Posts Tagged ‘Lee PR’
Monday, February 7th, 2011
Liz and I attended a panel at DesignCon that asked the question: what are you doing about the chip killers that delay your tapeout? That’s an intriguing, possibly unanswerable thought, since we’ve asked that question virtually since EDA’s inception. Ed Sperling of Systems-Level Design moderated the panel which had on it: Sunil Malkani of Broadcom, Ravi Damaraju of Juniper, Ramon Macias of NetLogic, John Busco of NVIDIA and Bernard Murphy of Atrenta.
Sperling moderated a lively discussion; questions that he or the panelists or audience posed highlighted the ongoing nature, or unanswerability of the topic. Some were:
• As designers and design managers, what keeps you up at night?
• If your design has to finish in half the time that your previous project took, do you start with a [design methodology and flow] clean slate?
• How do you get hardware and software engineers to work together?
• What’s good enough to get the design out the door?
• How do you define failure?
• What’s the price of failure?
• Who owns quality?
• What do you do when your next project is 4X the size of your last design? Throw people at it? Make the tools do more? Run faster? How?
• How do I turn around a design in a month and get all of these [now-required] apps on it?
• Why does place & route have to be flat?
• When will P&R, timing analysis have to break down the design hierarchically?
• How can verification be improved so that its pessimistic estimates won’t require designers to over-design?
The panelists all bemoaned the dueling standards that plague EDA, attributing them to companies wanting to gain marketing advantage, to the detriment of EDA users.
Sperling will publish a transcript of this panel in a future issue of System-Level Design. Nic Mokhoff published a summary of the panel the next day.
Finally, I have a question: why does DesignCon schedule a management-level panel on a day when the exhibit floor isn’t open? Doesn’t help DesignCon panels’ attendance, which has been paltry for years, seems to me.
– end –
Monday, January 31st, 2011
Piyush Sancheti of Atrenta brings up a good point: for Ip to work as we envision it can, what players have to contribute to the quality effort? And what does each player type need to contribute? http://bit.ly/gpAHI1
Thursday, September 16th, 2010
A couple of weeks ago, a client asked, in essence, “why comment on articles or blogs?”
OK, so he didn’t say it exactly like that. But he did say that he’s
…struggling to figure out what really makes sense regarding the growing amount of posting by anybody and everybody….Is all this writing and blogging serving a real purpose? I’m not sure. Some blogs get recognition and response….I think most don’t.
He’s got a point. I think bloggers (indie, company and editorial) all feel, in our gut, that there’s value. But how do we measure that value? What do comments add to a blog or article? Tough one.
So I asked some of the bloggers what they thought. First off, I went to one of the longest running bloggers in EDA – Karen Bartleson. (Is it really three years, Karen? She’s at http://www.synopsys.com/blogs/thestandardsgame). She shed really insightful light on why EDA blogs get so few comments, if we compare them to consumer blogs like Yelp. And, she has her blog up on what she’s seen in the three years since she started her blog. So do take a look at Karen’s analysis of EDA blogging. I bet she’s got a take on the state of EDA blog comments.
Karen’s, along with a bunch of other bloggers’ comments on EDA blog comments gave me some trends to ponder. Some recurring points:
__the honeymoon infatuation period for EDA blogging has come…and is going. Now there needs to be some sense of longterm value.
My take…just what is “value” in terms of EDA blogs? Different from perspectives of the client, journalist and PR person.
__some indie bloggers say they see their blogs as diaries, written for themselves and interested people.
My take…everyone is aware of a larger cast of potential viewers, however. (By and large, they value comments but don’t use it as a metric of their blog’s value.)
__there are more eyeballs on the blogs than we can ascertain.
My take… however, these numbers are impossible to get for viewers and bloggers hosted by other sites. There’s no SRDS* in the EDA & IP social media world.
*SRDS was (is?) an organization that certified reader numbers for print publications so that they could charge advertising rates based on readership.
__engineers by and large are pretty quiet, shy types who rarely will comment or extend a discussion, even if they do read the blog, article and their accompanying comments.
My take…this came up a lot. I’m not sure…would their shyness prevent them from commenting? Probably. Would the relatively anonymous filter of the comment field encourage them to speak out? Potentially.
__by and large, the number of comments aren’t an accurate measure of eyeballs.
My take…lots of agreement that some sort of metric on value is reasonable, understandable. Less agreement on whether it’s needed now.
(One person compared the dilemma to the old attempt to measure column inches to value, which measures volume but doesn’t take into account perceptual, qualitative value.)
__commenting is a lot like getting a quote into an editorially-written article insofar as creating an authoritative voice that gets recognized, over time, as an industry voice to listen to…or not, depending on the content of the comment).
My take…one especially insightful editorial blogger felt that comments are a dynamic part of a living, breathing article that encompasses new perspectives with new comments and discussion.
One difference that I see is that the editor or author of the article hasn’t vetted the comment or incorporated it into his or her article. The comment is a response to the vetted article, which is the insightful editorial blogger’s point, I now see.
__the blog (and blogger) or article (and author) and its comments, to some degree, form a community onto each of themselves.
My take…this discussion got a bit abstract for me but I hear the notion. Help!
__this is a good time to talk about the expectations of each community (indie bloggers, editorial bloggers, company bloggers) and how to sync up each community so that there is value for everyone.
My take…but it’ll require the different goals and expectations of each community to somehow sync up so that each community’s efforts bring value to one another. How does that sync up with goals and expectations of customers, clients?
Of course, there’s no answer (yet) to the question about value here. The bloggers (indie, company and editorial) feel that there is value in commenting. Many of them agree that no one can measure value right now but that there ought to be some way to do so. Most everyone thinks that there is an existing, intangible value of being a voice of authority, an industry citizen.
And everyone thought we ought to keep talking about this issue.
– end –
Monday, July 12th, 2010
The pre-DAC acquisitions of Denali and Virage drastically realign the core of the EDA industry. When IP first came on the scene here in the US, (I think 3Soft was the first IP company I saw), many people figured that IP would become another form of delivery for chip designs – and that they would come from the semiconductor companies.
The EDA executives’ explicit remarks about how IP is key to their continued growth could turn EDA into an industry of IP haves and IP have nots.
How does this EDA realignment affect customers? We asked Atrenta vice president of marketing and industry voice Mike Gianfagna, ” What does the EDA industry realignment mean for customers?”
Here’s what he said:
Realignment can mean two things that are related, but a bit different.
One form of realignment we’re seeing is the IP market merging into the EDA market. This is definitely good for IP customers. Effective IP reuse requires a blend of quality, highly validated IP and a good reuse methodology. The methodology need is for both authoring IP to be reusable and implementing the reuse itself. EDA is a good place to bring all this together. Most larger EDA companies understand what it takes to deliver high quality, validated designs. They also understand what a reuse methodology should include. A lot of the smaller IP shops don’t have this perspective.
Another realignment is the “annexation” of embedded software into EDA. Synopsys is validating this trend with their buying spree, and Cadence is validating the trend with their EDA360 proposal and some buying, too. This is also good for the customer. If software development teams can help to drive the silicon creation process, we are going to see some new killer apps emerge as a result.
What do you think about the combination of IP and EDA? Let us know in the “comments” section.
– end –
Monday, June 7th, 2010
Mike Gianfagna, well known and long time EDA executive, has quite a bit to say about the EDA360 manifesto that’s electrified the EDA world. As vice president of marketing at Atrenta, Inc, Mike has been an astute, articulate participant in the EDA value discussion. I was able to grab a few minutes with Mike to ask how EDA360 helped define the 2010 and beyond definition of EDA value and how it might alter the industry’s direction.
ED: EDA360 has caused quite a buzz. Why?
MIKE: Simply put, it’s one of the first times a major EDA vendor has focused on growing the industry and not just winning the next deal.
ED: It’s curious that EDA people have embraced it so vigorously. After all, it’s not a “how to” but more of a “here’s the vision, the dream.” What’s the impact of EDA360 on the EDA industry? The EDA user community? The EDA media?
MIKE: Let’s face it, the EDA industry has been stuck at roughly the same size for a long time. This lack of growth, in my opinion, has a lot to do with the predatory practices most suppliers pursue. That is, “I win the current budget and you lose.” Growing the business takes a broader view, and a good dose of vision to see beyond today’s budget and determine how EDA can serve new customers tomorrow. EDA360 articulates such a vision.
I’d like to think all this will have a positive impact on our industry overall. As for the EDA media, I am honestly not sure who that is anymore, so it’s hard to comment.
ED: This is a Cadence-generated document. How effective can it be if there’s a significant “other” camp?
MIKE: This point is what I find most interesting (and refreshing) about the concepts of EDA360. It’s not a Cadence document per se. It’s a blueprint of where EDA can go to find new customers and add new value. The piece articulates this in terms of current industry trends. It aims to exploit adjacencies in order to grow the market. And it clearly states that everybody needs to start thinking differently if it’s going to work.
ED: Rightfully, some people could view EDA360 as a Cadence effort to regain some of its industry momentum and influence that it has NOT had for years. Why should the rest of EDA buy into a company initiative?
MIKE: As I mentioned, I don’t see this as a company initiative. I see it as a call to action for our industry. We can all keep chasing the same budget, or find new customers and new budgets. A “dog food dish” image is spinning around in my head right now, but I’ll leave that discussion to the class historians among us.
ED: How will EDA360 affect the big 6: Atrenta, Cadence, Magma, Mentor, Springsoft and Synopsys?
MIKE: Wow, thanks for the flattering reference. It’s not every day that Atrenta gets mentioned in the same sentence with Cadence, Synopsys and Mentor. The reference is correct, however. Atrenta is now at a size, and a popularity level that gives us the opportunity to make a real difference, if you believe the DeepChip readership.
How can we make a difference? First of all, a consistent focus on serving the new and emerging user base referenced in the EDA360 vision will help. That is, the software development community that requires advanced silicon to get its job done. The changes implied by EDA360 will take time – all design paradigm shifts do and they usually take longer than you like.
If a group of forward-looking companies can work together toward the vision, the time required to get there can be reduced. And that spells opportunity for everyone.
ED: How will EDA360 affect the medium sized EDA companies?
MIKE: I think the effect here will be similar, except many mid-size EDA companies may necessarily be slower to respond. Pursuing new markets and new customers takes discretionary resources, and many mid-size companies don’t have a lot of that.
ED: How will EDA360 affect the slew of small and startup EDA companies?
MIKE: For the current crop of startups, I don’t believe the effects will be that noticeable. Some will figure out how to re-invent themselves in new, emerging markets but most will continue on the path they are currently on.
The interesting part for venture-funded startups is what happens next. Will the venture community start writing checks for new business models that address the application software developer’s needs? If this happens, we’ll have another proof point that EDA360 is more than a nicely done White Paper.
– end –
Monday, May 24th, 2010
Jim McCanny, co-founder and CEO of Altos Design Automation, Inc., is one of the most vocal voices on the use of characterization technology and what trends will be coming down the chip design pike.
I was able to catch Jim to talk about where EDA was heading and how characterization technology plays into those trends issues and chip design challenges.
Ed: I was at an event, recently, where the premier investor in EDA startups cited Altos as one of his startups that did it right. Altos also got mentioned in Paul McLellan’s book, EDAgraffiti, as a company that did it right. What did Altos do that was “right?”
Jim: The things we did right? Well, I’d say that we focused on a real need – characterization run-time was too long to support the electrical analysis needs of 90nm and below. We used an experienced team and got a product to market quickly. And finally, we took only a relatively small amount of funding and relied mostly on organic growth and kept control of the company.
This last item, I think, is the one that has resonated with private investors. It made us somewhat immune to the big economic downturn in early 2009, as we had always been operating in a very fiscally responsible way.
Ed: Good point.
Jim: Finally while it was nice to be mentioned as a company who did it right, I don’t think we can be the “model” for every EDA startup. We did it right for the particular market we were going after and the current economy. Other target markets at another time might require a different approach.
Ed: I’m still fuzzy on what characterization is. Can you give me the 30 second elevator explanation?
Jim: I’d be glad to lessen some of the mystery, Ed. It’s elevating the behavior of a group of related analog transistors to a higher level of abstraction that is fundamental to digital design. For example a simple Nand gate typically has four unique analog transistors. Characterization enables each Nand gate to be modeled as a cell with equivalent timing, power and noise characteristics. That is equivalent to a 4X reduction in the circuit size to be analyzed.
Ed: So how big are we talking about?
Jim: For complex cells and blocks, there can be hundreds or even thousands of transistors and for memory instances there are often millions of transistors so the abstraction dramatically reduces the number of distinct elements that the digital design tools have to work with. Without characterization, there would be no synthesis, place and route or static timing analysis. There would be no IP reuse, basically no SoC design flow.
Ed: So characterization is obviously extremely significant to chip design. I recall that Altos started off back five or six years ago, touting the onset of statistical timing analysis (SSTA) and how characterization would be a required element in SSTA-based design flows. Adoption hasn’t really been overwhelming, yet it appears that characterization helps with static timing analysis driven chip design as well as SSTA driven chip design. What’s the difference in productivity and value that characterization brings to static timing analysis and SSTA based chip design?
Jim: SSTA is one of the areas that we saw as driving the need for faster characterization.
Ed: Now, can you remind me what SSTA is again?
Jim: Sure. SSTA is a methodology for predicting the impact of process variation of the performance of your design. It requires an accurate library that captures the effect of variation on timing (delay, slew, constraints etc.). Creating accurate models in a reasonable time frame is a big challenge. For example, the most accurate method is to use Monte-Carlo simulation but that would take thousands of times longer than “nominal” characterization (which itself can take days or even weeks). Clearly this “brute-force” approach wasn’t going to work if SSTA was to be feasible. We are able to create an SSTA library hundreds of times faster than using Monte Carlo, but still with great accuracy. Without this capability, SSTA would not get anywhere.
Ed: So is the push to lower manufacturing processes a factor in the increasing use of SSTA?
Jim: Yes! We are now starting to see serious usage at 28nm. You actually bring up a good point. There are several methods for predicting process variation such as “corner” analysis or “advanced on-chip-variation” (AOCV). Both of these solutions require either more characterization or longer characterization run-time; so our “ultra-fast” characterization technology is still very relevant whether SSTA is used or not.
Ed: As we get down to finer processes, what problems will chip/SoC designers encounter?
Jim: For most of today’s designs, the key challenge is optimizing both power and timing. Variation can play havoc with this process which is why SSTA is starting to get some traction. If you add too much margin then you can kill your power budget. However if you don’t account for variation you can have a dead part on your hands or suffer from low yield.
Ed: What else will crop up?
Jim: Another key challenge is what to do with all the available silicon real estate. The most obvious thing is to integrate more and more components on-chip. To get to market quickly this means using off the shelf IP. Making sure all the IP works together in a consistent way is tough. If you rely on pre-built models from the IP vendor you may suffer from over-guard banding or simply that the models are not up to date with the version of the process you are using. The best way around this is to either re-characterize everything to a single well defined set of characterization criteria or run an independent validation of your IP before using it.
Ed: IP quality is definitely a challenge. Harking back to that EDA investor, he seems to be saying that the valued technology will be in the front end, going forward. What’s your take and how does characterization play into that supposed trend?
Jim: There has always been value at both ends in EDA. Layout verification, layout editing, place & route, post-layout simulation, static timing analysis are all back-end solutions and major EDA markets. Sure integrating systems and software has huge potential but so does any solution that can make sure your chip will work in silicon or can improve its yield.
Ed: So what’s ahead for EDA? Is it a stagnant, mature industry, as so many people were saying a year and two years ago? Or maturing but vital in the semiconductor supply chain?
Jim: I don’t think it’s mature. There is simply too much churn in customer needs. Current tools are continuously getting enhanced and new tools are always coming on the market. Just look at the Spice simulation market. Three years ago, I think everyone would have said it’s stagnant. But look at all the new players and new capabilities that have come out in the last few years.
Ed: What do you see here?
Jim: There have been big improvements in performance, capacity, new models, new integrations into other solutions and innovative use of distributed processing.
Ed: So what is the technology development/adoption cycle for EDA?
Jim: I think EDA has cycles of about 8-10 years from the leading-edge adopters to trailing-edge users. There were a lot of new solutions around 2000 that have served the industry well for the past decade, but are now aging. Obviously, sometimes the EDA industry gets ahead of itself and has to go through a few lean years like we have just done. The danger is that when the industry needs new tools and solutions they won’t be there, as the past year and half has been pretty brutal and instead of investing in the future, many of the big EDA companies had to make cuts. Key areas such as analog automation, IP integration and verification and system and software design still need a lot of work.
Jim: Tools that truly enable IP integration and verification. By verification I don’t mean “will the IP work stand-alone” but “will it work as desired in the integrated system,” e.g. at the voltage levels being used, at the process corners being used, with the expected amount of process variation etc.
Ed: And what issues will we see rise to crisis level in power? Timing? How will they get fixed?
Jim: Power is really dynamic but timing is usually analyzed statically. How do you really model dynamic, temporal effects such as IR drop, crosstalk and substrate noise using static methods without gross “worst-casing”. In addition noise effects can cause very analog like waveforms that break the assumptions of today’s delay models that assume a linear or piecewise linear ramp. There is room for better timing models and smarter ways to statistically model the impact of dynamic effects like noise and IR drop and possibly hybrid static-dynamic analysis tools.
Ed: So what’s ahead for characterization technology? For Altos?
Jim: Our focus is in “enabling a world of IP.” By that, we mean that we want to make reuse of any form of IP highly productive, be it cells, complex I/Os, embedded memory or custom blocks. To do this we are working on bringing the same kind of automation and performance we have brought to complex cell characterization to IP block characterization. We also see characterization as more than model creation but also as a means to validate IP. A characterization tool tells you how the block will perform under a range of different conditions but doesn’t tell you if it performs as expected or how much margin you have to deal with the “unexpected”. We are on a path to change that.
Ed: Seems promising! I look forward to hearing more on this front down the road. Thanks, Jim, for taking time out of your busy day to share your viewpoints on these topics.
– end –
Monday, March 1st, 2010
Steve Leibson in Leibson’s Law did a comprehensive and insightful job of covering the Hogan/McLellan entrepreneurial workshop in his blog on Wednesday. Thank you, Steve! And thank you, Jim and Paul, for enlightening us on how to start up an EDA company.
Jim and Paul made some very hard-hitting points in this valuable how-to workshop (at DVCon Tuesday night), one of which was emphasized by Leibson: “Sizzle is the highest leverage marketing point” said Hogan.
Afterward, a couple of attendees shared with us that “there is no sizzle in EDA!” And “as we all know, many engineering driven startups (even some engineering driven mature companies) undervalue or don’t understand the importance of sizzle – a big mistake.”
What is sizzle? How do you define it?
Is there sizzle in EDA? Why or why not? Who has it, if there is sizzle in EDA?
Let us know what you think……
Monday, February 1st, 2010
(As we all know, Richard Goering is a longtime EDA editor who went to work for Cadence in March 2009, where he writes the Industry Insights blog and works on various writing projects. I recently had a chance to talk with Richard about his year on the corporate side of editorial writing and the state of EDA editorial: where it’s going and what it’ll look like, if it continue to exist. It will, but…BTW, something’s different about Richard’s photo…)
ED: It’s been about a year since you moved from editorial over to Cadence. What differences, if any, do you see?
RICHARD: First, there’s a difference between blogging and news reporting. A blog is shorter and more personal, and is written in a different style. After many years of conventional news reporting, blogging has taken some adjustment.
Also, writing a corporate-sponsored blog is different from writing for an independent publication that covers news from all vendors. With the Cadence Industry Insights blog , I’m writing about most of the same issues I would have covered for EE Times, but where appropriate I’ll include a Cadence perspective or product mention. I don’t generally write about developments from other companies, unless some sort of Cadence partnership is involved. I should note, however, that since I’m focusing on issues rather than products, I don’t often write blogs about new Cadence products.
ED: So it’s been a change to come over to the dark side…not that there’s much of a “light side” any more, huh? What did you perceive as the dark side and what does it look like now, to you?
RICHARD: I don’t really think of it in terms of a “dark side” and a “light side.” Independent publishers are not doing charity work – they’re in business to make money like everyone else, even if they don’t succeed!
For me, working for a major EDA company has certainly been an educational experience. I now have a much better idea of how EDA companies function. Before EDA companies were mysterious monolithic entities that spit out press releases and products. Now I see the “people” side of the industry – lots of creative and diverse people who have many different ideas, and somehow come together with a consistent message.
ED: You’ve covered EDA for over 20 years. Clearly the publication world has changed, is collapsing as we speak. What lies ahead for EDA publications and coverage?
RICHARD: A lot less coverage, as we’ve seen already. Still, publications like EE Times, EDN, Chip Design Magazine and Electronic Design do have some EDA coverage. But a lot of the coverage going forward will come from blogs, forums, and various social media outlets.
ED: Where EE Times is concerned, it seems that there has to be some connection with a chip design issue for there to be EDA coverage. Otherwise, it goes to EDA Design Line. I think that’s fine, but it sure says something about how that once-mighty publication has changed, huh? Well, don’t let me put words into your mouth. How is the change in EE Times emblematic of what’s happened to EDA editorial?
RICHARD: It’s not just EDA editorial – EE Times has a lot less editorial, period. There is still some EDA reporting once in a while, but there seems to be more of a semiconductor focus. That probably makes sense given the lack of EDA advertising and the greatly-reduced editorial resources.
ED: What role will the new era bloggers (indie, corporate, editorial, PR) play? How will those roles evolve?
RICHARD: Blogging provides a new information channel that’s hopefully written in an engaging style, by someone with expertise in a given area. Given that some EDA bloggers are chip designers or consultants, it can be a “peer to peer” communications channel. It can also be a two-way channel if a conversation develops.
Independent bloggers, I suppose, are those who are not paid by a company to blog, although many do have employers. While every blogger has her or his own biases and points of view – a point of view, after all, is what blogging is all about – independent bloggers have the potential to be on neutral ground with respect to EDA vendors.
Corporate bloggers will reflect the positioning of their companies, but they can also provide a good deal of useful, in-depth information that you won’t find elsewhere. With Industry Insights, I have been able to write some “inside look” kinds of blogs that it would have been difficult to write from the outside. For example, I wrote a series of blogs about what it takes to port EDA software to multicore platforms, drawing upon Cadence’s experiences in this area.
Due to the lack of editors, there are very few EDA editorial blogs. Those that exist are picking up some of the coverage that’s missing from the electronics trade press. An example is Ron Wilson’s Practical Chip Design. I haven’t seen much in the way of blogs from PR people, although yours is an exception.
ED: OK, since you bring it up, what role do EDA PR bloggers have in EDA blogging?
RICHARD: I think PR bloggers would do best to focus on issues like social media, PR, and advertising, as opposed to technology. With all the changes in the media, there’s plenty to write about.
ED: But blogging seems more opinionated than EDA editorial, which you covered for so long and so rigorously. I mean, clients were intimidated by the perceived “wrath of Goering” and would oftentimes minimize their hype when being interviewed by you. Thus, we got a comprehensive and objective overview of the technology area from you, even when you covered new products. Will we see objective reporting disappear?
RICHARD: No. As I noted, there is still some EDA reporting in the traditional media, and some bloggers do objective evaluations of major new products and announcements. But the days when every EDA announcement would receive coverage are long gone.
ED: So what role will traditional press play?
RICHARD: I think there will be some continuing coverage of really big announcements or developments. But there will be a lot less product coverage and new company coverage than there used to be. Unfortunately, there are a lot of press release rewrites in the press these days. That doesn’t provide much useful information for the readers.
ED: How possible is it that an EDA press disappear? Why?
RICHARD: Very simple – lack of advertising. It’s part of the meltdown we’re seeing across the publishing world. Also, EDA stories don’t get tens of thousands of readers. There’s a very small, specialized audience, although they have big wallets.
ED: What’s there to keep EDA honest if there’s no longer an “industry press?”
RICHARD: There is an industry press – there’s just less of it. There are also a growing number of bloggers watching EDA developments. But more and more it will be up to the users to help keep EDA vendors on the right track. With the ability to start a blog or comment on blogs, join on-line forums, speak at user group conferences, and participate in Twitter groups like #EDA, EDA users now have a voice – and they will hopefully use it for the betterment of the industry.
ED: What’s your sense of pay for play in editorial? Good, bad or necessary?
RICHARD: I’m not going to say it’s bad, but if a company pays to have an article written, I think that should be made clear to the reader.
ED: Well, EDA’s benefited from your historic participation in the industry. Witness your DAC award a few years back. It’s been, what, over 20 years, starting at Computer Design? I’m not sure anyone can see an EDA industry without Richard Goering in place. Thanks for taking the time to catch up.
RICHARD: And thank you for the opportunity! After interviewing your clients for years, it’s an interesting turn of events to have you interview me.
– end –
Wednesday, December 30th, 2009
(Liz Massingill was fortunate enough to snag Harry Gries … the ASIC Guy for an interview on a rainy Friday morning. Here’s what they had to say.)
Liz: Harry, why do you blog?
Harry: There’s really 2 parts to that … why did I start and why do I keep doing it. I was having lunch with a good friend a few years ago, who is also a blogger, and I was sharing my opinions about some subject when he said “you should have a blog.”
I always liked to write and always had an opinion, so I said, “what the heck.” It was right before SNUG (Synopsys Users Group) so I also thought it would be a good way to do some personal marketing since I’m an independent consultant. So I got the blog up just in time for SNUG.
Liz: Was your first blog successful?
Harry: When I first started writing the blog, I told a few friends and colleagues about it and they subscribed and commented. Then, one day, I got a comment from someone I did not know at all. That was the first time I knew that people were reading this other than my friends.
Liz: That first comment must have gotten the adrenaline going. So why do you continue to blog?
Harry: As for why I keep going, I think I actually get a lot out of writing it. It keeps me plugged into what is going on in the industry. Also, I’ve met people through the blog that I never would have had a chance to know.
One example: There was a press release related to something one of the big 3 EDA companies was doing for training for their consultants. I wanted to write something about it on my blog so I emailed the VP of Consulting, who I did not know, and he answered back and did the interview. I never would have been able to do that without the blog.
Also, I’ve found that the people who read my blog are pretty influential, so it’s good to know them as well.
Liz: It never ceases to amaze me how small the internet has made our world. Who is your audience?
Harry: That’s a good question. With RSS, you never really know exactly who is reading. However, from the comments I get, from the people that follow me on Twitter, and from the analytics, I can tell that there are a lot of people in EDA companies, especially sales and marketing types.
Liz: Do you have Google analytics to find out how many hits you get?
Harry: Analytics helps, but not in the way you might think. I’m more interested in learning how people find my blog rather than who they are. I can tell what keywords they might have used in Google or what links they came from and that helps me to understand what they are looking for as valuable content.
Liz: Can you give me an example?
Harry: Well, lemme pull up my analytics right now: I just did a quick scan and noticed that “verification” and “FPGA” were used as search terms several times to find me. So I might write my next blog post on “FPGA verification.”
Liz: Then it is very useful.
(End of Part One.)