2minutes. 8K TV’s were on display as were foldable computers, and of course there were lots of robots and AI applications. Here are some articles about the technology on display in the show. An overview from the BBC, the standout gadgets by the Guardian, the key takeaways by the Verge.

The Taiwan foundries ended the year on a high. TSMC hit another record high for the quarter, the second successive quarter it achieved this. Q4 revenue was US$10.5billion, up 8% sequentially. December revenues were down 4% sequentially at US$3.44billion but was up 15% on a year ago.

UMC saw revenues surge in December up 17.4% from a year ago, reporting revenues of US$445million. Q4 revenues were also up 17.4% on a year ago, mainly due to the additional revenues from the taking full control of Mie Fujitsu foundry in Japan.

Specialty foundry Vanguard (VIS) didn’t fair quite so well in Q4, reporting Q4 revenues were down 2.2% on year ago at US$87million.

For the back end assembly test provider ASE reported Q4 revenue up 8.9% YoY at US$2.27billion and up 4.1% sequentially for the ATM group. December revenue was up 2.5% on November with revenue of US$771million, this was up 16% on a year ago.

Market research company IC Insights reported that the pure play foundry market decreased 2% globally in 2019 compared to a year ago. China was the only region to see an increase in pure play foundry market last year growing 6%. Taiwan foundry TSMC reported that approx. 25% of it’s customers were in China.

One of the side effects of trade wars is that it prompts countries to become more self sufficient. As a result of the trade war between South Korea and Japan, South Korea has announced Dupont will invest $28million in South Korea to develop advanced photoresists and other materials by 2021 to allow South Korea to be less dependent on Japan supplies.

Similarly in China, China is pushing to decouple it’s technology from the US as a result of the US-China trade war which has lead to a boom for some Chinese tech companies.

It appears that the US put a lot of pressure on the Netherlands to prevent ASML from delivering a EUV lithography tool to China and to cancel the sale.

Despite the trade war and the ban on Huawei, Huawei still managed to grow it’s revenue in 2019 by 18% to US$121.7billion, though this was lower than originally predicted due to the trade war preventing the company access to source parts. Huawei said that 2020 will be a difficult year and it will not be able to grow as fast and only grow by 3.9%.

It is reported that production was impacted at its Samsung Electronics Hwaseong plant due to a minute long power blackout. It is speculated that the incident caused million of dollars in losses.


2020 The Year of Live In-Car Remote Assistance

2020 The Year of Live In-Car Remote Assistance
by Roger C. Lanctot on 01-12-2020 at 10:00 am

2020 The Year of Live In Car Remote Assistance

After years of travel and computing remotely while on the road I have found that there are two magical experiences for the business traveler. One of those experiences is the hotline support I get from my preferred airline – United. The other is the live remote assistance I periodically receive from my company’s in-house IT department – you know, those moments when your colleague in IT takes over your computer and fixes everything you’ve managed to bollix up.

I am taking a bit of a risk in describing both of these propositions – as they are quite different. But the implications for the automotive industry are significant and significantly underappreciated, misunderstood, and, in the end, will profoundly impact the future of the connected car.

General Motors introduced the concept of the connected car in 1996 with OnStar, a system capable of connecting drivers with emergency services in the event of a crash. The service introduced the concepts of connectivity and access to live assistance to the driving public.

In the process of doing so, GM learned about the high cost of delivering these value propositions and wisely chose to limit their application in the car. The reality, for GM or any car company, was and is that providing live assistance is as or more expensive than building in wireless connectivity.

This had two impacts on the marketing and promotion of OnStar. First of all, most advertising made clear that OnStar was only for use in emergency circumstances and second of all, owners of OnStar-equipped cars would not be encouraged to use OnStar for other purposes.

To be sure, other applications – such as concierge services – emerged over the years, but these were only available at a considerable cost. Meanwhile, even limiting OnStar’s applications did not prevent unanticipated and asymmetrical demand on GM’s in-house call center which forced GM to line up outsourced partners to manage demand – giving rise to a broader connected car live assistance industry pulling in companies such as Convergys and ATX, which is now owned by SiriusXM.

Other companies have since joined the business including Intrado, Allstate, MyAssist (a travel industry-centric company now owned by Berkshire Hathaway), Agero, Bosch, and others. All of these companies recognized the power of connecting to consumers at a moment of need – particularly when those consumers are driving a moving vehicle.

I mentioned earlier the magical experience of remote assistance, whether delivered by United Airlines or the IT department. The importance of this direct engagement is hard to overstate.

Consider United Airlines. United came in last in J.D. Powers’ customer satisfaction survey in 2019. This finding only validates what fellow flyers have been telling me about their experiences on American and Delta vis-à-vis United. The overwhelming message to me, as a United flyer, in 2019 was: “United sucks!”

These people weren’t talking about lost dogs, broken or lost guitars, or passengers dragged off United’s airplanes. They were talking about the overall experience.

I know precisely what they were talking about in 2019. I flew 230,000 miles on United in 2019 as a Global Services top tier customer. When it comes to a pleasing flying experience there isn’t much that United can do for me – unless they want to pick me up at my house and drive me directly onto the tarmack at the airport – something which United very nearly did this year for a neighbor of mine, another Global Services flyer.

What United can do is provide live assistance to troubleshoot my travel troubles. This is where delight enters the equation for me at United. My loyalty to United is directly derived not only from my proximity to a United hub in Northern Virginia, but also to its dedicated customer service representatives.

Sad to say, all the Polaris and (regular) United clubs, gate agents, flight attendants, pilots, various ground staff, and even the affable and outgoing CEO Oscar Munoz are worthless to me when it comes to defining my level of satisfaction with the airline. My experience is defined by my frequent interactions, over the phone, with United support.

It is unlikely that American or Delta flyers using United would have the same experience I have when I fly the airline – because of my access to this dedicated network of call center personnel. But the real secret behind this United Airlines secret sauce is that the majority of these operators are working remotely from their homes.

Ironically enough, United used to operate a large call center in Dearborn, Michigan, across the street from Ford Motor Company’s headquarters. But now, for the most part, the service is supported remotely.

This is nothing new. McDonald’s experimented with remote drive-thru order takers back in 2005. More recently, in 2019, McDonald’s acquired Apprente, a startup developing voice recognition technology for the restaurant industry, with the goal of automating order taking.

As call centers for connected cars evolved, GM continued to offer subscription-based concierge services while more or less discouraging customers from calling OnStar. The OnStar brand virtually disappeared from GM’s advertising and when the company launched its Maven service missed the chance to redefine OnStar’s market position into a broader transportation-centric customer engagement platform.

GM is not alone in this auto industry struggle with call centers. Ford experimented with a MyAssist smartphone-based concierge service, ultimately terminating it as an expensive distraction that was not core to Ford’s business of selling cars.

For a brief period of time, though, Ford had a MyAssist-enabled window into real-time driver assistance requirements focused mainly around different destinations. Google and Microsoft could have explained to senior Ford executives what the real long-term value of this information might represent – but Ford was not interested. (That’s right, your car is a browser!)

As 2020 dawns the automotive industry has yet failed to grasp the value of direct customer engagement and live call center assistance – whether in-house or remotely supported. Tesla Motors has so far failed to introduce an automatic crash notification capability equivalent to OnStar, but Tesla does offer 24/7 roadside assistance.

The customer accounts of Tesla roadside assistance reflect the same kind of magical experience I have had repeatedly with United Airlines. Just as United’s call center operators have kept me a dedicated United flyer, Tesla’s roadside assistance has created rabid devotion to the Tesla brand one customer at a time – whether it be helping drivers extend the range of their EVs in real-time by adjusting vehicle settings or getting a flat fixed.

We haven’t seen the same level of customer engagement from competing car companies leveraging their call center solutions. There is massive room for improvement here and I expect to see advancements in 2020 – especially as more car companies integrate digital assistants.

But a real game changer – for Tesla or any car maker – will be the integration of IT department-style support derived from remote vehicle access.  The technology exists today to remotely access and correct in-vehicle systems and assist drivers – much like the IT department remotely takes control of your notebook computer.

Companies like VNC Automotive and Microsoft (with Skype), possess this capability. I expect more than one car company to step up their connected car customer support offerings in 2020 to create a truly delightful experience for drivers and alter our relationship with cars.

This is fertile ground for innovation and differentiation. United’s call center operators are transforming my experience with the brand and with the company nearly every week. Imagine what a properly deployed call center/live assistance solution could do for legacy auto makers. It’s not too late.


China in 2020: Navigating the new policy landscape

China in 2020: Navigating the new policy landscape
by Gordon Orr on 01-12-2020 at 6:00 am

China in 2020 Navigating the new policy landscape

This is the fourth of a five part series

Many companies saw 2019 as a year when more and more regulations piled on to them. CEOs who were the legal representative for their company in China got increasingly nervous as legal teams updated them on their personal responsibility under new regulations. Unfortunately for them, 2020 will see more new and evolved regulations targeting all companies operating in China.

Anti-Monopoly

The State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR) will be more active in 2020 in tackling anti-trust, anti-monopolistic behaviors. Their investigations will have teeth. Fines can be as much as 10 percent of prior year revenue. Inquiries are already underway.

—     15 courier companies are under investigation for their alleged anti-monopolistic practices based on complaints from customers about coordinated price increases and selective willingness to bid for business. Companies should recognize that inquiries will often be triggered by their customers, whether with legitimate complaints or simply a grudge. Ensuring that government affairs teams have a well-established relationship with local SAMR officials is a sensible preparatory step.

—     20 e-commerce enterprises are under investigation for requiring exclusive listings on their sites, which is prohibited by e-commerce law and anti-monopoly law. Sellers on these sites should check their contracts to ensure they are not enabling behaviors that SAMR may find problematic. Businesses will be challenged by SAMR on whether they have sufficient insight and control over behavior by front-line employees to prevent collusion taking place locally. The best Chinese companies’ internal control teams deploy up to 100 people on this, and they act against hundreds of often small-scale breaches every year. Multinationals tend to have fewer resources, which may expose them to criticism.

Foreign Investment and National Security Review (NSR)

New foreign investment laws come into effect in January 2020 with elements favorable to foreign companies, solidifying announced market openings and reducing inconsistency in policy enforcement.

Policies to support business should in future apply equally to both domestic and foreign enterprises. Foreign enterprises should also have equal access to government procurement and to domestic standards setting processes. There will be no distinction in how policy is applied to different vehicles for foreign investment (WFOE, EJV, CJV). Great intent, follow implementation closely.

Areas of concern exist. The law details how indirect investment by foreigners will be treated, but does not detail the specific structures or ownership levels that will trigger review and registration. This is another area to watch, especially for financial investors.

Perhaps the most important change is the revised national security review of foreign investment. Reviews are required for any foreign investment in national defense security (control not required) and any foreign investment in companies engaged in key industries that are somehow related to national security where the foreign investor has effective control. The second category is more relevant for most enterprises. Industries that fall into its scope range from agriculture to energy, infrastructure, technology, culture and the internet. While 50 percent ownership will certainly be seen as a trigger of effective control, a company could be deemed to have effective control at a much lower equity stake if the foreign investor is seen to be driving management decisions in areas such as strategy and HR.

NDRC coordinates inputs from multiple ministries and other government stakeholders, convening an Inter-Ministerial Joint Committee to make decisions. If they do not reach consensus, decisions are pushed up to the State Council as final decision maker. Businesses should expect high profile decisions to be driven by geopolitics not just economics.

Data Protection

Multi Level Protection Systems or MLPS 2.0 have been front of mind for chief information officers in China for much of 2019 as they prepared for the launch of new data protection standards. Large foreign companies seem more aware and better prepared for these changes that their Chinese peers. All businesses are required to self-assess the data they collect and their protection of this data. Anyone processing data above a certain level of sensitivity must report to their Public Security Bureau. All data breaches or attempted breaches must also be reported. Use of Chinese hardware and China based cloud services is strongly encouraged as part of protection protocols.

Government inspectors from the Public Security Bureau will have unrestricted access to data stored in and passing through corporate servers to ensure that companies have registered themselves and implemented protections appropriately. This oversight of compliance is not theoretical. In Jiangsu province alone, around eight cases per day have been processed and 140 enterprises have been deprived of their business licence over the last two years.

Blockchain

The government is determined not to fall as far behind in regulating emerging blockchain based industries as it did in the early years of the Internet. The strategy of just launching a business and begging forgiveness later will not be tolerated. Regulatory priorities are not to enable unfettered innovation, rather they are to ensure social stability and centralized control. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) recently announced that it had shut down over 170 crypto platforms in 2019. Specific priorities include:

—     Ensure Chinese leadership in AI and IoT – an echo of Made in China 2025 priorities.

—     Apply blockchain at scale in supply chain and quality control to dramatically reduce cost.

—     Enhance food and drug safety – a broad middle-class priority which the government has struggled with for years.

—     Accelerate the shift away from physical money, to reduce risk in the financial system and direct money to places that it wants it to go.

—     Avoid dependence on the US for any aspect of blockchain technologies.

President Xi’s recent speech on blockchain closed with two reminders. One to government officials to get on top of regulating this area, and one to innovators to focus their innovation on approved areas. In 2020, the most visible outcome of the speech will likely be local governments setting up funds to invest in local blockchain businesses.


ASML EUV China Chip Equip Risk

ASML EUV China Chip Equip Risk
by Robert Maire on 01-10-2020 at 10:00 am

ASML China EUV
  • Is ASML first clandestine shot in US war on China chips?
  • Will the action extend further to other chip equip cos?
  • China chip cold conflict warming up?

It would appear from a Reuters report yesterday that a behind the scenes “cold war” between the US and China in the chip business has just been exposed and has the potential to warm up a bit to include not just the Dutch company, ASML, but other US based companies.

Reuters has publicly confirmed what had been rumored in the industry that ASML was not going to export an EUV tool ordered by SMIC (of China) almost 2 years ago.

More importantly it is clear that the action is the result of direct US government pressure to deny the semiconductor equipment to China in the name of international security

One tool doesn’t matter but is this the tip of the iceberg?
One EUV scanner doesn’t really matter much in the larger scheme of the semiconductor industry. It hardly matters to ASML as there are more than enough takers for the tool if it doesn’t ship to China and in fact may have already been shipped out to another customer…so the near term impact on ASML is essentially near zero.

The question is the longer term impact.
Will US companies be next to be pressured to stop exporting leading edge equipment….will the pressure increase to AMAT, KLAC & LRCX?

What is the longer term impact for ASML? Will they never be allowed to ship and EUV tool to China?  China will likely become the largest single market for semiconductor equipment and for some companies it is already their biggest customer.

Going back to a cold war footing?
For many years US semiconductor equipment exports to China were highly limited to products at least two generations behind the leading edge and export licenses were tightly controlled.  While export license requirements still exist, their approval has been more of a rubber stamp over the last several years as trade with China has become a huge part of the industry.

All it would take would be an enforcement of existing rules to stem the flow of equipment thus cutting off the oxygen that China’s Chip industry desperately needs

We predicted this exact scenario of ASML, SMIC & China in May of 2018
We have been warning about the problems between the US and China in chips for several years now, well before anyone else woke up to the issue.

In fact we predicted that ASML’s EUV tool would become the pawn in the US/China chip conflict in a note we sent out in May of 2018.

We think it is worth your while to re-read this note we published in May 2018 as it describes the then current circumstances that we suggested would lead to the blockage of an EUV tool.

Please click the link below:

China Semiconductor Equipment China Sales at Risk

We laid out the exact scenario we have now experienced.  ASML is the perfect pawn as it is not a US company and not seen as a “direct” US action.  It also limits fallout in the US as no US company is directly impacted.

Now that the subterfuge has been exposed, whats next?
China was not likely naive enough to believe that the Dutch government acted on its own and likely was aware of the clandestine activities being waged against them.

This likely will impact current ongoing agreements and negotiations between China and the US and will not make things any easier.

China will likely “triple down” on efforts to develop internal independent chip manufacturing capability.

Since there is truly no alternative to the 100% lock that ASML has on the market, China will likely wage a huge pressure war on the Dutch to release the tool and allow further sales

Will the embargo spread?
While an EUV is clearly the linchpin and central tool of any advanced fab there are still a lot of other tools needed to enable to overall process.  Deposition, etch, metrology, inspection etc;.

The US government could very easily start to slow down or curtail export licenses, as it did in the past, and slowly starve the Chinese chip industry of the infrastructure it imports.  For all we know this could already be in the works.

Its difficult to tell the Dutch not to ship equipment to China while US companies are still sending boat loads of equipment there.

It would be only logical for the US to take a closer look at export licenses granted to US companies if only to share the pain with the Dutch and do our part of keeping China at bay.

Who’s exposed and “at risk” of a spreading embargo?
Likely at the top of our list is KLAC.  China represents not just KLAC” s biggest customer (taken together) but also the fastest growing region (others have been in longer term decline).  After lithography tools, metrology and inspection tools made by KLAC are the next most valuable as they help bring a process up to yield and figure out all the problems.  This is most essential to new start ups like the Chinese, who have a lot to learn about making chips.

Applied and Lam are also very exposed and Applied has been a pioneer in China and has a huge operation there.

Non US winners
Obviously non US companies, such as TEL, Hitachi, ASMI, NVMI, Semes and a host of others all benefit as the Chinese will avoid US equipment like the plague (If they hadn’t already learned this lesson at Jinhua’s now shuttered fab…).

The reality is that you can’t have a leading edge fab without a significant amount of US equipment and it will take China a very long time to copy/steal a lot of the technology.

The Stocks
While the immediate impact is minimal, we think the China risk has just gotten a lot larger that US companies may be forced into being part of an embargo.

We have already been of the view that the downside beta in the stocks was higher than the upside beta and this revelation has further added to the downside beta with a very high risk problem.

There is no clear short or long term solution and exposing the can of worms to the light just enflames the situation..

We may want to be more defensive and look at “consumable” chip related stocks or some select foreign stocks to try to hedge against US based equipment risk.

With memory’s recovery coming along slowly a problem in China would further complicate the early stages of an industry recovery that we are in.

We have to be very mindful of the fact that without China, the US equipment industry would be down significantly as compared to past performance so any China issues could cause negative results quickly.


CES 2020: Still no Flying Cars

CES 2020: Still no Flying Cars
by Bill Jewell on 01-10-2020 at 6:00 am

img 5e17c3a5e7140

CES 2020 is being held this week in Las Vegas with over 4,500 exhibiting companies and over 175,000 attendees. The show includes a broader industry than just electronics, which led to it being renamed CES (previously the Consumer Electronics Show) and the sponsoring organization changing its name from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) to the Consumer Technology Association (CTA). CES now includes software, content and other supporting technologies.

CTA projected the overall U.S. consumer technology market will hit $422 billion in 2020, up 4% from 2019. Smartphones continue to be the largest category at $77.8 billion and 166 million units. Laptop PCs are expected to amount to $33.3 billion and televisions $17.6 billion. These three large categories are growing relatively slowly, up 3% or less from 2019. In-vehicle technology is the fastest growing large category at $18.5 billion and 6% growth. In-vehicle technology is driven by increasing use of electronics for safety systems, driver assistance, navigation, communication and entertainment. Several emerging consumer electronics applications should show strong growth in 2020. Wireless earbuds are projected to grow 31%. Other strong growing categories are digital health devices at 16%, smart speakers (such as the Amazon Echo and Google Home) at 14%, and smart home devices at 4%.

The “internet of things” (IoT) term was coined several years ago to refer to the broad range of devices which rely on internet connectivity for communication and control. At CES this year, the CTA proposed IoT should now stand for “Intelligence of Things” as artificial intelligence (AI) is increasing being adopted in devices.

What will the new decade bring us? Will we finally get flying cars? Not likely, but we should see more self-driving cars on the road by the end of the decade. According to CTA, we should also see the beginnings of flying taxis, electric vertical take off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles, which can be summoned for a ride like Uber or Lyft. Bell (top) and Hyundai showed prototypes of these at CES.

Electric cars should become more commonplace in the 2020s. A CES session on electric vehicles predicted electric vehicles (EVs) will have cost parity with traditional cars by 2025. EVs should have average lifetimes of at least 12 years compared to about 8 years for traditional gasoline/diesel cars. Most EVs should have a range of 250 to 300 miles. Growing networks of charging stations will enable recharges in 20 to 60 minutes. Self-driving cars are still in the experimental stage, but by the end of the decade they should be more common on roads. Audi, Hyundai and Toyota were among the companies displaying prototype self-driving vehicles at CES. Toyota display an EV van (e-Palette) which would include robots (Micro Palette) to make the final delivery. Mercedes-Benz displayed its Vision AVTR concept self-driving car. Inspired by the movie Avatar, Mercedes described the vehicle as “holistic, immersive and intuitive”.




CES covers a large range of technology including artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, smart houses, smart cities, digital health, sports technology, travel & tourism, audio/video, virtual reality & gaming, drones, wireless and computing. A large area of CES was devoted to AI and robotics. Numerous robots were on display. Most were limited function robots such as vacuums, window washers, delivery platforms, information kiosks, and toys. There were robot dogs and cats which mimic pets without the feeding, waste disposal and vet bills. We have posted pictures of some of these robots on our website.

Many of the products shown at CES are innovative and potentially useful. Others are questionable as to whether they fill a real need. Some of the more innovative products include a system which uses IR (infrared) signals to power nearby sensors, eliminating the need to charge or replace batteries. An experimental system is aimed at powering remote sensors by harnessing cellular radio signals and other radio waves in the air. A platform for stroke recovery uses a dance type video game. Some of the questionable products include a suitcase which follows you and a diaper with sensors to detect waste (isn’t that what a nose is for?).

We at Semiconductor Intelligence attended the press conferences of Panasonic and Sony and the keynote address by Samsung president and CEO HS Kim.

Panasonic’s press conference promoted the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo where it supplies the displays and other technology at the Olympic Stadium. The conference included an appearance by Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, who will work with Panasonic along with other athletes. Panasonic supplies the displays used in Disney’s new Star Wars sections of its theme parks in Florida and California. Automotive is a major focus for Panasonic. It is the largest supplier of EV batteries and supplies information and entertainment systems. Panasonic is working with Tropos Motors, which makes EVs including small trucks for deliveries. Panasonic and the state of Utah are developing a transportation data network. Panasonic is the largest supplier of inflight entertainment systems and is developing a system to cancel out airplane engine noise without headphones. The press conference also mentioned Panasonic’s Lumix cameras, professional camcorders, and OLED TVs.

Sony’s press conference pushed its new 8K TVs and 360-degree reality TV. Sony will introduce its latest video game system toward the end of this year. The PlayStation 5 will feature 3D audio, ultra-high speed SSD and ultra HD Blu-ray. In sports, Sony will use 5G to transmit camera images without the need for cabling. The next megatrend, according to Sony, is mobility. They showed a prototype EV car which features Sony CMOS image sensors, a panoramic display, LIDAR, 33 sensors, and software updated wirelessly.

Samsung Consumer Electronics president and CEO Hyun-Suk Kim gave one of the keynote addresses. He emphasized a new “age of experience” where most people will value experiences over products. He demonstrated Ballie, a softball type robot which follows you and can control home functions through voice commands. Samsung showed several health-related products including a Galaxy watch which detects stress and offers stress relief suggestions. An exercise system uses motion capture to evaluate yoga poses and other exercises and suggest improvements. A cardiac rehab system provided home-based guidance using wearables and smartphone. The process is supervised by a remote therapist. Samsung supplies several smart home devices including robotic vacuums and smart refrigerators which can suggest menus and order food. Samsung demonstrated a gait enhancement and motivating system (GEMS) which uses a gadget around a person’s waist and legs along with VR glasses to analyze motion and provide coaching. The GEMS system can also be used in rehab. Samsung is targeting smart cities with energy sensors & controls and 5G telematics for transportation monitoring and control.

The future of consumer electronics is diverse. Vehicle technology and IoT (Internet of Things or Intelligence of Things) will be key drivers. Traditional drivers such as smartphones, televisions, laptop PCs and tablets are reaching saturation. However, smartphones will have a boost in the next couple of years due to 5G and televisions will see growth from 8K displays. Increasing use of AI in electronics should lead to practical self-driving vehicles and more functional robots by the end of this decade. But still no flying cars!

Also Read:

Semiconductor CapEx Warning

Electronics, COVID-19, and Ukraine

Semiconductor Growth Moderating


Mixel Makes Major Move on MIPI D-PHY v2.5

Mixel Makes Major Move on MIPI D-PHY v2.5
by Tom Simon on 01-09-2020 at 10:00 am

D PHY Arcitecure

The MIPI Alliance has been running hard since 2003 to stay on top of the changes in the mobile industry. MIPI now has 250 member companies and 12 active working groups, all focused on creating standards for connecting the building blocks in mobile systems. MIPI based interfaces are now used in cars, drones, IoT devices, and of course phones and tablets, among other things.

A lot has changed since 2003. Higher resolution cameras are common and increasing numbers of cameras are used in new systems. Frequently, leading-edge cars have 8 cameras and multiple displays. Also interface operating distance has increased. Often cameras and displays in cars are several meters away from application processors. Of course, power requirements are a constant factor for any mobile system.

The latest D-PHY v2.5 specification from MIPI was approved in October of 2019. It includes many new features that all address newer mobile system requirements. The Fast Bus Turnaround (BTA) feature lets systems use the same link for high speed data and also sending commands back in the reverse direction, reducing the number of wires needed.

Another important new feature is Alternate Low Power (ALP), which replaces the legacy Low Power signaling mode. It reduces power consumption on links up to 4 meters by lowering signaling voltage. The combination of BTA and ALP allows implementation of Unified Serial Link (USL) which is supported by MIPI CSI-2 v3.0, released in September of 2019. It offers an in-band control mechanism where there is no need for a separate set of wires and connections for a command line.

D PHY Arcitecure

Mixel has just announced its D-PHY v2.5 IP with these new features and is backwards compatible with the earlier v2.1, v1.2 and v1.1 versions. It offers 1 clock lane and 4 data lanes. With these lanes running at 4.5 Gbps, the aggregate for the PHY is 18 Gbps. It can be configured as a MIPI Master or MIPI Slave, supporting CSI-2 and DSI/DSI-2 applications. Their D-PHY can switch during normal operation between high power and low power operation, and the bidirectional lanes can switch direction. These mode and direction changes can be performed without glitching or data loss.

Mixel takes the approach of offering the digital Control and Interface Logic (CIL) as a soft IP view in the form of RTL and STA constraints. The mixed signal portion is provided as hard IP that includes GDS, CDL, LEF and LIB. This unique approach of a combination of hard and soft IP promises to offer design flexibility and easier implementation.

The Mixel D-PHY v2.5 offering is impressive because the spec approval was just in October. Mixel has a good track record of proven silicon, with previous MIPI PHY IP delivered successfully on 9 different nodes at 8 different foundries.

MIPI based systems are increasingly important because of the diversity of their applications. Having standards for connecting mobile processors and their peripherals improves performance and reduces costs for suppliers and consumers. To learn more about the new Mixel D-PHY v2.5 IP offering I suggest looking at the announcement on their website.

Also Read:

MIPI gaining traction in vehicle ADAS and ADS

A MIPI CSI-2/MIPI D-PHY Solution for AI Edge Devices

FD-SOI Offers Refreshing Performance and Flexibility for Mobile Applications


Innovation in Verification – January 2020

Innovation in Verification – January 2020
by Bernard Murphy on 01-09-2020 at 6:00 am

Innovation

I’m kicking off a blog series which should appeal to many of us in functional verification. Paul Cunningham (GM of the Verification Group at Cadence), Jim Hogan (angel investor and board member extraordinaire) and I (sometime blogger) like to noodle from time to time on papers and other verification articles which inspire us.

We want to support and appreciate innovation in this area so we’re taking our noodlings public. Please let us know what you think and please send any suggestions on papers or articles for us to discuss in future blogs. Ideas must be published in a peer-reviewed forum, generally available to all readers (or through subscription to IEEE or ACM).

The Innovation
We’ll start with “Optimizing Random Test Constraints Using Machine Learning Algorithms” by Stan Sokorac at Arm. This won a best paper award at DVCon a couple of years ago.

Verification depends heavily on generating pseudo random sequences. Beyond easy tests, we poke around semi-randomly, aiming for a lucky find here and there to push coverage higher. It’s intuitive to believe that machine learning could improve this, helping find bugs faster or find more bugs. So this paper is immediately eye-catching.

Stan first defines a new type of coverage to isolate rare states, based on toggle-pair states where two flops toggle close (in time) to each other. He reasons that such events should be an indicator to tests which could be tweaked to improve coverage. This metric is used in test selection in the following steps.

His first learning method uses a genetic algorithm to evolve the test mix between generations, mutating versions of previous generation tests with a bias to those that hit rare toggle-pair states. Mutation depends on random test constraints being parameterized through command-line options. Per pass, mutation tweaks these options and starts from a new random seed. Stan reports that this method alone significantly improves coverage, using less tests.

Another approach uses unsupervised learning together with the previous method, aiming to avoid biases in large designs in which mutation alone may drive convergence only in a subset of these areas.

Paul’s thoughts
I think of Stan’s “toggle pair” coverage as adding an extra dimension to traditional flop coverage – not unlike looking at branch coverage vs. line coverage in software programming. The more dimensionality there is to a coverage metric the richer it is, while the harder it is to cover the space.

The toggle pair metric highlights non-trivial bugs related to close (time) proximity events. That’s an important class, however it doesn’t cover events, also important, where cause and effect are separated by many clock cycles.

The ML method Stan uses is a combination of a genetic algorithm and k-means clustering. Stan suggests and I would like to see the work extended to leverage neural networks, especially since the “k” value for the number of clusters is not automated in this solution.

Another challenge for ML is what knobs/parameters to control. The Arm testbench has 150 command-line options controlling testbench behavior. Stan’s genetic algorithm mutates these knob settings to configure tests for high coverage in a small number of tests. Very cool, but would it work as well if the testbench didn’t have that many options?

I really enjoyed reading this paper and the results are very compelling, given that Stan is running on production testbenches used to verify production CPUs at Arm. His ML optimized regression doubles the number of failing tests (increasing bugs found) in 10X less simulation cycles than the standard flow.

Jim’s thoughts
I’m looking at this as an investor.  Is there enough market demand to draw seed funding or even full-round funding to an early-stage company, or to prompt a strategic investor to buy that company once the value proposition is reasonably proven? The verification problem is definitely growing more complex and the market is growing at double digits. So that’s a good start.

I remember a company I worked with many years ago, which triggers some questions for me. They had a great technology, but it wasn’t really a product. You could imagine seed funding followed by a quick acquisition, but it wouldn’t get to a full round. I see the same thing here.

A second caution (same example) was the level of expertise required to use the tech. In that case it was advanced DFT and formal proving (still expert-only in those days). This restricted usage to PhD types. Might this have similar problems, for example in biases in AI training?

My third caution would be market timing. Introducing a great solution at the wrong time is just as bad as having a terrible solution. Is this solution going to depend on another technology to be introduced or mature (perhaps PSS)? Will it take off only when happens? If so, better to continue to evolve the solution in-house until timing is better.

My Thoughts
Paul talked about dependency on mutating command line options. Contrast this with diddling with constraint parameters where noise can be higher than signal in trying to extract trends for coverage. Command-line options shed a lot of that noise because there should be more design intent implicit in the options, at least for this example.

I think Stan is scratching at the surface of something important here – maybe there’s a more systematic yet still high-level control point for ML plus randomization. PSS is one platform on which this might evolve. Would be interesting to see application at that level.

To see the next paper, click HERE.


Saving Time in Physical Verification by Reusing Metadata

Saving Time in Physical Verification by Reusing Metadata
by Daniel Payne on 01-08-2020 at 10:00 am

voltage propagation cross reference data min

Physical verification is an important and necessary step in the process to tapeout an IC design, and the foundries define sign-off qualification steps for:

  • Physical validation
  • Circuit validation
  • Reliability verification

This sounds quite reasonable until you actually go through the steps only to discover that some of the same metadata is being generated multiple times, even when there’s no change to input files, so this is just duplicating efforts without any benefits.

Let’s talk about two examples. Changing interconnect layout in the back-end doesn’t effect front-end schematics, but a verification flow would generate and verify schematic information during each run. An ECO for  Back End Of Line (BEOL) would still start jobs on the Front End Of Line (FEOL) layers for extraction and validation, although the FEOL layers haven’t changed.

One smart solution to this dilemma comes from Mentor  in their Calibre PERC tool, as they have figured out a method for IC designers to only generate design metadata one time, not multiple times. Four areas that can now use one-time metadata generation include:

  • Voltage Aware Design Rule Checking (VA-DRC)
  • Point to Point (P2P) Verification
  • Current Density (CD) Verification
  • Failure Analysis (FA) and design profiling

Reliability Verification Flows

VA-DRC can have a rule for adjacent metal spacing that depends on the voltage levels, and the Calibre PERC tool knows how to propagate voltages from the top layout ports then check the rules based on nets of interest. During subsequent design rechecking the tool knows how to re-use the initial voltage propagation and netlist cross-referencing information. Here’s a diagram of how this rechecking happens:

Reuse of voltage propagation and cross-referencing

In theory this sounds useful, but what about in practice? Here’s a table to show how a standard VA-DRC flow can be improved by 2-8X during reruns, depending on how much reuse there is:

Calibre PERC Flows after initial Verification Run

DFM and Failure Analysis Flows

In these flows we have metadata generated from many design profile sources:

  • Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images
  • Lithographic and Optical Process Correction (OPC) hotspots
  • Test hotspots
  • DRM yield detractors

By saving metadata elements for reuse the TAT is reduced, and it aids in debugging, pre-silicon and post-silicon analysis.

Metadata used in DFM and Failure Analysis

Another way to reduce TAT in a DFM analysis flow is to use a centralized, reference pattern library, so that you can identify any new, existing and common information with any new layout as shown below:

Comparing Layout Patterns

Libraries are built for reference, common and new patterns, then hotspots found in the new layout can be overlaid with the reference to quicker debugging and Root Cause Deconvolution (RCD):

DFM and FA hotspot analysis

Summary

I just love the familiar adage, “Work smarter, not harder.” That’s exactly what the engineering team at Mentor has accomplished using Calibre PERC to reuse metadata during sign-off validation steps, speeding up the time by not generating duplicate metadata. Other benefits include reducing CPU loading, all while keeping the same accuracy of results. Engineers will experience improvements in debugging, DFM optimization and FA by reusing metadata.

Read the complete 6 page white paper here, Increase Productivity by Reusing Metadata for Signoff & ECOs.

Related Blogs


IEDM 2019 – IBM and Leti

IEDM 2019 – IBM and Leti
by Scotten Jones on 01-08-2020 at 6:00 am

Slide3

IBM and Leti each presented several papers at IEDM including a joint nanosheet paper. I had the opportunity to sit down with Huiming Bu, director of advanced logic & memory tech and Veeraraghavan Basker, senior engineer from IBM and then in a separate interview Francois Andrieu, head of advanced CMOS laboratory and Shay Reboh, Process & integration engineer, of Leti to discuss their work.

IBM interview

IBM has a development line in in Albany at the CNSE center where they developed the 5nm technology they have now transferred to Samsung and they are now doing 3/2nm work. Tool reuse versus 5nm is high although there is a change in device architecture that requires some unique tools. When they start work on a new device, they use test structures to evaluate the device and materials before doing a shrink. If you use node-1 to develop materials and devices, then the shrink becomes an engineering problem.

One IBM paper was “Multiple-Vt Solutions in Nanosheet Technology for High Performance and Low Power Applications”. One key challenge for horizontal stacked nanosheets is how to achieve multiple threshold voltages (Vts). With FinFETs the current approach is to use stacks of various work function metals but in horizontal nanosheets the sheet to sheet spacing needs to be as small as possible to minimize capacitance and maximize performance.

IBM has a long history of using dipoles to tune Vts. When high-k metal gates (HKMG) were first introduced IBM, used a gate-first approach including the use of dipoles. The rest of the industry went with gate-last and that has become the dominant HKMG approach, but IBM’s early experience with dipoles provide them with experience that is proving useful for nanowires. Replacing a stack of work function metals with dipoles enables multiple Vts in nanosheets and removes a key roadblock to nanosheet adoption.

Another challenge for horizontal stacked nanosheets is the need to first recess the SiGe layers without etching silicon and later to etch out the SiGe layers to release the Si layers, once again without etching silicon. In “A Novel Dry Selective Etch of SiGe for the Enablement of High Performance Logic Stacked Gate-All-Around NanoSheet Devices” IBM discussed work they have done with Tokyo Electron to use a gas phase isotropic etch (authors note, I believe this is TEL’s Certas Wing tool). They were able to achieve 150:1 selectivity for SiGe(25%) versus Si.

In a third paper we discussed, “Full Bottom Dielectric Isolation to Enable Stacked Nanosheet Transistor for Low Power and High Performance Applications” IBM disclosed a process whereby they create a dielectric under the stacked horizontal nanosheet stack reducing parasitic capacitance and improving performance. The dielectric is silicon nitride based but they wouldn’t disclose how it was formed. The initial nanosheet stack is grown right on silicon to provide crystalline epitaxial growth so somehow, they are etching out underneath the stack and refilling.

They also discussed that at a high level nanosheet offer >25% performance improvement at constant power or a 50% power reduction at the same performance versus a 7nm FinFET. 6, 5, 4nm FinFETs will not be as good as a nanosheet. Nanosheets also offer the ability to lithographically define the width creating nanowires for the best electrostatic and nanosheets for higher drive current on the same process. Around 2012 IBM created the name nanosheet and in 2015 with GLOBALFOUNDRIES and Samsung published a 5nm nanosheet paper. Authors note, Samsung has announced a 3nm nanosheet process due in 2021 based on the joint work.

First generation nanosheets will be silicon. I asked about alternate materials for future nanosheets and they said unless there is a breakthrough in the back-end-of-line (BEOL) or parasitics, alternate materials won’t be worth the complexity. You can align the silicon orientation for nanosheets for higher mobility. Going beyond nanosheets to CFETs (basically stacked nanosheets where n and p type devices are stacked) you can orient nFETs to 100 and pFETs to 110 to maximize mobility for both. I asked them if this is what comes after nanosheets and they said they couldn’t comment.

Leti interview

In my Leti interview we discussed the joint paper they did with IBM, “Imaging, Modeling and Engineering of Strain in Gate-All-Around Nanosheet Transistors”.  In this work, once again focused on nanosheets/nanowires they used Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) imaging to image the lattice constants and measure strain. This technique allows strain to be visualized on an atomic scale.

Figure 1 illustrates the initial modeling they did of the structure that made them expect it be stressed slightly tensile.

Figure 1. Nanosheet strain modeling, image provided by Leti.

What they found when they imaged the channel was the integrated flow compressively stressed the channels from the Inter-Level-Dielectric (ILD) layers as opposed to the tensile stress they expected from modeling. You can modulate the stress from the gate stack and contacts, Leti has a lot of expertise at managing stress and with this technique they can calibrate their models. Figure 2 illustrates the results.

Figure 2. TEM image of channel strain, image provide by Leti.

The stress measurement technique used here was developed at Leti and uses a whole series of specialty techniques to make it more precise and sensitive. They also found that when you deposit an amorphous dummy gate and then recrystallize it to polysilicon, the volume reduction creates pockets and tensile strain.

Summary

The work presented at IEDM by IBM and Leti on nanosheets continues to move the technology toward volume manufacturing with improved etching, dipole-based Vt control, reduced parasitic capacitance by introducing dielectric layers under the stack, and improved understanding of stress in the nanosheet stack. Stress impacts mobility and therefore device performance and is a key parameter to optimize.