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

GDS II Online for TSMC

GDS II Online for TSMC
by Paul McLellan on 06-12-2014 at 4:00 pm

I just watched an interesting video of a demonstration at DAC of the eSilicon GDS II online quote for TSMC. Actually, it wasn’t so much as a demonstration as an interactive use of the quote tool using data supplied by a member of the audience.

The quote system works for TSMC processes from 28nm up to 350nm. The design the audience member wants quoted is a transceiver in TSMC’s 180nm process, mixed signal variant, with 6 layers of metal. The die size and package are specified (although for some reason that part of the video has been edited out).


A press of a button and the quote is created. It is very detailed.

  • package design $14,270
  • manufacturing services (test harness, probecards etc) $155,817
  • ESD qualification $9.500
  • test development $50,200
  • then there are lots of optional services that are priced such as burn-in, process corner analysis
  • lot buy pricing for 25,12 and 6 wafer lots at $73,866, $38,571 and $19,286 respectively, expected to yield 86,662 die, 41,598 die and 20,799 die
  • respin pricing (for a metal only change using some wafers held back at contact)

Finally the die price which is $2.35 assuming 90% wafer-sort yield (if the yield is 95% then $2.29 and at 85% $2.43).


The entire quote takes a little less than 10 minutes. And it is a quote not an estimate. Provided you don’t change anything (like the die size) then eSilicon stands behind the quote and will deliver all the services at the prices in the quote. Of course under the hood they have a TSMC price model built into the system, but that is transparent to you the customer. eSilicon takes care of all the negotiation with TSMC, the logistics of manufacturing, packaging, test, delivery and the various optional services, if any, that you have requested. Until recently, pricing a design was something that took a couple of weeks, and was anything but transparent. Now eSilicon, with the help of TSMC of course, have made something that used to take several weeks be just a few minutes.

Of course if something does change, for instance the die comes in larger or smaller than forecast when the quote was first done, then it only takes 10 minutes to generate a new quote and eSilicon will stand behind those revised prices. It is a big change from how I remember we used to do quotes when I was in the ASIC business in the 1980s.

Unfortunately eSilicon don’t have all the permissions they need to post the video so I can’t give you a link to it. I guess you just had to be there.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


IP Accelerated (Bye Bye EDA 360)

IP Accelerated (Bye Bye EDA 360)
by Eric Esteve on 06-12-2014 at 9:53 am

Synopsys has been extremely active, during the last 10 years, not only launching new IP products every year, but also running an ambitious acquisition strategy, with no less than 8 acquisitions. Cascade acquisition bring PCI Express (controller only), when Accelerant bring SerDes (the earth of any PHY IP). The MIPS/Chipidea acquisition, made opportunistically during the 2009 depression, has allowed Synopsys to add Analog IP (ADC, DAC, Codec…) to the port-folio, as well as a large analog-skilled team. The 18X more expensive acquisition of Virage Logic has been a way to manage the foundation IP (Libraries, Memory compilers), as well as some interface IP (MIPI PHY). The large amount of this last deal ($315 million) explains why the next two acquisitions, the 10G PHY technology from MoSys and Inventure (Japanese IP vendor) have been less “impressive”, but useful to complete a geographical coverage (Inventure) and PHY IP extension to 10 Gbps. Finally, with Target acquisition at the beginning of 2014, Synopsys has completed the IP port-folio with a dataplane, application specific, core IP vendor (think about Tensilica).

What a large port-folio, isn’t it? But Synopsys IP customers expect more…

Customer first care-about is definitely Time-To-Market (TTM), and we know that the weight of S/W development, both in team proportion (60 to 70% of the total) and delay length make it the first area of improvement. BTW, we assume that (H/W) IP quality is no more an issue in today’s IP market: if a vendor launch a piece of IP, it has to be top quality!

Synopsys brainstorming has resulted in “IP accelerated” initiative. If you think that IP Accelerated is another buzz word, you should take a look at the picture below:

Starting from the top, the broad IP portfolio box represent the several dozens of digital, PHY and mixed-signal IP that you can find on Synopsys web site for years. The left sided box, IP Prototyping Kits, illustrate Synopsys willingness to propose a complete H/W kit, immediately available for the designers. The Kit includes a reference design on HAPS-DX running Linux OS that you can easily modify, creating a fast iteration flow to explore various options. Every Prototyping Kit (USB, PCI Express, SATA…) will include a specific daughter board, populated with the relevant PHY IP (USB, PCIe, etc.), allowing exploring configuration with real-world I/O.

That looks easy on the paper, but I can tell you that it’s absolutely not straightforward to accomplish it in the real world! I am speaking based on my personal experience, trying to convince PHY IP partners (when you only sell the Controller IP), or even your management to make this type of investment when you sell the complete solution! As a customer, the benefit is immediate, as you can exercise the IP live, instead of only by simulation. As an IP vendor, the benefit is even greater, as you can literally “put on the table” and demonstrate the product you are selling.

IP Accelerated address another important care-about, at architecture level. At the early stage of SoC design, or even at integration stages, the SoC architect may need to explore various options. If we speak about a PCI Express core, it can be the payload size, the virtual channel number, the specification has been defined by very creative engineers, allowing many variations. Synopsys guarantee that the customer can change the PCIe core configuration in-house, using coreConsultant, then modify the reference design and fast compile the modified IP in ProtoCompiler DX.

Just a remark: IP vendors are usually reluctant to allow such flexibility. The reason is simply linked to Verification. Indeed, any possible configuration should have been previously checked by the vendor, using VIP. Synopsys claim to rely on 20,000 CPU just for running regression tests, and this certainly help accepting customer need for defining in-house their own configuration.

As you can see on the above picture, when Synopsys close an IP deal, the customer receives an “All In One” box. What about the S/W team? The S/W development team will benefit from SDK with proven physical targets, Linux software stack and reference drivers, allowing debug, test and analysis, as this SDK plug into existing tool chain, like GNU, ARM DS-5 or MetaWare. Moreover (Synopsys is also an EDA vendor!) the S/W developer could start working almost immediately on the SoC project, thanks to the availability of virtual prototypes. This is a perfect example of Concurrent Engineering context, where the S/W and H/W teams can start working exactly at the same time. Remember that TTM is the number one issue that this initiative is expected to address!

On the above picture, Synopsys explains that, in order to decrease the integration cost at the customer level, the company had to invest and take a share of this integration cost. In other words, Synopsys is not only selling an IP, generating license cost, but a complete package, integrating development board, reference design, virtual prototype, IP configuration tool, reference software stack and drivers. Thus, the customer is expected to pay more than simply the IP license cost, as the SoC development team will benefit from a faster integration cycle and the chip maker a better TTM…

If you remember the early days of Semiwiki, when DAN, Paul, Daniel and I were blogging for a lot less readers, Cadence had already identified this TTM issue, and launched “EDA 360” initiative. A couple of months later, DAN wrote a blog titled “EDA 360 is Paper”, and this blog was synthesizing the industry feeling. Cadence analysis of the SoC development challenge was good, but the proposed solution was not at the level of the industry expectation. It’s now three years later and Synopsys is still addressing the same issue. But the difference is that the company has packaged a set of existing tools, hardware and concepts and there is no reason why “IP Accelerated” should not be accepted… except a pricing issue (but I don’t know how IP Accelerated will be priced)!

From Eric Esteve from IPNEST

More Articles by Eric Esteve…..

lang: en_US


ATopTech’s Legal Woes Continue!

ATopTech’s Legal Woes Continue!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-11-2014 at 8:00 pm

It was a bad sign when an EDA company solicited John Cooley’s help in their legal challenge: See Did Atoptech Just Astroturf Synopsys? Gabe Moretti also did an article: John Cooley Barrister Chastises Synopsys | Gabe on EDA. An even worse sign is when your legal team gets disqualified, especially when that legal team is the top EDA litigator. I read about the DQ ruling and confirmed it with ATopTech CEO Jue-Hsien Chern at #51DAC. Barrister John Cooley must have missed this one?

The case is Synopsys Inc. v. ATopTech Inc., case number 3:13-cv-02965, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the latest ruling the Judge said she does not favor a counsel change partway through the case but under the circumstances she feels the law would require it.

The ATopTech legal team was O’Melveny & Meyers (OMM). They represented Prolific in Prolific v. Magma way back when I was Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Prolific. Since I am intimately familiar with the case I’m probably still barred from revealing details but what I can tell you is that no way would I want to be on the wrong side of the table with Darin Snyder and his OMM team. They won a nice settlement for Prolific in that case and went on to represent Magma for more than a decade including the infamous Synopsys v. Magma patent case.

As you may remember, Synopsys and Magma engaged in an epic patent battle that ended with MILLIONS of dollars of legal fees and a cross-licensing deal requiring Magma to pay Synopsys $12.5 million in 2007. In my opinion this is what killed Magma and facilitated the Synopsys acquisition/assimilation. The ironic part of this one is that it all started with a snippy legal letter from Magma to Synopsys. The OMM legal team is being DQ’d as a result of this case, having intimate knowledge of Synopsys/Magma. The question I have is why was this not flagged by ATopTech earlier in the legal process?

Avant! suffered a similar fate at the hands of Cadence and yes I worked for Avant! so I have that legal battle scar as well. In fact, it was the Avant! experience that pushed me into business law for my post graduate work, more to AVOID legal problems than to solve them. Seriously, litigation sucks the life out of you, absolutely. Ironically or not ATopTech CEO Jue-Hsien Chern also worked for Avant! so he knows this by experience.

OMM also represented Berkeley Design Automation in the Cadence v. BDA suit that was settled right before the Mentor acquisition. I was on retainer to BDA during that time so I must recuse myself from further comment. What I can say is included in this blog: Mentor Acquires BDA!

The common thread in all of the EDA legal challenges in my view is the money spent. Millions and millions of dollars wasted. If you count everyone’s time it would be hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been spent on research and development and other things for the greater good of the fabless semiconductor ecosystem.

I have no idea how much longer ATopTech can last under this pressure but my guess is that an “acquisition” is coming. I do feel that if this case was an easy one Darin would have settled it like he did with BDA, just my opinion of course.


MEMS Update from DAC

MEMS Update from DAC
by Daniel Payne on 06-11-2014 at 11:32 am

DAC has an interesting mix of vendors each year, and some of them are outside of the expected digital, analog or IP space. Last Tuesday at DAC I visited a company called Coventor that has three product lines:

  • MEMS+ – MEMS design and analysis tools
  • CoventorWare – Modeling and simulation for MEMS devices
  • SEMulator 3D– a 3D semiconductor and MEMS process modeling tool

Continue reading “MEMS Update from DAC”


Softly Defined Networks

Softly Defined Networks
by Paul McLellan on 06-11-2014 at 4:26 am

Software defined networks were a technique developed around 6 years ago. The original structure of IP based network scaled by using additional routers that would forward packets based on partial information about the network topology. Inside each router was a dataplane, where the packets themselves flowed through, and a control plane that analyzed the packet headers and made decisions about how to handle each packet. For performance reasons, in all except the lowest-powered routers, these had a large hardware component. In particular, the dataplane was always implemented in hardware, often very complex hardware. However, with the growth of mobile and of virtualization inside data-centers, the need grew to add a new layer to handle the dynamically changing topology as servers and mobile devices came and went, and people wanted better support for technologies such as VPNs. A new standard, openFlow, was defined that made it easy to implement this new layer on top of the traditional IP foundation.

Software Defined Networks (SDN) allowed the control to be distributed in a different manner from the dataplane hardware so that switches and routers could forward packets and network administrators could have central control of the network through a controller without requiring access to the networks physical switches.

Now that Xilinx programmable devices are more like SoCs than traditional FPGAs, they have started to provide full implementations of important functionality. You probably know that networking is Xilinx’s biggest market so this is obviously one area that they have taken an interest in. They call it the softly defined network which they abbreviate to SDNet.


Unlike in a traditional SDN where the dataplane is fixed hardware, the softly defined network uses the programmable fabric to provide wirespeed data-transfer that is completely protocol agnostic. The control plane has all the network intelligence and provides virtual network services, network flexibility and integrated management. The dataplane is now programmable so can be updated on the fly to keep it protocol complexity agnostic.

This gives network operators a lot of flexibility to better manage the economics of the network. Carriers can dynamically provision unique, differentiated services without any interruption to the existing service or the need for hardware re-qualification or truck roll. This provides service providers higher revenue potential with unprecedented CapEx, OpEx, and time to market savings.

  • Improved, highly flexible Quality of Service (QoS)
  • Flow and session aware capabilities
  • Fully programmable hardware data plane and I/O
  • Support for network function virtualization (NFV) at wire speed including user defined, custom capabilities
  • Scalable line rates from 1G to 400G


The diagram above shows how system architects can unleash the benefits of All Programmable technologies to realize smarter, softly defined networks without requiring a detailed knowledge of the underlying All Programmable device architecture. This implementation flow also allows system architects to focus only on the services they are looking to provision, without having to focus on exactly how those services are being implemented.

More details, including a video introduction, on the Xilinx website here.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


CEVA Webinar: DSP solution for mobile and wearable devices

CEVA Webinar: DSP solution for mobile and wearable devices
by Eric Esteve on 06-10-2014 at 11:10 am

CEVA is well known as DSP IP core provider for Wireless Application Processor, but the Teak-Lite IP family is also very successful for Audio application, with more than 3 billion Audio IC shipped to date. CEVA is proposing a webinar addressing two of the most important IoT needs, a DSP based Audio implementation and CEVA-Bluetooth solution. If you take a look at this “IoT value chain” picture, you realize that the ideal solution should support Audio/Voice, Always-on UI, Sensing and Connectivity (BlueTooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbee or Weightless).

CEVA is addressing the main design consideration for wearable devices, listing power consumption, form factor and cost as the key factor to be optimized, far from the wireless application processor requirements. During this webinar, CEVA will share the company vision of the implementation constraints and of the features set considerations (User Interface, Connectivity, Sensor Fusion, Contextual Awareness…) when dealing with wearable devices. All of the above push for using a powerful but ultra low-power, single-core DSP solution.

The latest generation CEVA-TeakLite architectures is backward assembly compatible to all TeakLite, and TeakLite-4 is a scalable architecture consisting of 4 DSP (see picture). This is a true 32-bit DSP with RISC attributes:

  • Single/dual 32 x 32 bit MAC units
  • Dual/quad 16 x 16 bit multipliers
  • 16/32/64/72-bit DSP arithmetic
  • 32-bit register bank
  • 64/128-bit data memory bandwidth
  • 4 GB address space

Dedicated ISA offers:

  • Audio/voice processing
  • Viterbi/FFT acceleration

The title of the webinar is “DSP solution for always-on audio/voice/sensing and connectivity in mobile and wearable devices” and you can attend remotely here. The connectivity part of the webinar is going deeply into the various BlueTooth specifications: BT Classic, BT single mode (also known as “BlueTooth Smart) and BT dual mode (“Bluetooth Smart Ready”), the last two being also labeled “BlueTooth Low Energy” (BLE). CEVA is involved into BlueTooth since 2000, enjoying more 25 licensees and claiming to be the BlueTooth IP vendor leader in both China and Taiwan.

If you want to know more about the wearable market, CEVA DSP ultra-low power solution and Bluetooth connectivity solution, you will benefit from such an in-depth webinar.

Eric Esteve from IPNEST –

More Articles by Eric Esteve…..



Atmel SMART

Atmel SMART
by Paul McLellan on 06-09-2014 at 6:00 pm

I talked last week about the internet of things (IoT) panel I attended at DAC. One thing that is clear is that IoT is not really a market on its own, but nonetheless the fact that billions of edge-node devices are going to be connected to the internet is a real trend. One company that takes IoT very seriously is Atmel, since they have an enormous range of microcontrollers (currently over 500 different models) both based on their proprietary AVR architecture and a range of ARM-based controllers. A lot of the IoT market is not going to be big integrated SoCs but rather small boards put together with a microcontroller, communications, some sensors and a lot of software.

Today Atmel launched SMART which is a new brand of ARM-based microcontrollers along with SmartConnect SAM W23 modules enabling WiFi connectivity combining the best of high performance and low power technology for IoT applications. Plus, of course, the software stacks required to make it all work.

These are flash-based microcontrollers based on the ARM Cortex M0+, M3 and M4 with memory ranging from 8KB to 2MB of flash including a rich peripheral and feature mix. There are also ARM Cortex A5 devices without on-chip flash memory.


As part of the Atmel | SMART product offering, the SAM W23 module offers the ideal solution for designers seeking to integrate Wi-Fi connectivity even with limited experience with IEEE802.11, RTOS, IP Stack or RF. These modules are based on Atmel’s industry leading ultra-low-power Wi-Fi SoC combined with Atmel’s ARM Cortex M0+ based microcontroller technology. This turnkey system provides an integrated software solution with application and security protocols such as TLS, integrated network services (TCP/IP stack) and a standard Real Time Operating System (RTOS) which are all available through a simple serial host interface (SPI, UART) within Atmel Studio 6’s integrated development platform (IDP). This makes it easy for designers to add internet connectivity to any system, so enabling it to participate in the nascent IoT market.


Atmel ARM-based MPUs range from entry-level devices to advance highly integrated devices with extensive connectivity, refined interfaces and ironclad security. Atmel provides a full range of hardware and software tools for ARM-based MPUs to make the design process easier and reduce time to market. Atmel also works with a worldwide network of partners to deliver additional hardware and software solutions for these devices.

To find Atmel microcontrollers you can use the microcontroller selector page here. This allows you to put in the choices you want and it will home in the the microcontrollers that meet your requirements.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


Mobile: China Rising

Mobile: China Rising
by Paul McLellan on 06-09-2014 at 3:00 pm

The mobile numbers for Q1 are now published. At #1 as always is Samsung, who shipped 86M phones for 30% market share. At #2, with almost half as much volume, is Apple who shipped 44M phones. Round here in silicon valley pretty much everyone has either a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone so you don’t get any sense of who the other major players are, because the action is mostly in China. Just as a datapoint, China Mobile has over 750M subscribers. Yes, twice the size of the entire US population.

Number 3 is Huawei with 18M units giving them 6% market share. Of course Huawei also purchased (apparently) Broadcom’s baseband business as Broadcom joined TI, ST, Freescale and others and got out of mobile. Qualcomm, Mediatek and Marvell are the key remaining players (and struggling to get a foothold, Intel).

The top 10 is rounded out with Lenovo (China), LG (Korea), ZTE (China), Coolpad (China), Xiaomi (China), Sony (Japan) and Nokia/Microsoft (Finland).


The fall of Nokia is something that business schools will be studying for years I’m sure. It is not that long ago that Nokia had 30% market share and shipped over 1M phones every day. In first quarter they shipped just 7M smartphones. Of course they are now part of Microsoft, and with a new CEO who has his eye firmly on mobile, it will be interesting to see if they manage to claw their way back. This is a business where relationships with the operators are the key, since they decide which phones get sold and which do not. Obviously if a company like China Mobile decides to push a brand hard, it makes a huge difference.

For semiconductor, mobile is really important. Baseband chips and modems make up a lot of the volume especially at the most advanced process nodes. Qualcomm is shipping 20nm silicon out of TSMC and will be the first volume for 16nm when it is available (along with Xilinx but they don’t need that many wafers, especially early in the process life-cycle). Of course Samsung manufactures most of its own silicon (maybe all, I’m not sure). Apple designs its own application processors (those Ax chips) but uses Qualcomm for modems. That covers roughly 50% of the market which is why other companies struggle since the rest of the market is fragmented and Samsung and Apple make a huge percentage of the profits of the mobile industry. In the middle of last year it was over 100%, meaning the rest of the suppliers in aggregate lost money.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


An Update on Calibre at DAC

An Update on Calibre at DAC
by Daniel Payne on 06-09-2014 at 12:00 pm

Even though I live just 7 miles away from the Mentor Graphics corporate office in Oregon, I visited their DAC suite in San Francisco last week to get an update on Calibrefrom Michael White. The Calibre tools are used during IC verification and sign-off by performing DRC (Design Rule Checking) and LVS (Layout Versus Schematic).

Continue reading “An Update on Calibre at DAC”


A Re-look at TI’s Businesses, Strategies & Future

A Re-look at TI’s Businesses, Strategies & Future
by Pawan Fangaria on 06-09-2014 at 8:00 am

In recent days I’ve seen several long discussions about Texas Instrumentslosing its grip in semiconductor industry when it came out of a business it was strong in, i.e. wireless business. It seems the semiconductor community has not digested the fact that TI, very rightly, came out of the OMAP business at the right time. The smartphone business is maturing and is characterized by short life cycle, thinning profit margin and rising competition. True, in last decade it was a very lucrative business and TI skimmed good revenue out of it. In fact, TI had initiated Nokia in using TI’s DSP chip as the core of cellphone and becoming the champion of cellphone technology. However, as always, TI doesn’t like to fall into what we call ‘innovator’s dilemma’ as Nokia did. TI came out of the smartphone business when it sensed this market going into maturation stage with little profitable incentives. I wouldn’t argue on the fact that the same business may fit very well into some other competitors’ scheme of things. Also I will not be surprised if TI finds another start-up or any little known company which can take any of TI’s ideas in analog and embedded space, a different use of DSP (and MEMS) in the scheme of IoT and make it the next big thing. TI is good at finding such companies which can drive TI’s business and make it a win-win for both.

The good thing I like about TI is that it’s not stuck with one business; it regularly reviews its businesses and strategies around those and churns them to its benefit. That’s the reason we see major changes in TI’s offerings in every 5 to 10 years. Here is how we can sum up the evolution of TI’s businesses since its invention of silicon transistor and IC (I’m not going into oil & gas business prior to that) –

1960s – Portable radios, calculators, IC manufacturing
1970s – Microprocessors and Microprocessor controlled devices, Digital watches
Early 1980s – Home computers, Printers
Late 1980s – Custom microprocessors, DSP cores
1990s – Multimedia video processors, DSP, Analog chips
2000s – Wireless phone chips, OMAP, Embedded Processing, MEMS, DLP
2010s – Strengthening core businesses in Analog and Embedded, MEMS and DLP

During this long tenure, obviously there were many ups and downs, often the wrong strategies or ‘juice drying up’ was sensed sooner than later and right level of changes were done in time. In order to not fall out, it’s necessary to constantly look for and focus on financially viable businesses with good operating profit margins. Of course, SCBA (Social Cost Benefit Analysis) is another aspect, but that should be applicable up to a certain extent and not confused with the actual financial viability.

Talking about commodities, if we look at the list of offerings since 1960s, there are quite a lot looking like commodities, but each of them was innovative at its first instance and provided lucrative business at one point of time, exceptions apart. I find it absolutely fine to have multiple types of eggs in the same basket (in other words a conglomerate with diversified risks under the same umbrella), but each of those eggs with a positive NPV. Any negative NPV egg has to be taken out and put to a different use before it gets completely rotten, it may spoil other eggs.

An important point to observe here is about the core competencies of TI in analog and embedded processing along with its base in IC and MEMS manufacturing. These are the spaces where TI is focusing in today’s economic environment with tough competition and falling profit margins. It has set its vision on high profitability and longer life cycle segments such as automotive, industrial, medical, home, office, avionics etc. with a winning strategy in the ‘internet-of-everything’ revolution in near future. The DSP technology is a game of programming, the use of DSP in a cellphone or an audio system or an industrial control unit depends on how it is programmed. TI has an edge to produce DSPs for variety of applications.

In 2013, TI drew its ~80% (79% to be precise) revenue from analog and embedded market. In analog, it is leading with ~17% market share out of ~$40B market and in embedded ~14% market share out of ~$17B market. The market is fragmented, but is large with good growth potential and cushion for long term profitability. TI is investing and strengthening in these areas and who knows it may strike gold.

In the analog space, TI leads in voltage regulators and power management solution. It offers power-efficient LED lighting and other high performance and high volume analog solutions. In the embedded market, TI leads in DSPs along with specialized microcontroller solution that integrates analog components and sensors together.

Considering a tremendous growth opportunity in IoT market and its requirement for low power microcontrollers, TI is expanding its embedded product portfolio; recently it added Hercules[SUP]TM[/SUP]MCU RM57Lx and TMS570LCx into its microcontroller offering that are with 32-bit dual-core processors which provide ~50% increased performance over previous MCUs. They also provide largest on-chip memory and several other safety features for industrial, automotive, avionics and medical applications. TI’s revenue growth in embedded processing seems to be increasing rapidly – ~8.5% y-o-y in 2013 and ~17% q-o-q in Q1 of 2014!

Fingers crossed; let’s see which turn TI takes to reap the benefits from automotive, industrial, medical, transportation, home and other applications in the backdrop of IoT. Comments are welcome!

More Articles by Pawan Fangaria…..

lang: en_US