Connect with us

Motorola To Spin Off Remaining Semiconductor Operations

Discussion in 'CAD' started by Jim Thompson, Oct 12, 2003.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    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
  2. EEng

    EEng Guest


    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, 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.
  3. Greg Pierce

    Greg Pierce Guest

    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...
  4. Active8

    Active8 Guest

    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.

  5. Phil Hobbs

    Phil Hobbs Guest

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


    Phil Hobbs
  6. Active8

    Active8 Guest

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

    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...
    not any more ;-)
    for real! pay me to send you a picture of the product.
    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?

  7. Oppie

    Oppie Guest

    | 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
  8. 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.
    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

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
  9. 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
  10. Dave VanHorn

    Dave VanHorn Guest

    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.
  11. 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
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day