Interpreting closed system and open system of chip design

The chip thing, I think I can write a short summary, mainly because this blog is not talking about the chip, talking more laughable. The central point here is that the direction of future development is the problem of closed systems and open systems. There is also a core issue of what is the game. Apart from the market and the funds in hand, there is something that we can ultimately play against the Western world.

1) Closed system

I see it this way. Close the system and shut himself up. There will be systemic risks in the civilian sector. A typical case is Japan’s consumer electronics and China’s consumer electronics, as well as high-tech economic systems.

Japan’s high-tech economic system was also entirely self-sufficient. From the operating system, CPU cores, compilers, crystal original factories, to high-end manufacturing, everything was developed by them. All of the information was in Japanese. What is the use of that? The development of the science and technology tree in a single economy depends on a large technological alliance system. We have previously seen the benefits of China in the entire open system.

I think the essence of the problem, or go from bottom to top, we need to make a choice. It was too quick to do things before, and everything could be done quickly, but the foundation was dependent on an open system, so members of the open system would have a lot of friction. However, this matter is not a reason to go from an open system to a closed system. The statement made by Boao was further developed.

2) Development in depth

The first two days the boss said a word is very real, we have to do things to drill inside, not for different and not the same. The ultimate effect is to make something different. After others recognize it, they follow us and form their own path. It is not because we rely on power and regulations but we are trying to open a road, but this road has been carefully verified by us to prove it is good.

Moreover, one's energy is limited, and the same is true for a country's industry. We have done our own role, made breakthroughs in the core areas, and the orientation of policies is inevitable. We have been biased in the scale of homogenization and ability to reduce prices. Efforts are focused on expanding production. On a large scale, it is bound to go down. There will be many omissions in the basic and basic standards.

Are all tool chains required to be safe?

In general, the security itself has atomic bombs at the national level when there are atomic bombs. If there is a core foundation that can be used by others, it is the time for both parties to bargain. In areas where we are not good at, we contribute some opportunities for use, and use some of the other points of the device to go up and back. And in our core area, we are well done.

It is certainly not possible to go from an open system to a closed system. The commercial society is more efficient than the market capacity. A lot of things, greediness and insufficiency are also people's taboos. The key thing is to know that you have a lot of things to do. Choose a key point and learn to practice. The goal is to find the core competitiveness. It is right for individuals. For an industry, it is also right.

There are tens of years of life in a hurry, or you need to focus on something. No, it is not. What's more, the technological development is still so fast!