Formula One's income between January and March plummeted from $246 million in 2019 to just $39 million this year, a drop of 84%, figures released by championship owners Liberty Media revealed on Thursday.

1 Mauritian Rupee = 2.6863 Japanese Yen

The coronavirus pandemic has put on hold contract-extension talks between All-Star shortstop Javier Baez and the Chicago Cubs.

1 Nepalese Rupee = 0.8821 Japanese Yen

1 Bangladeshi Taka = 1.2551 Japanese Yen

1 Moldovan Leu = 5.9825 Japanese Yen

Civil society has outperformed the state in helping to feed India’s poorest. It should be seen as ally not enemy

The highways connecting India’s overcrowded cities to the villages had not seen anything like it since the time of partition 73 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of workers were on the move, walking back to their villages with their possessions bundled on their heads.

On 24 March, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered a nationwide 21-day lockdown to contain the coronavirus pandemic. States sealed their borders, and transport came to a halt. With no trains or buses to take them home, India’s rural-to-urban migrant population, estimated at a staggering 120 million, took to the roads. On 5 April a statement from the home ministry said 1.25 million people moving between states had been put up in camps and shelters.

Related: As the wealthy quaff wine in comfort, India’s poor are thrown to the wolves

1 Colombian Peso = 0.0274 Japanese Yen

1 Uruguayan Peso = 2.4728 Japanese Yen

1 Uzbekistan Som = 0.0106 Japanese Yen

1 Russian Ruble = 1.4533 Japanese Yen

The Panthers announced Tuesday that Russian forward Grigori Denisenko, the 15th overall pick in the 2018 draft, has agreed to a three-year entry-level contract.

1 Iraqi Dinar = 0.0896 Japanese Yen

1 Cayman Islands Dollar = 127.977 Japanese Yen

1 Swiss Franc = 109.864 Japanese Yen

1 CFA Franc BCEAO = 0.1763 Japanese Yen

1 Vietnamese Dong = 0.0046 Japanese Yen

1 Macedonian Denar = 1.8772 Japanese Yen

1 Zambian Kwacha = 0.0206 Japanese Yen

1 South Korean Won = 0.0875 Japanese Yen

1 Jordanian Dinar = 150.3529 Japanese Yen

1 Lebanese Pound = 0.0705 Japanese Yen

1 Bahraini Dinar = 282.0781 Japanese Yen

1 Chilean Peso = 0.1292 Japanese Yen

1 Maldivian Rufiyaa = 6.8807 Japanese Yen

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 24.6135 Japanese Yen

1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 3.1007 Japanese Yen

Former Auburn defensive tackle Derrick Brown became the first player chosen in the NFL draft's first round to agree on a deal. The Panthers will sign him to a four-year, fully guaranteed contract worth $23.62 million.

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 59.4229 Japanese Yen

1 Estonian Kroon = 7.4795 Japanese Yen

1 Danish Krone = 15.5032 Japanese Yen

1 Fiji Dollar = 47.3476 Japanese Yen

1 New Zealand Dollar = 65.4775 Japanese Yen

1 Croatian Kuna = 15.3743 Japanese Yen

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 31.3842 Japanese Yen

1 Dominican Peso = 1.9381 Japanese Yen

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 31.0974 Japanese Yen

1 Brunei Dollar = 75.4822 Japanese Yen

First, the good news. The EDA industry will grow from $6.2 billion in 2015 to $9.0 billion in 2019, according to Gary Smith, chief analyst at Gary Smith EDA. Year-to-year growth rates will range from +4% to +11.2%.

But in his annual presentation on the eve of the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015), Smith noted that Wall Street is unimpressed. “The people I talk to want long-term steady growth, no sharp up-turns, no sharp downturns,” Smith said. “To the rest of Wall Street, we’re boring.”

Smith spent the rest of his talk noting how EDA can be a lot less boring and, potentially, a whole lot bigger. For starters, what if we add semiconductor IP to EDA revenues? Now we’re looking at $12.2 billion in revenue by 2019, Smith said. (He acknowledged, however, that the IP market itself is going to take a “dip” due to the move towards platform-based IP and away from conventional piecemeal IP).

This still is not enough to get Wall Street’s attention. Another possibility is to bring embedded software development into the EDA industry. This is not a huge market – about $2.6 billion today – but it is an “easy growth market for us,” according to Smith.

Chasing the Big Bucks

But the “big bucks” are in mechanical CAD (MCAD), Smith said. In the past the MCAD market has always been bigger than EDA, but now EDA is catching up. The MCAD market is about $6.6 billion now. Synopsys and Cadence are larger than PTC and Siemens, two of the main players in MCAD.

There may be some good acquisition possibilities coming up for EDA vendors, Smith said – and if we don’t buy MCAD companies, they might buy EDA companies. Consider, for example, that Ansoft bought Apache and Dassault bought Synchronicity. (Note: Siemens PLM Software is a first-time exhibitor at DAC 2015).

What about other domains? Smith said that EDA companies could conceivably move into optical design, applications development software, biomedical design, and chemical design. The last if these is probably the most tenuous; Smith noted that EDA vendors have yet to look into chemical design.

Applications development software is the biggest market on the above list, but that means competing with Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle. “You’re in with the big boys – is that a good idea?” Smith asked.

Perhaps there’s an opening for a “big play” for an MCAD provider. Smith noted that mechanical vendors are focusing on product data management (PDM). This “is really the IT of design,” Smith said. “They have a lot of hope that the IoT [Internet of things] market is going to give them an opportunity to capture the software that goes from the ground to the cloud. Maybe we can let them have PDM and see if we can take the tool market away from them, or acquire it away from them.”

In conclusion, Smith asked, should the EDA industry accelerate its growth? “The mechanical vendors have already shown interest in acquiring EDA vendors,” he said. “We may not have a choice.”

Richard Goering

NOTE: Catch our live blog from DAC 2015, beginning Monday morning, June 8! Click here

Design and verification standards are critical if we want to get a new generation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices into the market, according to panelists at an Accellera Systems Initiative breakfast at the Design Automation Conference (DAC 2015) June 9. However, IoT devices for different vertical markets pose very different challenges and requirements, making the standards picture extremely complicated.

The panel was titled “Design and Verification Standards in the Era of IoT.” It was moderated by industry editor John Blyler, CEO of JB Systems Media and Technology. Panelists were as follows, shown left to right in the photo below:

• Lu Dai, director of engineering, Qualcomm
• Wael William Diab, senior director for strategy marketing, industry development and standardization, Huawei
• Chris Rowen, CTO, IP Group, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

In opening remarks, Blyler recalled a conversation from the recent IEEE International Microwave Symposium in which a panelist pointed to the networking and application layers as the key problem areas for RF and wireless standardization. Similarly, in the IoT space, we need to look “higher up” at the systems level and consider both software and hardware development, Blyler said.

Rowen helped set some context for the discussion by noting three important points about IoT:

• IoT is not a product segment. Vertical product segments such as automotive, medical devices, and home automation all have very different characteristics.
• IoT “devices” are components within a hierarchy of systems that includes sensors, applications, user interface, gateway application (such as cell phone), and finally the cloud, where all data is aggregated.
• A bifurcation is taking place in design. We are going from extreme scale SoCs to “extreme fit” SoCs that are specialized, low energy, and very low cost.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were addressed during the panel discussion.

Q: The claim was recently made that given the level of interaction between sensors and gateways, 50X more verification nodes would have to be checked for IoT. What standards need to be enhanced or changed to accomplish that?

Rowen: That’s a huge number of design dimensions, and the way you attack a problem of that scale is by modularization. You define areas that are protected and encapsulated by standards, and you prove that individual elements will be compliant with that interface. We will see that many interesting problems will be in the software layers.

Q: Why is standardization so important for IoT?

Dai: A company that is trying to make a lot of chips has to deal with a variety of standards. If you have to deal with hundreds of standards, it’s a big bottleneck for bringing your products to market. If you have good standardization within the development process of the IC, that helps time to market.

When I first joined Qualcomm a few years ago, there was no internal verification methodology. When we had a new hire, it took months to ramp up on our internal methodology to become effective. Then came UVM [Universal Verification Methodology], and as UVM became standard, we reduced our ramp-up time tremendously. We’ve seen good engineers ramp up within days.

Diab: When we start to look at standards, we have to do a better job of understanding how they’re all going to play with each other. I don’t think one set of standards can solve the IoT problem. Some standards can grow vertically in markets like industrial, and other standards are getting more horizontal. Security is very important and is probably one thing that goes horizontally.

Requirements for verticals may be different, but processing capability, latency, bandwidth, and messaging capability are common [horizontal] concerns. I think a lot of standards organizations this year will work on horizontal slices [of IoT].

Q: IoT interoperability is important. Any suggestions for getting that done and moving forward?

Rowen: The interoperability problem is that many of these [IoT] devices are wireless. Wireless is interesting because it is really hard – it’s not like a USB plug. Wireless lacks the infrastructure that exists today around wired standards. If we do things in a heavily wireless way, there will be major barriers to overcome.

Dai: There are different standards for 4G LTE technology for different [geographical] markets. We have to make a chip that can work for 20 or 30 wireless technologies, and the cost for that is tremendous. The U.S., Europe, and China all have different tweaks. A good standard that works across the globe would reduce the cost a lot.

Q: If we’re talking about the need to define requirements, a good example to look at is power. Certainly you have UPF [Unified Power Format] for the chip, board, and module.

Rowen: There is certainly a big role for standards about power management. But there is also a domain in which we’re woefully under-equipped, and that is the ability to accurately model the different power usage scenarios at the applications level. Too often power devolves into something that runs over thousands of cycles to confirm that you can switch between power management levels successfully. That’s important, but it tells you very little about how much power your system is going to dissipate.

Dai: There are products that claim to be UPF compliant, but my biggest problem with my most recent chip was still with UPF. These tools are not necessarily 100% UPF compliant.

One other concern I have is that I cannot get one simulator to pass my Verilog code and then go to another that will pass. Even though we have a lot of tools, there is no certification process for a language standard.

Q: When we create a standard, does there need to be a companion compliance test?

Rowen: I think compliance is important. Compliance is being able to prove that you followed what you said you would follow. It also plays into functional safety requirements, where you need to prove you adhered to the flow.

Dai: When we [Qualcomm] sell our 4G chips, we have to go through a lot of certifications. It’s often a differentiating factor.

Q: For IoT you need power management and verification that includes analog. Comments?

Rowen: Small, cheap sensor nodes tend to be very analog-rich, lower scale in terms of digital content, and have lots of software. Part of understanding what’s different about standardization is built on understanding what’s different about the design process, and what does it mean to have a software-rich and analog-rich world.

Dai: Analog is important in this era of IoT. Analog needs to come into the standards community.

Richard Goering

Cadence Blog Posts About DAC 2015

Gary Smith at DAC 2015: How EDA Can Expand Into New Directions

DAC 2015: Google Smart Contact Lens Project Stretches Limits of IC Design

DAC 2015: Lip-Bu Tan, Cadence CEO, Sees Profound Changes in Semiconductors and EDA

DAC 2015: “Level of Compute in Vision Processing Extraordinary” – Chris Rowen

DAC 2015: Can We Build a Virtual Silicon Valley?

DAC 2015: Cadence Vision-Design Presentation Wins Best Paper Honors

You can't read anything about technology these days without reading about 5G. But before there was 5G, there was 4G. And before that 3G, 2G, and 1G. A 0G even. For the next few Thursdays,...

[[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site. ]]

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Panipat on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Panchkula on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Panna on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.

visit News18 Urdu for latest news, breaking news, news headlines and updates from Panchmahals on politics, sports, entertainment, cricket, crime and more.