4 ms·

Really what has to happen is that the chip companies have to wake up to the fact that levels of compensation at software companies has outpaced them. If you wan

Really what has to happen is that the chip companies have to wake up to the fact that levels of compensation at software companies has outpaced them. If you want to hire top talent for half of what GOOGLE/FB/AMZN would pay the talent then yes there will be a shortage. Trying to convince engineers with these fluff pieces how they are important will not make a difference. Pay up.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Where I work we have both embedded firmware and software developers. The firmware devs are largely EEs and get paid less due to lack of demand and market competition. If they paid the software devs the same there would be a mass exodus.
- ngsayjoe 9y ago
  So sad to hear this, as it is much harder to study EE and embedded programming is much much harder than software programming.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    They are both equally difficult.
    - aetherspawn 9y ago
      Dunning-Kruger effect applies here. The levels of confidence/validation are completely different. Good luck fixing a software bug on a toaster after-the-fact. Also, performance is regularly an annoyance, especially if you have to do something non-trivial like process ethernet frames or talk on USB. Sub 8-Mhz processors for embedded processors still extremely popular and the flash size constraint leaves no room for huge libraries or ROM waste. Completely different.
      - user5994461 9y ago
        Hardware and software are two deep domains that can be incredibly complex and challenging. You're doing a disservice to both by taking a toaster without QA as an argument.
- sverige 9y ago
  Yep, this is why Intel reported $60 billion in 2017 revenue at a gross margin of 63 percent. [1] Many profitable hardware companies seem to be case studies for what I think of as corporate atherosclerosis. [1] As mentioned in the article attached to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194011
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  I used to work for a company where the complete opposite has always been true[0]. The EEs make significantly more and are generally held in higher regard. I guess it depends on owners[1]/managers and maybe what type of product is being produced, also. [0] Still is true. [1] This was a small, private owned company.
- fra 9y ago
  Good firmware engineers are incredibly hard to find. I know, I’ve hired two dozen. If you’re a firmware engineer and you’re getting paid less than the software people, leave.
whack 9y ago
As a EE myself, who left the hardware industry to become a software engineer, I agree completely. It's also worth examining the reasons why chipmakers in today's world can't ever compete with SW companies for top talent: 1. The market size and opportunity in SW is tremendous as compared to HW. SW is eating the world in nearly every industry, and this is going to continue for the next 10-20 years. HW used to be great, during the time of Moore's law. But with Moore's law coming to an end, it's going to be harder and harder for chipmakers to compete with the same products they released 3 years ago. 2. Entrepreneurial opportunities are severely limited in HW. A software startup can be launched by 2 college kids in a dorm room, using a couple thousand dollars of angel investments, and scaled nationally with 1-2 million in VC funding. With HW startups, because of the engineering/logistical nightmares involved in fabricating a chip and selling a physical product, you need so much more money/credentials/connections to get a startup off the ground. SW devs can realistically dream of building/joining a world-changing startup, but HW engineers are mostly resigned to being a cog in a big machine. 3. Paranoia and risk aversion. Strongly linked to the above, is the culture of rational risk-aversion that exists in any HW project. With a software project, the Agile/MVP methodology works extremely well, because the cost of making changes, or fixing prior mistakes, is so low. In HW, the costs of making changes and releasing a buggy product, are astronomically higher. Because of this, HW projects are extremely risk-averse. Junior developers are micromanaged by their superiors. People are given little autonomy to innovate and try new ideas. Project timelines are measured in years, not months. From an artistic perspective, developers love having the freedom to build freely and get their product in the hands of users as soon as possible. This is so much easier in SW as compared to HW. Combine all 3 of the above, and it's easy to see why SW is so much more lucrative and enticing. As an EE myself, I tell everyone I know that unless they have a deep passion for the field itself, they should strongly consider a career switch.
- marktangotango 9y ago
  The bug consideration is huge in hardware. One wonders what a different world it would be if the zilog z800, the most advanced 16 bit chip of its time, would’ve had fewer bugs.
- twtw 9y ago
  Re: Dead Moore's law and entrepreneurial opportunities. It seems to me that the fact that Moore's law has ended may end up with a flip side that could potentially be awesome. Previously, it nearly always made more sense to do something on a CPU and wait for performance to double than to develop a custom ASIC. With the free lunch deal over, I suspect that we will begin to see a ton more custom ASICs and architectural innovation. This has already begun for ML/DL/AI. Without Moore's law, the semiconductor industry may get a lot more exciting. It might also just fade to commodity even more, but that isn't as fun to think about.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

Where I work we have both embedded firmware and software developers. The firmware devs are largely EEs and get paid less due to lack of demand and market competition. If they paid the software devs the same there would be a mass exodus.

ngsayjoe 9y ago
So sad to hear this, as it is much harder to study EE and embedded programming is much much harder than software programming.
- user5994461 9y ago
  They are both equally difficult.
  - aetherspawn 9y ago
    Dunning-Kruger effect applies here. The levels of confidence/validation are completely different. Good luck fixing a software bug on a toaster after-the-fact. Also, performance is regularly an annoyance, especially if you have to do something non-trivial like process ethernet frames or talk on USB. Sub 8-Mhz processors for embedded processors still extremely popular and the flash size constraint leaves no room for huge libraries or ROM waste. Completely different.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      Hardware and software are two deep domains that can be incredibly complex and challenging. You're doing a disservice to both by taking a toaster without QA as an argument.
sverige 9y ago
Yep, this is why Intel reported $60 billion in 2017 revenue at a gross margin of 63 percent. [1] Many profitable hardware companies seem to be case studies for what I think of as corporate atherosclerosis. [1] As mentioned in the article attached to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194011
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I used to work for a company where the complete opposite has always been true[0]. The EEs make significantly more and are generally held in higher regard. I guess it depends on owners[1]/managers and maybe what type of product is being produced, also. [0] Still is true. [1] This was a small, private owned company.
fra 9y ago
Good firmware engineers are incredibly hard to find. I know, I’ve hired two dozen. If you’re a firmware engineer and you’re getting paid less than the software people, leave.

whack 9y ago

As a EE myself, who left the hardware industry to become a software engineer, I agree completely. It's also worth examining the reasons why chipmakers in today's world can't ever compete with SW companies for top talent: 1. The market size and opportunity in SW is tremendous as compared to HW. SW is eating the world in nearly every industry, and this is going to continue for the next 10-20 years. HW used to be great, during the time of Moore's law. But with Moore's law coming to an end, it's going to be harder and harder for chipmakers to compete with the same products they released 3 years ago. 2. Entrepreneurial opportunities are severely limited in HW. A software startup can be launched by 2 college kids in a dorm room, using a couple thousand dollars of angel investments, and scaled nationally with 1-2 million in VC funding. With HW startups, because of the engineering/logistical nightmares involved in fabricating a chip and selling a physical product, you need so much more money/credentials/connections to get a startup off the ground. SW devs can realistically dream of building/joining a world-changing startup, but HW engineers are mostly resigned to being a cog in a big machine. 3. Paranoia and risk aversion. Strongly linked to the above, is the culture of rational risk-aversion that exists in any HW project. With a software project, the Agile/MVP methodology works extremely well, because the cost of making changes, or fixing prior mistakes, is so low. In HW, the costs of making changes and releasing a buggy product, are astronomically higher. Because of this, HW projects are extremely risk-averse. Junior developers are micromanaged by their superiors. People are given little autonomy to innovate and try new ideas. Project timelines are measured in years, not months. From an artistic perspective, developers love having the freedom to build freely and get their product in the hands of users as soon as possible. This is so much easier in SW as compared to HW. Combine all 3 of the above, and it's easy to see why SW is so much more lucrative and enticing. As an EE myself, I tell everyone I know that unless they have a deep passion for the field itself, they should strongly consider a career switch.

marktangotango 9y ago
The bug consideration is huge in hardware. One wonders what a different world it would be if the zilog z800, the most advanced 16 bit chip of its time, would’ve had fewer bugs.
twtw 9y ago
Re: Dead Moore's law and entrepreneurial opportunities. It seems to me that the fact that Moore's law has ended may end up with a flip side that could potentially be awesome. Previously, it nearly always made more sense to do something on a CPU and wait for performance to double than to develop a custom ASIC. With the free lunch deal over, I suspect that we will begin to see a ton more custom ASICs and architectural innovation. This has already begun for ML/DL/AI. Without Moore's law, the semiconductor industry may get a lot more exciting. It might also just fade to commodity even more, but that isn't as fun to think about.