Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

[Jim Thompson]

I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)

Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
an ON-Semi-like disappearance.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[EEng]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:28:48 -0700, Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)

Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
an ON-Semi-like disappearance.

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

I wouldn't worry too much. Motorola is a client and what I've
discovered over the years since ON Semiconductor started up, is that
Motorola is merely separating out its various departments and giving
each of them their own business name and hierarchial structure. What
used to be Dept Heads, are now CEO's for their "little" company. One
way or another, they all link back to Motorola.

While this HAS created documentation sourcing nightmares, its not
impossible to get around. I recently ordered updates of every
Motorola Data Book in existence (for semiconductors only) and received
them a couple weeks ago. Interestingly enough, each book that covers
parts covered by ON Semi is still marked as Motorola but with the
added "ON Semiconductor" under the Motorola Logo. Those parts not
covered by ON are included in the data set.

Their Documentation Dept now routes you to the appropriate ordering
office for the various Motorola spin-offs and in some cases directs
you to contact that division directly, but the documentation still
comes from Motorolas main warehouse in Schaumburg. The real
difference between ordering from Motorola and ordering from ON is who
answers the phone and who pulls inventory to ship to you. These
persons are still housed in the same buildings, same offices, except
one person answers the Motorola number, and another answers the ON
number. Same in the warehouse..... one worker gets paid by Motorola
directly, the other by ON.

While ON is its own business, own company, with its own employees,
managers, CEO, CFO, etc....it is still answerable to Motorola come tax
season although officially from the PR standpoint, nobody will admit
this. I only know about it because I've been speaking to Motorola and
ON engineers on an almost daily basis for quite some time and
subsequently have developed some friendships there that tell me things
they probably shouldn't. In any event, the documentation request
lines still work regardless of which company you contact as they all
go through Motorola anyway. I rather suspect with the spin-off of
their remaining component management that this will not change much
except to put more personnel between us and the data we need.

Also be aware that the industry trend is moving towards requiring
purchase of Data Sheets (and Books) which I feel is really stupid. If
I can't shop your parts, how can I know if I want to use them?

I'll tell you what's the REAL bitch...... I know certain things that
Motorola is planning months before its released and because I do
contract design and manufacturing for them, I'm not permitted to buy
their stock ..... it would be insider trading dammit and there's some
really cool things going to happen in the next 6 months that I want in
on.... stock-wise.

 

[Greg Pierce]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:28:48 -0700, the highly esteemed Jim Thompson
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)

Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
an ON-Semi-like disappearance.

...Jim Thompson

I remember when Mot told Apple that they would no longer be building
PowerPC chips for them, and everyone figured Apple would end up
building PCs which ran OSX. As it turns out, Apple simply went over
to IBM, had them build a CPU using their POWER4 core, and ended
up with the PowerPC G5. Its being made by IBM on their 130nm SOI
process - looks like Apple didn't need Mot after all...

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

 

[Active8]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:28:48 -0700, Jim Thompson, said...

I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)

Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
an ON-Semi-like disappearance.

...Jim Thompson

what good will the data books be if the parts disappear? of course, my
MECL data, glue logic, and hipercomm books may come in handy, esp. the
app notes in the case of the first and last. i wonder where the ECLinPS
book is...

i'm glad i stopped looking to mot for parts. today i was going though
and organizing a bunch of samples i got from them years ago. a lot of
those chips (e.g., the mosaic line) are hard to find and i was told that
on-semi denies they ever existed. NBFM chips... stuff like that.

brs,
mike

 

[Phil Hobbs]

EEng wrote:

I'll tell you what's the REAL bitch...... I know certain things that
Motorola is planning months before its released and because I do
contract design and manufacturing for them, I'm not permitted to buy
their stock ..... it would be insider trading dammit and there's some
really cool things going to happen in the next 6 months that I want in
on.... stock-wise.

I hope what you say is false....remember Martha Stewart's broker....


Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

 

[Active8]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:43:58 -0700, EEng, said...
<snip>

thanks for the insider info, i think. i mean i'd like to see some of
their older parts stay around, like the MRFs and such. PLLs...

[...] I only know about it because I've been speaking to Motorola and
ON engineers on an almost daily basis for quite some time and
subsequently have developed some friendships there that tell me things
they probably shouldn't.

not any more ;-)

In any event, the documentation request
lines still work regardless of which company you contact as they all
go through Motorola anyway. I rather suspect with the spin-off of
their remaining component management that this will not change much
except to put more personnel between us and the data we need.

Also be aware that the industry trend is moving towards requiring
purchase of Data Sheets (and Books) which I feel is really stupid. If
I can't shop your parts, how can I know if I want to use them?

for real! pay me to send you a picture of the product.

I'll tell you what's the REAL bitch...... I know certain things that
Motorola is planning months before its released and because I do
contract design and manufacturing for them, I'm not permitted to buy
their stock ..... it would be insider trading dammit and there's some
really cool things going to happen in the next 6 months that I want in
on.... stock-wise.

hire a proxy - wrong word. ah! a cutout - and keep your mouth shut? how
could you hide it? shades of martha stewart.

thanks 4 the tip. or is it?

brs,
mike


>

 

[Oppie]

"Jim Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:347jov09eb68vola5n5bnp3eq0981ll4s0@4ax.com...
| I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:
|
| Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations
|
| I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)
|
| Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
| an ON-Semi-like disappearance.
|
| ...Jim Thompson

Saw the notice in both the trade papers and in the local business section.
Wonder what they will call the division then?
I remember a few years back when Seimens split off the passives business. I
had read what the new name was supposed to be. When I tried to order parts
through a distributor, they didn't have a clue about the new name or part
numbers. Good 'coordination'.
Bob Oppenheimer
--
For valid response address, remove the '1' following oppie
_________________

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Jim Thompson <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:<347jov09eb68vola5n5bnp3eq0981ll4s0@4ax.com>...

I don't know if you've seen this on your news channels/papers:

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

I didn't know they had any "remaining" ;-)

A lot of microcontroller products, very important for anyone that's
built a product around them, they are mostly single sourced AFAIUI.
Motorola MC68HC705/08, Dragonball, 68HC11, and so on, hopefully
enough to form the core of a vital company that will concentrate
on them and halt the decline, while Motorola chases cell phone
profits in China and other emerging markets.

Better gather up any data books you may need in the future or suffer
an ON-Semi-like disappearance.

The other interesting "bombshell" last week was the initiative from
Sony to reduce the number of components in their products from
something like 800-900,000 *different* parts to more like 100,000 in
some defined time frame. Another indication of commoditization of the
electronics industry, and another case of following the automotive
industry.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Richard Henry]

"Spehro Pefhany" <speff@asia.com> wrote in message
news:6ae17f35.0310122014.797a0199@posting.google.com...

The other interesting "bombshell" last week was the initiative from
Sony to reduce the number of components in their products from
something like 800-900,000 *different* parts to more like 100,000 in
some defined time frame. Another indication of commoditization of the
electronics industry, and another case of following the automotive
industry.

I remember working for a small electronics company many years ago whose
purchasing department had made a great deal on 1k resistors, which at the
time were the most common component in the company's products. Company
management issued a directive to the engineering managers to use 1k
resistors wherever possible.

My division's chief engineer made the announcement at an n+1 pizza lunch
(n+1 means that we ordered 1 more pitcher of beer than there were
attendees).

 

[Dave VanHorn]

I remember working for a small electronics company many years ago whose
purchasing department had made a great deal on 1k resistors, which at the
time were the most common component in the company's products. Company
management issued a directive to the engineering managers to use 1k
resistors wherever possible.

I learned this from Karl Chang at Verifone.

Used appropriately, it's a good idea. His version was that most circuits can
be satisfied with the 1.0, 2.2, and 4.7 values, and we should stick to
those, whenever possible.

Also, try to re-use the same ICs where possible in different designs.

This is a sword with both edges on the same side. Not only do your
quantities go up, but you don't expose yourself to "features" in new
devices so often.

Like all rules of thumb, use only with common sense enabled.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

"Dave VanHorn" <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message news:<_OWdnVobpuG-UReiU-KYuA@comcast.com>...

I remember working for a small electronics company many years ago whose
purchasing department had made a great deal on 1k resistors, which at the
time were the most common component in the company's products. Company
management issued a directive to the engineering managers to use 1k
resistors wherever possible.

I learned this from Karl Chang at Verifone.

Used appropriately, it's a good idea. His version was that most circuits can
be satisfied with the 1.0, 2.2, and 4.7 values, and we should stick to
those, whenever possible.

Also, try to re-use the same ICs where possible in different designs.

This is a sword with both edges on the same side. Not only do your
quantities go up, but you don't expose yourself to "features" in new
devices so often.

Like all rules of thumb, use only with common sense enabled.

Partly here is the recognition that the circuit inside doesn't have
to be absolutely optimal. It isn't the last 0.1 cents of theoretical
cost reduction or some infinitesmal increase in performance from
using a 3K9 resistor instead of a 4K7 resistor, but the
styling of the casing and the cost savings at the beginning and end
of ever-shorter product lifetimes that they want to focus on.

The other side of that sword, and one I've struggled with, is when you
have multiple products with decent combined volume you have to
project sales of the products and purchase combined volumes of components
that make sense. It's dead easy to say you're going to buy parts for
1,000 of something. When you have 500 of this, 400 of that, maybe 300 (if
that nice order comes in) of something else, a new product that will need
100 (failure) to 1000 (success) of the same part.. and then you want to
combine parts that can be ordered from the same vendor- sometimes quite
dissimilar parts- ceramic resonators and chip capacitors- both to get
quantity discounts, but also to reduce shipping costs, which can be
significant if not watched. This is manufacturing, not design, and
probably considered "boring" by most design engineers, but to the extent
that the designs affect manufacturing it ought to be considered. It gets
more interesting if you have a stake in the dollars involved.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany