Dana Blankenhorn

Moore’s Third Law

Almost 20 years ago I began the most important work of my career.

My working title was "Moore’s Lore,” stories about Moore’s Law. A "marketing expert" insisted I put my name in the title. 

The original Moore’s Law, described by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore for Electronics magazine in 1965,  estimated that circuit density could increase for 10 years, at the same cost, and indeed by 1975 Intel was shipping chips that had over 64,000 circuits on them. Moore then “formalized” the law, saying he expected density to continue doubling, at the same pace, for as far as he could foresee. 

That’s Moore’s First Law. Moore never mentioned a second law, but it’s there.

Moore’s Second Law is that just as circuit complexity grows exponentially, so does its capital cost. While you can make up this cost by making more chips, it means the chip-making business is consolidating. Today there are only four manufacturers of microprocessors – Samsung, China’s Taiwan Semiconductor, the Middle East’s Global Foundries, and Intel itself.

The implications of Moore’s Second Law, as it continues grinding down, is that chip production becomes a national security issue.

Ever since Moore’s 1965 article came out, cynics have been trying to call a halt to Moore’s Law. As circuit lines get close together their distance can’t be measured, the cynics note. Every increased expense or shortfall in decreasing circuit size is seen to be evidence that the “Law” is “ending.”

The Next Step in Urban Evolution

When I moved to my present house in 1983, all views of the urban future were dystopian.

Suburbs were the thing. Cities were being consigned to the scrap heap. Atlanta offered a three-bedroom Craftsman bungalow, built in 1923, a few hundred feet from a train station, and with the nicest neighbors you could want, for $49,500.

Today the house is worth over $500,000. We put a lot into it along the way. It’s bigger than it was. The kitchen is huge, with all-new appliances. All the utilities are upgraded. It’s air conditioned.

More important, views of the urban future have reversed. Now everyone loves density, and the city wants to turn the train station’s parking lot into “workforce housing” so people making under $100,000 can live here.

But the assumption that the urban future is golden today is as warped as the attitudes of 1983 were.