Ever wondered why techie presentations are so notoriously bad? You think, am I the only one who's bored or confused? Well, check out this completely new way of doing presentations. I've seen it and it's a breath of fresh air.
First of all, you know what kind of bad presentations I'm talking about, don't you? Presenters who assume you love their narrow topic. They have too much detail. The print is too small. Equations that you can't follow. Monotone voice. Wooden statue posture. A nervous laser pointer flitting across the screen. We're all guilty, and sure, photonics is supposed to be technical. But do so many presentations have to be so bad?
Well, there's a new way of presenting called Pecha Kucha 20x20. It's very simple. You present 20 slides with 20 seconds each. That's about 7 minutes. During that time, you can't ask questions--questions come after (sorry, Intel employees). You have to get through your main points fast, like an elevator speech.
I've seen it and it gets to the point. It cuts the bull. It's great for those small-ish sessions: internal company meetings, B-to-B briefings, that sort of thing.
It started in Japan as a social event in 2003 as a way for architects and other designers to network without boring everyone. It spread to cities all over the world. The subjects can include anything. There's now also a group called Ignite in the U.S. that is doing kind of the same thing, for fun. Imagine.
Using it as a social scene does sound a bit geeky. After working in the tech industry all day, the last thing you might want to do is to go listen to more Power Point presentations, even if they use 20x20. But, it's kind of the modern equivalent of Toastmasters. Or salons. Or speed dating. That might be fun after all.
Spread the word. Managers, start using 20x20 in your meetings. Salespeople, use it in your sales calls. Engineers, use it in your presentations, and leave the other slides as backup for the Q&A. Don't be afraid to try it. Think Pecha Kucha 20x20.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
IPG makes moves
IPG seemed to make a vertical move into machine tools this week, with its announcement that it acquired Cosytronic. Well, it turns out that it’s not exactly a vertical move. In fact, it’s a pretty narrow acquisition, but an interesting one. Where does this put IPG on the longer term roadmap?
IPG has done well so far in kilowatt lasers, selling mainly to systems integrators for metal welding. But the huge majority of welders use good old-fashioned electrical welders, not laser welders.
IPG aims to change that. Cosytronic has 20-some years of experience in resistance welding, from the “Welding Valley” in Germany. It has a tool that can make seam welds with a laser head that swaps with the head of a resistance spot welder. The aim here isn’t to take on resistance spot welders. The aim is to increase the pie for laser welding. For IPG, it’s about the application, not making systems per se.
I should mention that IPG's main competitor, TRUMPF, aims to do the same thing, of course. But TRUMPF has a machine tool business and lots of internal expertise. IPG is working on that.
It’s a very different story in sheet metal cutting, by the way. That is the grand prize in materials processing. But, several big tool vendors make their own CO2 resonators for their tools, or have loyal relationships with independent suppliers of resonators, mainly Rofin and Fanuc. It’s hard for a new player to break in with a new type of laser. Nonetheless, IPG is making progress there too. IPG plans to continue to work with the systems integrators to gain share in that segment, rather that to make a vertical move.
This is IPG's 2nd acquisition in 2010, by the way. It acquired little-known Photonics Innovations, of Alabama, in January. That acquisition is also narrowly strategic, aiming at materials and the mid-IR range.
IPG has done well so far in kilowatt lasers, selling mainly to systems integrators for metal welding. But the huge majority of welders use good old-fashioned electrical welders, not laser welders.
IPG aims to change that. Cosytronic has 20-some years of experience in resistance welding, from the “Welding Valley” in Germany. It has a tool that can make seam welds with a laser head that swaps with the head of a resistance spot welder. The aim here isn’t to take on resistance spot welders. The aim is to increase the pie for laser welding. For IPG, it’s about the application, not making systems per se.
I should mention that IPG's main competitor, TRUMPF, aims to do the same thing, of course. But TRUMPF has a machine tool business and lots of internal expertise. IPG is working on that.
It’s a very different story in sheet metal cutting, by the way. That is the grand prize in materials processing. But, several big tool vendors make their own CO2 resonators for their tools, or have loyal relationships with independent suppliers of resonators, mainly Rofin and Fanuc. It’s hard for a new player to break in with a new type of laser. Nonetheless, IPG is making progress there too. IPG plans to continue to work with the systems integrators to gain share in that segment, rather that to make a vertical move.
This is IPG's 2nd acquisition in 2010, by the way. It acquired little-known Photonics Innovations, of Alabama, in January. That acquisition is also narrowly strategic, aiming at materials and the mid-IR range.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Why Net Neutrality is above your job grade
As a supplier in the photonics or telecom food chain, should you care about the landmark decision this week over the FCC vs. Comcast? In short, no. It’s above your job grade. Here’s why.
Much is made about this kind of thing at the carrier level, since it impacts how they do their business. And what the carriers do—who wins and who loses—impacts the optical equipment vendors. And that passes on to the component vendors, who win or lose depending on their customers . So far, that’s all true.
But these kinds of decisions are really for policy wonks and legal nerds. I know, because I’m a recovering wonk myself. I once worked on telecom policy for Congress.
It’s not that technologists are above policy issues, or have nothing to contribute. Technologists are notoriously aloof in policy debates, but badly needed.
Rather, the neutrality debate is irrelevant to the optical networking community because it’s mostly decoupled from the day to day business of the network. There are so many other factors that are also very important. Think of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each has a regulatory agency. There are municipal agencies. Federal courts. The FCC. Congress. European countries. The European Commission. Japan. China. India. And a hundred other countries. Think of Google, iPhones, Facebook, Youtube. Think of refrigerators with IP addresses. (Then again, let’s leave that out.)
While policies get worked out, traffic just keeps on going up and up. And no one really has a good grasp just exactly how fast the traffic is growing, much less how much it will grow in the future. And even when big policy decisions are made, the consequences take years to work out. There will be more appeals, reactions by competitors, possibly legislation.
It’s important to take an interest in Net Neutrality as a citizen. It’s about whether you think broadband service should be a regulated utility, or if it should be a competitive service. And yes, the consequences do trickle down to the equipment and component vendors. But the ones who stand to gain the most from these debates? Lawyers and government affairs officers (also known as lobbyists). That’s a certainty.
Much is made about this kind of thing at the carrier level, since it impacts how they do their business. And what the carriers do—who wins and who loses—impacts the optical equipment vendors. And that passes on to the component vendors, who win or lose depending on their customers . So far, that’s all true.
But these kinds of decisions are really for policy wonks and legal nerds. I know, because I’m a recovering wonk myself. I once worked on telecom policy for Congress.
It’s not that technologists are above policy issues, or have nothing to contribute. Technologists are notoriously aloof in policy debates, but badly needed.
Rather, the neutrality debate is irrelevant to the optical networking community because it’s mostly decoupled from the day to day business of the network. There are so many other factors that are also very important. Think of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each has a regulatory agency. There are municipal agencies. Federal courts. The FCC. Congress. European countries. The European Commission. Japan. China. India. And a hundred other countries. Think of Google, iPhones, Facebook, Youtube. Think of refrigerators with IP addresses. (Then again, let’s leave that out.)
While policies get worked out, traffic just keeps on going up and up. And no one really has a good grasp just exactly how fast the traffic is growing, much less how much it will grow in the future. And even when big policy decisions are made, the consequences take years to work out. There will be more appeals, reactions by competitors, possibly legislation.
It’s important to take an interest in Net Neutrality as a citizen. It’s about whether you think broadband service should be a regulated utility, or if it should be a competitive service. And yes, the consequences do trickle down to the equipment and component vendors. But the ones who stand to gain the most from these debates? Lawyers and government affairs officers (also known as lobbyists). That’s a certainty.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Fragmentation depends on your point of view
A recent poster on the Photonics LinkedIn group was impressed by the stratification and fragmentation in the HB-LED business. The self-described newcomer can be excused for being naïve, but there are some things I think are worth repeating here. Most importantly, whether fragmentation is good or bad depends on where you sit.
A lot of people like to compare photonics with some industry X just before the industry took off. The most common example is silicon electronics in some early stage. Who wouldn’t want to repeat that ride?
But that’s a poor analogy. Photonics components are more like airplane parts than CMOS. Most photonics parts are highly specialized, and the suppliers can often make a nice profit because of the complexity or service they provide. That's good for a lot of companies, including small and medium size companies. For them, fragmentation is good. It means niche opportunities for them.
However, it turns out that a lot of photonics parts require an expensive clean room—a fab. Anyone who has an expensive capital investment, like a fab, wants to get volume through it to pay for the lights, and that favors consolidation. These suppliers want everyone else to get out of the business and leave it to them. Who wouldn’t? So, many of these companies look to minimize differences in products, even if it means standardizing the parts a little and giving up some of the profit margin. For them, fragmentation is bad because it limits their volume, and therefore their profitability.
If you are a customer or an end-user, there is occasionally a segment where consolidation is needed to lower the price to the customer, and move the market forward. But these opportunities are rare. When they appear, the customers usually have a way of forcing standardization onto the suppliers, not the other way around. Solid-state lighting might be an example where consolidation might help the end-user. (Or not, since it's not the only factor in its adoption.)
But watch out what you wish for. What's good for the customer, or for one supplier, may not be good for everyone. Whether the consolidation is good or bad depends on whether you survive the shake-out or not.
In summary:
* Photonics markets are notoriously fragmented.
* They always will be.
* That’s good for some companies.
* That’s bad for some companies.
* Consolidating suppliers can sometimes help grow the industry, but watch out what you wish for.
A lot of people like to compare photonics with some industry X just before the industry took off. The most common example is silicon electronics in some early stage. Who wouldn’t want to repeat that ride?
But that’s a poor analogy. Photonics components are more like airplane parts than CMOS. Most photonics parts are highly specialized, and the suppliers can often make a nice profit because of the complexity or service they provide. That's good for a lot of companies, including small and medium size companies. For them, fragmentation is good. It means niche opportunities for them.
However, it turns out that a lot of photonics parts require an expensive clean room—a fab. Anyone who has an expensive capital investment, like a fab, wants to get volume through it to pay for the lights, and that favors consolidation. These suppliers want everyone else to get out of the business and leave it to them. Who wouldn’t? So, many of these companies look to minimize differences in products, even if it means standardizing the parts a little and giving up some of the profit margin. For them, fragmentation is bad because it limits their volume, and therefore their profitability.
If you are a customer or an end-user, there is occasionally a segment where consolidation is needed to lower the price to the customer, and move the market forward. But these opportunities are rare. When they appear, the customers usually have a way of forcing standardization onto the suppliers, not the other way around. Solid-state lighting might be an example where consolidation might help the end-user. (Or not, since it's not the only factor in its adoption.)
But watch out what you wish for. What's good for the customer, or for one supplier, may not be good for everyone. Whether the consolidation is good or bad depends on whether you survive the shake-out or not.
In summary:
* Photonics markets are notoriously fragmented.
* They always will be.
* That’s good for some companies.
* That’s bad for some companies.
* Consolidating suppliers can sometimes help grow the industry, but watch out what you wish for.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
3 countries make 87% of all lasers. Wow!
Bet you didn't know this: about 87% of all laser revenues attribute to companies headquartered in only three countries: the U.S., Japan, and Germany. Wow! Who'd have guessed?
Don't believe me? Consider that about 1/2 of all laser revenues are for diode lasers for communications and optical storage. These are mostly made by Japanese companies, some U.S., some Taiwan, and a few others.
Then, consider that several big laser makers hail from Germany and Japan: TRUMPF, Rofin-Sinar, FANUC, Gigaphoton, and Mitsubishi. Germany is also home to many smaller laser makers, like Jenoptik, Toptica, and (despite the name) Menlo Systems. The U.S. is the official home to many familiar names: Coherent, GSI (including Synrad, Quantronix, and Continuum), Newport, IPG, Cymer, JDS Uniphase, Oclaro, and many, many smaller companies.
I'm counting revenues here, not units. A lot of commodity lasers are made in Taiwan, or even China, for laser pointers and such things. Oh, and of course, I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
True, the assembly may be anywhere from Russia to China, but the companies are headquartered in only a few countries. This means that at least a large part of the revenues (including the profits) flow back through headquarters. (More on that in a later post.) Oh, and of course I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
For the record, this all came about from a question I got from Breck Hitz, the Executive Director of the Lasers and Electro-Optics Manufacturers Association, LEOMA, who is trying to advance laser standards at the ISO.
Don't believe me? Consider that about 1/2 of all laser revenues are for diode lasers for communications and optical storage. These are mostly made by Japanese companies, some U.S., some Taiwan, and a few others.
Then, consider that several big laser makers hail from Germany and Japan: TRUMPF, Rofin-Sinar, FANUC, Gigaphoton, and Mitsubishi. Germany is also home to many smaller laser makers, like Jenoptik, Toptica, and (despite the name) Menlo Systems. The U.S. is the official home to many familiar names: Coherent, GSI (including Synrad, Quantronix, and Continuum), Newport, IPG, Cymer, JDS Uniphase, Oclaro, and many, many smaller companies.
I'm counting revenues here, not units. A lot of commodity lasers are made in Taiwan, or even China, for laser pointers and such things. Oh, and of course, I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
True, the assembly may be anywhere from Russia to China, but the companies are headquartered in only a few countries. This means that at least a large part of the revenues (including the profits) flow back through headquarters. (More on that in a later post.) Oh, and of course I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
For the record, this all came about from a question I got from Breck Hitz, the Executive Director of the Lasers and Electro-Optics Manufacturers Association, LEOMA, who is trying to advance laser standards at the ISO.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
SIL 2010: HB-LED market to grow 53% this year
Our 11th annual Strategies in Light event ended last week and it was symbolic of the LED and LED lighting market. Booming. In fact, the big takeaway is exactly that. The HB-LED market will surge 53% in 2010 to $8.2 billion, going to $20.2 billion by 2014. Did you get that? That’s $20 billion. That's a respectable number compared to other components sectors, like semiconductors and displays. And, it grew 5% in 2009, despite the recession.
This is so big, saying much else takes away from the message. And anyway, my colleagues at LEDs Magazine were all over the event, so you can go there to find out the details. You might especially like this chart of our LED market forecast, at the magazine’s site.
The event was a indication of the expectations in the LED market. We had nearly 3,000 total attendees and 88 exhibitors, each up about 50% from 2009.
The LED lighting part of the event is really gaining mindshare, with its separate conference track, LED lighting tutorials, a new Solid-State Lighting Investors Forum, and a new LED Lighting pavilion in the exhibit area. There was also a lot of discussion about broader systems issues like LED-specific thermal management, suitable optics, efficient drivers, LED-friendly controllers, and all that. In short, it’s not just about the LED anymore.
This is so big, saying much else takes away from the message. And anyway, my colleagues at LEDs Magazine were all over the event, so you can go there to find out the details. You might especially like this chart of our LED market forecast, at the magazine’s site.
The event was a indication of the expectations in the LED market. We had nearly 3,000 total attendees and 88 exhibitors, each up about 50% from 2009.
The LED lighting part of the event is really gaining mindshare, with its separate conference track, LED lighting tutorials, a new Solid-State Lighting Investors Forum, and a new LED Lighting pavilion in the exhibit area. There was also a lot of discussion about broader systems issues like LED-specific thermal management, suitable optics, efficient drivers, LED-friendly controllers, and all that. In short, it’s not just about the LED anymore.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The next big imaging technology: OMI
If you haven’t heard of optical molecular imaging (OMI), get ready to hear more about it. OMI is about to move into clinical use as one of the key tools in personalized medicine. Growth of equipment sales is on track to reach $400 million in 2014 and nearly $1 billion by 2020. Yes, you heard that right.
Don’t confuse this new imaging technology with OCT (on which we also have a new market report). Think of optical molecular imaging more like CT or MRI, but using visible light emission from molecular agents. OMI can be used in living tissue as a tool for examining diseases or drug effectiveness. It’s highly portable, fast, and less expensive than conventional imaging, and it has the potential to be used in the doctor’s office.
There are a lot of factors in this market rollout, though. The growth hinges on partnerships with key medical equipment vendors, the outcomes of clinical trials assessing imaging agents, regulatory approvals, patent litigation, and decisions about insurance reimbursement.
The market will likely expand in two directions: research systems and clinical systems. Recent advances in imaging agents will power the transition of optical techniques from the lab to clinical settings. Large imaging firms, such as GE Healthcare, Siemens, and Philips, are beginning to pursue optical molecular imaging, while over 12 companies are already marketing OMI systems. A large part of the revenues will be from the imaging agents, animal models (that is, genetically-engineered mice), accessories, software, services, and licensing.
As always, ours is a high quality market report, and the only comprehensive one out there. Kudos to our good friend and lead author, Susan Reiss.
Don’t confuse this new imaging technology with OCT (on which we also have a new market report). Think of optical molecular imaging more like CT or MRI, but using visible light emission from molecular agents. OMI can be used in living tissue as a tool for examining diseases or drug effectiveness. It’s highly portable, fast, and less expensive than conventional imaging, and it has the potential to be used in the doctor’s office.
There are a lot of factors in this market rollout, though. The growth hinges on partnerships with key medical equipment vendors, the outcomes of clinical trials assessing imaging agents, regulatory approvals, patent litigation, and decisions about insurance reimbursement.
The market will likely expand in two directions: research systems and clinical systems. Recent advances in imaging agents will power the transition of optical techniques from the lab to clinical settings. Large imaging firms, such as GE Healthcare, Siemens, and Philips, are beginning to pursue optical molecular imaging, while over 12 companies are already marketing OMI systems. A large part of the revenues will be from the imaging agents, animal models (that is, genetically-engineered mice), accessories, software, services, and licensing.
As always, ours is a high quality market report, and the only comprehensive one out there. Kudos to our good friend and lead author, Susan Reiss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)