Microdisplays could soon be embedded in smartphones, allowing anyone to share content on just about any kind of screen.

Imagine you’re on a camping trip with your family, and your kids are bored. They want to watch a movie, but you forgot your laptop at home. Hopeless? Not at all.

You pull out your fifth-generation iPhone–yes, this is a story about future technology–power it up, aim it at the wall of the tent, and start projecting their favorite film there.

This is one of the many potential promises of a new microdisplay technology from Displaytech, a recently acquired division of Boise-based Micron. Known as FLCOS, or fast liquid crystal on silicon, the technology is designed to make it possible to project from a relatively small form factor device, and with high image quality and vibrant colors, just about anything you’d want, be it a Disney flick or a complex PowerPoint presentation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Embedded and electronic system design teams face the challenge of reducing development time and costs while improving quality, performance and functionality. However, increased system complexity is raising the cost of verification, in some cases to as much as 70 percent of the overall project cost. As verification consumes more time, it eliminates opportunities for engineers to create product differentiation through design optimization and to focus on innovation.

This problem manifests itself differently across industries:

• Engineers at electronics OEMs and suppliers try every possible verification technology, hoping to avoid the re-spin that will halt their race-to-market with the next generation device.

• Automotive and aerospace engineers conduct extensive design and code reviews to confirm software in dozens of embedded processors meets design requirements.

• Industrial automation engineers struggle to design and integrate increasingly complex control and mechatronic systems with hardware prototypes in the lab.

These scenarios share two common problems: the difficulty of determining whether designs and implementations meet requirements; and the waste involved with manual testing and rework. These challenges stem from fundamental workflow gaps across stages of development and disconnected tools used by component design teams. Even if each component is designed well and tested extensively, issues related to requirements and integration are often found towards the end of the development process.

Red Hat is at the top of its game right now, delivering quarter after quarter of impressive performance despite (or, perhaps, because of) a global recession. But it wasn’t always thus. Despite a meteoric initial public offering in 1999, Red Hat spent years fumbling about for a winning game plan, dabbling in technologies that took it far beyond its core competence in operating systems.

Small wonder, then, that Red Hat today hasn’t risen to the bait to move beyond its core competence.

In fact, it may well have been the burden of its IPO that set Red Hat scurrying to marry open-source ideology with hard-headed business acumen, a thought prompted by Red Hat’s bizarre history of acquisitions. This history suggests that much of Red Hat’s laser-like focus on core infrastructure today may stem from its wild forays into just about everything else in the past.

In 2000, Red Hat made five acquisitions: Cygnus Solutions (at $674 million, the most expensive by far), Bluecurve, Wirespeed Communications, Hell’s Kitchen Systems, and C2Net. From secure Web servers (C2Net) to embedded systems (Cygnus) to e-commerce payment processing (Hell’s Kitchen) to software for enabling wireless devices to communicate with the Internet and private networks (Wirespeed) to performance management (Bluecurve), Red Hat’s acquisitions were scatter-shot and, ultimately, mostly a failure.

True, the acquisitions brought some excellent talent to the company (Michael Tiemann came from Cygnus, Michael Evans came from Bluecurve, etc.), but in terms of products, it’s telling that the markets served by these early acquisitions are not markets where Red Hat does much today. Embedded? E-commerce? Nope.

In later years, Red Hat’s acquisition strategy initially proved just as chaotic, but as the acquisition pace slackened, Red Hat’s focus tightened. So, while 2001 saw Akopia (e-commerce) and Planning Technologies (consulting) join the fold, 2002 brought NOCpulse, a server monitoring solution, which bolstered the still-nascent Red Hat Network that Red Hat launched in September 2000.

Red Hat was no longer casting about for a business model. It had already discovered a winning model with the launch of Red Hat Advanced Server in March 2002, a move that would be augmented just a year later with the release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in March 2003.

Since that time, Red Hat has eschewed anything that might distract it from its stated central mission: commoditizing and delivering superior value around core IT infrastructure, including (today) the Linux operating system and JBoss middleware.

In its early days, flush with IPO cash, Red Hat could afford to experiment with e-commerce, embedded computing, and applications (e.g., Red Hat actually picked up several content management systems as part of its spending spree). Today, Wall Street is unforgiving and would likely punish speculative acquisitions.

For new open-source companies, there’s a lesson in Red Hat’s current focus, but also in its early profligacy: good companies learn from mistakes and can overcome their teenage foibles.

There’s another lesson: sometimes your competitors can pay dividends. After all, one of Red Hat’s early investors was…Novell, an investment that made Novell over $100 million. That’s foresight!

“Intel believes the IPSO Alliance will be an integral group to enable the interoperability and connectivity of devices for the Internet,” said Tony Neal-Graves, general manager, Strategic Planning, embedded Embedded and Communications Group, Intel. “Intel Architecture has played a central role in the build out of the Internet and we are committed to delivering products and technology that will enable billions of embedded, connected devices.”

“There is a need for an open, informal and thought-leading association of like-minded organizations and individuals to promote the value of using the Internet Protocol for the networking of smart objects. Bosch is convinced that standards for embedded IP will foster an open systems approach and achieve high interoperability levels which are crucial,” noted Harald Hoenninger, vice president of corporate research at Bosch. “The IPSO Alliance seems to be the perfect forum to promote such a standard. As members, we plan to contribute to the Alliance and take a role in the existing and evolving business ecosystems of Embedded IT.”

The alliance was created last September and has quickly gained traction as a leading international advocate for networked devices and synchronicity of physical objects. Time magazine marked the formation of the alliance as one of the best inventions of 2008, noting, “The organization intends to create a new kind of network that will allow sensor-enabled physical objects – appliances in your home, products in a factory, cars in a city – to talk to one another, the same way people communicate over the Internet.”

A so-called “smart object” is any device which combines processing power, communications capabilities and a power source to provide real-time information to a computer system. Integration of the Internet Protocol, which allows the Internet to run smoothly, in turn allows smart objects to communicate directly with one another over the existing global network following a proven protocol that has been in place for nearly 35 years. The IP framework additionally provides unsurpassed scalability, a vital feature for large organizations.

“This connectivity between physical objects across so many facets of our lives represents a quantum leap in the way technology will be applied in the coming century. It also explains why so many essential technology companies are joining in our efforts,” stated IPSO Alliance chairman Geoff Mulligan. “The numerous areas of life and platforms that will be impacted is reflected in the caliber of companies partnering with us in these early stages. We expect to see more well-known organizations joining with us in the months ahead.”

“The introduction of IP sensors and smart objects provide for holistic building operational efficiency by marrying IT systems with HVAC, energy, fire, security and lighting systems,” commented Joseph Noworatzky, VP of engineering for Johnson Controls. “This convergence of systems creates new synergies and applications for our customers not feasible across independent networks.”

While we’re all thrilled to see Google throw a new coat of paint onto the Linux kernel, there are, in fact, other things going on Out There, like, say, the quickly evolving PSP. Yesterday’s exotic rumor suggested that Sony is working on a full-fledged PSP2, a system with Xbox1-level graphics. Today I spy an interview with a Sony so-and-so that attempts to explain the company’s rationale for the PSP Go, how PSN compares to XBL these days, and so forth.

The highlights (kids today only have attention spans for highlights):

• Again, the PSP Go isn’t meant to replace the PSP-3000; not everyone in the world has access to broadband, and some people just like having physical media.

• The plan is to have every game from here on out available digitally (via the PSN or store-bought download cards… not every 16-year-old can use his father’s credit card to buy stuff online).

• Yes, Sony wants to bring as many PSOne games to the PSN as it can.

• A PS3 download service is a little harder to pull off than the Xbox 360 download service for the simple reason that PS3 games come on Blu-ray discs while Xbox 360 games are DVD-like. It’s harder to download, and store, 50GB than it is to download and store 9GB.

pspgogo

• Sony thinks PSN isn’t as “behind” XBL as it was, say, two years ago.

• There’s no plans yet for HD video/movie streaming on the PS3