Bob O'Donnell
Articles by Bob O'Donnell
The Best New Notebook May Not Be a Notebook
I am a tech performance geek. I can't stand waiting for PCs to boot, files to load, screens to redraw, and functions to finish.I'm also a tech industry analyst, which means I get invited to briefings by component companies like Intel, nVidia, AMD, and Qualcomm, as well as device makers like HP, Dell, and Lenovo, where they share their technology roadmaps, new device rollouts, and other future plans.It's a great combination, in a way, because I get to find out in advance what sort of performance improvements I can look forward to on next generation devices.One of the things that has often struck me, however, is that you don't always get the full benefits of the latest technology advances created by the component makers in the finished goods of the device makers.For many good reasons—but most typically related to cost—the deployments of a new technology are often done in a more limited way than what the technology could potentially enable. While the business analyst side of me understands why those decisions are made, the performance geek side of me is often disappointed.At a recent briefing by HP it hit me that there is a way to get full deployments of all the latest and greatest performance technologies in everything from CPUs, GPUs, memory, storage, connectivity and more. How, you ask? Buy a workstation.Now, clearly, workstations are not a mainstream option, and that isn't likely to change soon. But in the increasingly wide continuum of computing device buyers, there is clearly a subset of potential customers who want the best possible performance, in the same way there are car buyers who are willing to pay for performance-oriented cars. (Thankfully, performance-oriented computing devices don't come with six-figure price points.)Workstations are intentionally designed to offer the best possible performance, and it's in workstations that you will see the full implementations of all the latest and greatest technologies. Want the fastest possible CPUs and GPUs, like quad-core Intel Xeon for client, nVidia Quadro or AMD FirePro GPUs? Check. Looking for a full-range of ports, complete with multiple iterations of the latest ones (like Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1), as well as the ability to drive multiple 4K displays? Check. Looking not only for SSD storage, but a PCIe NVME-based controller that ensures zero latency from these speedy solid-state drives? Check. How about Mil-spec ruggedness certification to avoid accidental damage? Check.Of course, the trade-off for all these capabilities has typically been size and cost. Workstations have been beefy boxes—in fact, there's almost been a certain technical machismo about how big your workstation was—and while nobody seems to really know, the assumption has been that workstations sell at sky-high prices.The reality of today's workstations, however, is actually much different. At the aforementioned HP event, for example, the company debuted a new line of their Z-Book mobile workstations that come in at ultrabook-level thinness (the new Z-Book Studio is 18 mm thick and weighs 4.4 pounds) and price points starting at a reasonable $1,699. Of course, that's the base configuration, and as with performance cars, it's very easy to hit a significantly higher price point when you add in all the goodies you want. In the case of the Z-Book Studio, for example, a tricked out configuration could easily surpass $3K. But still, if you're a performance nut, that's not a terrible price point to pay.If you're more of a Dell or Lenovo person, those companies also sell mobile workstations with somewhat similar sizes and price points. (Some might argue Apple's MacBook Pro fits into the mobile workstation category, but that's a debate for another day.)To actually buy a workstation as a consumer, you'll have to work a bit harder than just walking into your local BestBuy, but you can actually go to the BestBuy for Business online site, or use a business-focused reseller like CDW. In addition, all the vendors enable you to configure and buy direct from their own respective web sites.For a lot of good reasons, I don't think we'll ever see workstations really go mainstream, but if you're a performance geek like me in the market for a new mobile computing device, it may not be a notebook you want, but a mobile workstation. Check 'em out.Bob O'Donnell is president and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, a technology consulting and market research firm that provides strategic consulting and market research services. You can follow him on Twitter @bobodtech.
The Philosophical Challenges with Smart Homes and Smart Cars
I thought it was the tech. I really did. But after thinking about it a bit more, I realize the technology isn't the problem with some of the potentially biggest—yet stalled—opportunities in consumer tech: smart homes and smart cars.Oh sure, there are definitely some serious standards issues that still have to get resolved before these opportunities can move forward, and arguably, those are tech-related. But even when they are, there are still much more deeply-rooted challenges that are going to keep these categories in a slow growth phase for quite some time.Quite honestly, they're philosophical.The technology required to get a number of devices in your home to talk to each other really isn't that hard. In fact, it's been available for several years. Between WiFi, Bluetooth, and Zigbee, there are a wide range of connectivity options with different speeds and power requirements to easily connect a wide range of appliances, lights, mechanical systems and smart devices with our homes—theoretically speaking, at least.And yet, they aren't widely being connected.As for smart cars, the technology to make cars drive autonomously is a lot tougher, but I'm fully confident that the smartest minds across Silicon Valley, Detroit, Germany, and other places, will be able to put together systems within the next year or two that can easily outpace the driving skills of the typical driver. In fact, they may well have done so already.And yet, other than a few experiments, we don't have fully autonomous cars.So, what's the issue?It seems clear to me that we're entering an era where just because we can do something from a technical perspective doesn't mean consumers really want it. For the last few decades, the goal of the tech business has been to see what we could achieve. And frankly, those achievements have been extraordinary. The things we now take for granted, which technology-based products have enabled, are truly astonishing. Being able to communicate with or find anyone, virtually anywhere in the world at any time, for example, is mind-boggling if you really think about it."It seems clear to me that we're entering an era where just because we can do something from a technical perspective doesn't mean consumers really want it. "Increasingly, though, technological advancements are occurring at a pace that's arguably faster than what we've really been able to, or want to, take in. At the risk of sounding like a technological Luddite—which I assure you, I am not—there may now be a sense of things starting to move a bit too far too fast.Much of the challenges have to do with privacy and safety-related issues. Opening up our homes and our cars to the potential of hacking is a pretty frightening thought to a lot of people. It's one thing to worry about viruses on our PCs or even mobile phones, but when we hear about moving cars getting taken over, or home security systems enabling people to physically peer into our personal lives, the stakes are being raised, and not in a positive way.Admittedly, some of this is generational and as part of the tail-end of the baby boomers, I'm perhaps a bit more paranoid (or shall we say, cautious) than younger people who are growing up in an always-on, always-connected world. But regardless of your age, there's no denying that we're starting to face much more difficult philosophical questions about the role that technology products can and should play in our lives.To be clear, I'm not expecting, nor advocating any kind of slowdown in the technological developments that have brought us to this point. However, I do believe that companies who are actively involved in moving forward the agenda in smart homes, smart cars, and other more personally invasive categories are going to need to spend a lot more time and effort in educating the market about how their solutions will protect the privacy and safety of their customers.In addition, as these products and technologies move into the mainstream of society, they're also going to have to address legislative, regulatory, and even insurance-related issues that companies who offer other tech-related products haven't really had to worry about.There's no question that the smart home and smart cars categories will bring some amazing new capabilities to consumers around the world, but it would be naïve to assume that these developments will come without some challenging philosophical discussions. Like many philosophical debates, these discussions are likely to be long, complicated, and fairly heated.While it's great to have the ability to do things that only recently were in the realm of science fiction, it's also time to start thinking more seriously about the implications of what these new developments might mean.Bob O'Donnell is founder and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, a technology consulting and market research firm that provides strategic consulting and market research services. You can follow him on Twitter @bobodtech.
Electronics Made In the USA
Nestled in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in northwest North Carolina is one of the few remaining vestiges of what was once commonplace: a company that designs, builds, and sells electronics products that are manufactured in the U.S.At first glance, Asheville, NC may not seem like the kind of place to find this, but it turns out the arts-friendly town is the perfect spot for a musical instrument company. Given the toe-tapping bluegrass I enjoyed one Friday night in the town square, it might seem that something like The Woodrow—a guitar-shaped version of a mountain dulcimer that Dan Williams hand builds in Asheville—would be the more obvious choice.However, Asheville also happens to be home to Moog Music, makers of the world-famous Moog synthesizers (Minimoog, Moog Modular, Sub-Phatty, and much more) as well as effects pedals, theremins, and other cool musical gadgets. Originally started by the late synthesizer pioneer Bob Moog in upstate New York in the late 1960s, the Moog company went through a roller-coaster ride of ownership and focus for many years. But back in 2002, Bob Moog himself restarted Moog Music in Asheville, where he lived.Today, the roughly 60-person company operates out of a single building, which houses a retail store, manufacturing site, and warehouse. During my recent trip to Asheville—BTW, the self-proclaimed microbrewery capital of the country (with more than 20 and counting)—I visited Moog Music and took the free tour they offer to anyone who calls in advance.On the tour, I discovered that the company places an enormous emphasis on its products being made in America—a point that you clearly hear from other industries, but something very, very few electronics and high tech companies talk about. All 40,000+ of the products that Moog shipped last year were made in Asheville, and according to my knowledgeable tour guide, roughly 75% of all the components they use are sourced from American companies. (Turns out some critical elements—like the musical keyboards they use on their synthesizers—just aren't made in the US anymore.)In the case of the key circuit boards on some of their new synthesizers, like the impressive Sub 37 I saw being built, even those are manufactured by another North Carolina company "down the road" that has the specialized robotics machines necessary to create a modern circuit board.For Moog's classic (and expensive) modular synthesizers, the company has actually sourced the original '70s era components (we're talking capacitors the size of your thumb!) from a wide variety of places, including old military supplies, and hand solders and hand builds each of the modules. It's kind of crazy and awe-inspiring at the same time.I have a long history with the electronic musical instrument business—I was editor of both the now defunct Music Technology magazine and the still vibrant Electronic Musician many moons ago, and had the privilege of meeting Bob Moog several times at NAMM trade shows a while back. But this was the first time I had the opportunity to visit an American synthesizer factory, and I have to say I walked away impressed—on several levels. Not only did I rediscover how great Moog synths sound, I was impressed with the passion of the employees and their dedication to their founder's vision.In an era when it seems nearly every electronics-related device is manufactured in Asia, it's actually quite refreshing to see an American company making a strong go of it, even if it is in the specialized realm of electronic musical instruments.I know it sounds old-fashioned, and probably a bit hokey, but I was also impressed that the company manages to build their products in the U.S. In an era when it seems nearly every electronics-related device is manufactured in Asia, it's actually quite refreshing to see an American company making a strong go of it, even if it is in the specialized realm of electronic musical instruments.In fact, I intend to purchase a Sub 37, not only because it's an amazing musical instrument, but also because I want to show my support for just such an effort. Having a strong U.S. tech business that's devoid of manufacturing just doesn't feel right, and I'm happy to see tech-related companies in a number of industries making efforts to build more of their products in the U.S.Of course, once I get my new synth, the real challenge is going to be figuring out how to get my other Asheville musical purchase (the aforementioned Woodrow) to work together with a Sub 37 in a musically appealing way.I guess it'll just take a few of those Asheville microbrews to get my creative juices flowing.... Bottom's up!Bob O'Donnell is founder and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, a technology consulting and market research firm that provides strategic consulting and market research services. You can follow him on Twitter @bobodtech.
Appreciating HD Audio
The annual Consumer Electronics Show held every January in Las Vegas is, of course, the granddaddy of all consumer-focused trade shows. Its impact on the consumer electronics and tech business is felt far and wide, and many people eagerly look forward to its return. In fact, so much so, that several years ago, the folks at the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)—who put on CES every year—decided to start offering their own version of "Christmas in July" by hosting CE Week in New York City at the end of June. This year's CE Week mini tradeshow and related activities was held this week (June 23-25) and saw the debut of some new TVs and other gadgets, as well as further discussion about some of the hot topics that were a big issue at this year's main CES show, notably high resolution 4K TVs and high-resolution audio. As a lifelong musician, I've always had an interest in high-quality audio sources. From the early days of CDs and DAT (Digital Audio Tape), through SACD (Super Audio CD), DVD-Audio, and other multi-channel audio formats, I've been an early adopter and eager supporter of high-resolution music. Not surprisingly, I've been following the discussions around newer high-resolution audio products and developments with great interest. Companies like Sony and Pono have introduced a wide range of new products that can play back high-resolution HD Audio files—from portable players to desktop hifi units to high-quality headphones with integrated DACs (digital-to-analog convertors). In addition, services like the beleaguered Tidal are attempting to offer a higher-quality alternative to the often massively compressed MP3 streams used by other popular music streaming services. What I find interesting this time around is that higher-quality audio formats are being greeted with a fair amount of skepticism in the press. The general argument goes something like this: "I've done listening tests and can't tell the difference between compressed music formats and these high-resolution files. Besides, the human ear can only hear so much, so don't bother with any of these products and services because you won't be able to get any real benefits." Sound familiar? The difficulty is that there is some truth to what's being said. However, as with many things in life, the devil is in the details. Part of the problem is that you need to maintain high-quality equipment throughout the complete listening chain—from file to source device to output device, whether that's headphones or an amplifier and speakers—in order to hear the kinds of differences that high-resolution audio can offer. If you're plugging stock white earbuds into an iPhone in order to listen to Tidal streams, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between almost any kind of file format. Even decent quality equipment isn't always up to the task because some of the differences can be very subtle—in some cases it's things like the overall soundstage, or how different sounds "sit" in the mix. Now, you can certainly argue that this is esoteric and beyond the needs and listening skills of most people, and honestly, I'd be hard pressed to argue with you. But think about it this way: if you're auditioning sets of speakers or comparing different headphones against each other, it's exactly these kinds of subtle clues and differences that you use to decide to buy one product instead of another. An even bigger problem with all of the "high resolution audio is no better" arguments is that virtually all of the listening tests are done with popular music, for obvious reasons. But what most people don't know is that virtually all pop music is intentionally compressed to sound "better" to our ears. I don't mean data compression here, but rather audio compression, which is a process by which the dynamic range of the audio signals is basically "smooshed" together in order to avoid extreme volume changes. A much fairer test for hearing the difference in high-resolution audio is to listen to music formats like classical, jazz or acoustic that use little or no audio compression because you'll be more likely to hear differences there. But that's not the only problem. If you're listening to music in any format that hasn't been recorded and mastered (basically, mixed down to stereo) in higher resolution, you'll be hard-pressed to hear any audible difference between standard definition and high definition audio. It's kind of like trying to add resolution to a low-res digital image. Yes, there are some tricks to help you do it, but you're basically adding something that wasn't originally there. In order to create a true high-resolution audio file, musicians and engineers have to go back to the raw source recordings (presuming they're recorded at high resolutions) and then specifically create a new high-resolution mix. Given the relatively small size of the audiophile, high-resolution friendly market, many don't feel it's worth the extra effort. Thankfully, there are some who do, and you're best bet for being able to really hear high resolution audio benefits is to listen to these kinds of source files on high-quality equipment. Unfortunately, yet another problem is that there isn't any real consistency in labelling of these high-quality files. Most people assume that if they're listening to a 24-bit, 96kHz (or even 192 kHZ) FLAC file, then it's got to be "true" high resolution. But again, that isn't always the case. Yes, technically it is an HD Audio file, but it may not essentially be much better than a standard resolution file with a bunch of extra empty bits tacked on at the end of it. The quest for high-quality audio is a never-ending one, and it's unlikely that this latest round of products and services will be the last. But one last thought for audio enthusiasts to console themselves with is that if you do make the plunge into HD Audio, you can be assured that you'll get the best possible playback quality of any format file you choose to play through your new devices. That's certainly worth something.
The New Semiconductor Challenge: Doing More Without Moore
Over the last 50 years, one could make the argument that a good percentage of the innovations in the semiconductor business have been closely tied to Moore's Law. Credited to Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, this 50 year-old axiom basically states that transistor size will roughly shrink by half every 18-24 months. Though there have been significant challenges along the way, the law has proven remarkably prescient in predicting a key element in the ongoing innovation cycles of the chips we find in the heart of all our devices: how small the transistors would get and, therefore, how many we could fit within a reasonably-sized silicon die. The end result is that we're now seeing CPUs and other chips being built with 14 nm (nanometer) transistors, with plans and development in place for iterations at 10 nm and then down to 7 nm—at least for higher-end parts like CPUs. However, there are serious questions being raised about going much beyond 7 nm—after all, we're talking the width of several atoms at that point—so there are concerns about how far this can go. Even Gordon Moore admitted recently that he never expected this law to go on forever—in fact, it's lasted even longer than he originally thought. There have been serious challenges to Moore's Law in the past, and they somehow were overcome. It's certainly possible extreme ultraviolet lithography and other advanced technologies may provide an answer here to these newest challenges. Even if they do, however, what's also becoming apparent is that some semiconductor manufacturers may not be able to keep up. In other words, while Intel may be able to continue both designing and manufacturing smaller transistors, not all of their semiconductor manufacturing competitors will be able to. As a result, we've started to see a new set of challenges for chip designers: how to make improvements without the inherent benefits of shrinking transistors and the ability this enables to fit more of them (and, therefore, more capability and functionality) within the same-sized chip as previous generations. Of course, many companies have been doing this for a while. Intel's famous "tick-tock" cadence of new chip designs, for example, had one generation that primarily benefited from the Moore's Law shrink to smaller transistors (often called a new process node technology) and then the next one used the same transistor size, but incorporated more features, more efficient designs, etc. What's interesting now is that we're starting to see companies doing this even with older generation process node technologies. In AMD's recent introduction of their next generation A-series APU chip (codenamed "Carrizo") from last week's Computex trade show in Taiwan, for example, AMD made a point to say they were still providing innovations on 28 nm transistor technology (essentially several generations back from today's cutting edge—from a process perspective). Despite this apparent handicap, AMD managed to create a new CPU design that offers 2.4 times greater performance per watt than its predecessor, while also offering better battery life and a range of new features, including better graphics and a refined cache architecture. While other companies can also generate performance improvements within same the process node size (and have done so), in AMD's recent case, the improvement was larger than we've seen in the past. Moving forward, given all the potential challenges that node size reductions are expected to face, I think we'll start to see a lot more examples of this kind of improvement on existing process technologies. In fact, the real art in semiconductor design will be based on how effective vendors can be at wringing more performance and capabilities from a given transistor size. Ironically, it seems many engineers do their best work when they're faced with limitations, so these upcoming challenges could actually end up driving more innovations in semiconductors than we've seen in quite some time. Getting more without Moore won't be easy, but it could lead to some exciting stuff.