by Gary Mintchell | Sep 19, 2025 | Commentary, Manufacturing IT, News, Software
Talking with colleague David Greenfield of Automation World at the very successful Inductive Automation ICC 2025 event about what happened to main competitors. There once was Wonderware (a pioneer) who eventually wound up under AVEVA. Then there was GE (Fanuc/Intelligent Platforms/Digital/Vernova) home of their Cimplicity and Intellution’s iFix which sort of blended into Proficy.
David tapped my shoulder. He had an email where the person wanted to discuss the future for iFix and Cimplicity. I turned around, checked my email, and had an invitation to sponsor an AVEVA one-day conference in Houston. How about that for synchronicity? A bit later I saw that GE Vernova has sold the HMI/SCADA/MES business (Proficy) to an investment firm, TPG. No wonder they sent an email to assure people about the future of their products.
I’ve pasted some of the press release below. I’m not surprised that Vernova is divesting this business. I am amazed that they are getting $600 million for it. That’s a lot of money for software that hasn’t made much of a splash in the market for several years. (When I was bouncing from one entrepreneurial start up to another in the 80s and 90s, why didn’t one of us get something akin to that size of a bail out?)
Oh, and, no, I’m not sponsoring the AVEVA Energy Day in Houston next month. Hint: they should sponsor me 😉
Bullet points in brief:
- Transaction will establish manufacturing software business as leading independent industrial technology solutions provider.
- Proficy software technology portfolio solves some of the toughest challenges in manufacturing, infrastructure, and other industries.
- GE Vernova retains its Electrification Software business focused on developing solutions to help customers electrify and decarbonize the energy ecosystem.
Note: there is much of the usual PR fluff in this release:
GE Vernova Inc. (NYSE: GEV) and TPG, a leading global alternative asset management firm, announced today the signing of a binding agreement confirming the intent under which TPG will acquire GE Vernova’s Proficy® manufacturing software business (“Proficy”) for $600 million. GE Vernova may receive additional sale proceeds in the future depending on various outcomes and conditions. TPG will invest in Proficy through TPG Capital, the firm’s U.S. and European private equity platform.
The proposed transaction would establish Proficy as a standalone software business that helps its more than 20,000 customers manage complexity, enable greater efficiency, and improve connectivity across their industrial operations. Proficy’s software portfolio solves industrial challenges across discrete, process, and hybrid manufacturing, as well as metro transit and other infrastructure applications. Its fully integrated solutions include cloud-based and on-prem HMI/SCADA, MES, industrial data management, and analytics, offering architectural flexibility from equipment to the production line, plant, and full enterprise. In partnership with TPG, Proficy would continue to deliver enhanced and expanded offerings that meet the evolving needs of teams across the broader manufacturing and infrastructure sectors. This manufacturing software business currently comprises approximately 20% of GE Vernova’s Electrification Software revenues.
“We are excited to reach this agreement with TPG to position the Proficy business for independent success, while also generating significant proceeds for GE Vernova to reinvest in our core businesses,” said Scott Strazik, CEO of GE Vernova. “The Proficy portfolio provides critical tools for manufacturing and production customers around the world, and I’m confident that TPG will help this important business continue to grow and meet the expanding needs of the industry. GE Vernova remains focused on delivering solutions to help customers electrify and decarbonize the energy ecosystem, including growing GridOS®, our enterprise software and AI platform for grid orchestration. We recently expanded GridOS through our acquisition of Alteia, an AI computer vision and machine learning company, as we continue to position that business for the future.”
“Manufacturing is undergoing a renaissance driven by customers’ need to increase throughput, optimize operations, and augment workforces. Proficy’s mission-critical, integrated, and increasingly AI-enabled solutions are leading the way, enabling customers to run, monitor, and improve the production process,” said Art Heidrich, Partner at TPG. “We are excited to partner with GE Vernova and Proficy’s leadership team to accelerate growth and power customers’ digital evolutions.”
TPG has deep experience executing corporate carveouts to support and grow innovative software businesses, with investments that have included Boomi, Elite, Everfox, Hospitality Solutions, McAfee, and Wind River.
Upon the successful completion of the proposed transaction, TPG would own and control the Proficy business and GE Vernova would retain a board observer seat. The proposed transaction is subject to information and consultation with employee representatives and other customary closing conditions, including certain regulatory approvals, and is expected to close in the first half of 2026.
Evercore and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are serving as financial advisors to GE Vernova. Centerview Partners LLC is serving as lead financial advisor to TPG, and William Blair is also serving as financial advisor to TPG.
by Gary Mintchell | Sep 4, 2025 | Commentary, Generative AI, News
I am on vacation, yet devoting hours to my avocation–assigning soccer referees to high school games. When disputes happen, I’m always in the middle. I’ve devoted several hours to that this week. Meanwhile, I still check the news.
I have two favorite news sources. One is called Axios; the other Morning Brew. But neither is infallible.
Today’s Morning Brew newsletter included this incendiary headline, Companies Are Benefitting from AI-drive Layoffs.
That is simply not true. Companies are laying off because they overhired during Covid and post-Covid times. Now they need to cut back. The CEOs, clueless though they may be, have called on managers to increase use of AI to do the work of the terminated employees. Studies show that this simply doesn’t happen. Like almost all automation technology, the reality of implementation is harder than marketing and trade journals make it sound.
by Gary Mintchell | Sep 2, 2025 | Commentary, Generative AI, News
How are you searching on the Web these days?
I still use Ecosia that realistically uses Google. Some, any way. You get many ads, a few links. Over time, though, the value of the links has continued to dwindle. When I want a deep search with follow up and deeper probe, I use Claude.ai.
But Claude does not show ads or links to sources (you can ask, but I usually don’t.)
Wonder what the ramifications are? Me, too. Then this article crossed my rss feed from Crazy, Stupid Tech.
Cloudflare’s CEO wants to save the web from AI’s oligarchs. Here’s why his plan isn’t crazy.
Written by Fred Vogelstein
Vogelstein writes:
Sixteen years ago Matthew Prince and classmate Michelle Zatlyn at Harvard Business School decided there was a better way to help companies handle hacker attacks to their websites. Prince and a friend had already built an open source system to help anyone with a website more easily track spammers. What if the three of them could leverage that into a company that not only tracked all internet threats but stopped them too?
Within months they had a business plan, won a prestigious Harvard Business School competition with it, and had seed funding. They unveiled the company, Cloudflare, a year later at the 2010 Techcrunch Disrupt completion, taking second place. And today, riding the explosion of cloud computing and armed with better technology and marketing, they’ve leapfrogged competitors to become one of the dominant cybersecurity/content delivery networks in the world.
I was immediately interested because I pay Cloudflare to protect my website. So far, it has been an excellent purchase.
Prince wants to talk about the future of the web and journalism with me because he thinks the AI chatbot revolution is killing both of them. And he thinks he can help fix that with something he calls pay-per-crawl, a gambit he and Cloudflare launched on July 1. He cares, he says, because “I love the smell of printer ink and a big wet press. So I kind of have a soft spot for the media industry and how important it is.” This isn’t spin. Two years ago he and his wife bought the Park City Record, his hometown local paper..
It’s a big enough problem that Prince and most publishers now believe a lot of journalism and anything else advertising supported online will die or be subsumed into AI companies in the next few years without intervention. And because 20 percent of websites use Cloudflare for security and traffic management, he can block enough AI chatbots crawlers – with his customers’ permission, of course – to at least force some big AI companies to the negotiating table.
I worked as an editor in trade magazine publishing for about 15 years. By the time I left in 2013, I could see the handwriting on the wall. During my entrepreneurial life, I’ve seen booms and busts. I can usually smell a bust coming. The advertising model of trade journals looked shaky. And digital funds are in short supply. In my 12 years as a blogger meeting many other former magazine writers also out on their own, I’ve met expenses with a little left over. But every year gets tougher.
The problem Prince is trying to solve is perhaps the biggest attack on how the web functions since Tim Berners-Lee created it in 1990. Until the AI revolution took hold two and a half years ago, the economic foundation worked like this: Search engines like Google and Microsoft freely and regularly indexed every site with web crawlers. In return, the search results powered by those indices generated referral traffic to those crawled websites. That has supported hundreds of billions of dollars in ad spending and search engine optimization.
But AI chatbots don’t work that way. Instead of ten blue links to choose from after a search – with advertising displayed at the top and right of results – AI chatbots just supply you with the answer. It’s a much better experience for users. Twenty years ago Google’s founders themselves in interviews with me and elsewhere talked about Google search only being an intermediate step toward creating an answer engine like this.
The problem this creates, however, is that there are no ads when AI chatbots give you the answer. If there are links to sources, users almost never click on them. AI chatbots also drive up publishers’ bandwidth costs because they crawl thousands of times a day. Wikipedia said back in April that these bots had raised their bandwidth costs 50 percent.
To larger entities than mine, this is a double hit. I hope Cloudflare can ignite a movement to bring some sort of sense to this market.
I highly recommend reading the entire interview.
by Gary Mintchell | Aug 20, 2025 | Business, Commentary, News
Mark Twain is one of the most famous people to be the subject of a death hoax. In his case, the newspapers were just careless. This is when he uttered his famous quote, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”
Perhaps the death of manufacturing in America exists only in the minds of politicians and media people seeking a story with a clickable headline.
I’ve made a trip across Indiana’s US Rt 30 twice these past two weeks. Somewhere in the middle of the state stands a large billboard. It proclaims how many jobs exist in Indiana from automotive manufacturing. I was driving, but I’m sure it said greater than 200,000. That’s a significant amount of jobs.
A publicist sent a link to an analysis by EIG Chief Economist Adam Ozimek. For an economist, the research and thinking seems pretty rational. He reveals how the most popular arguments for tariffs on auto imports today rest on a misreading of history. It debunks four widely accepted but flawed narratives.
You need to read this entire analysis for a proper understanding.
Protectionists love talking about the auto industry. Believing it offers a potent example of the harms of globalization, their arguments have long been politically attractive to politicians on both left and right. Most recently they have justified the Trump administration’s 25 percent tariffs on auto imports by emphasizing the long-term decline of the industry.
It is time to set the record straight.
The protectionist argument for insulating the American auto industry from foreign competition not only draws the wrong lessons from history, it gets the history itself wrong. It rests on four myths, all of which I debunk in this analysis:
- The U.S. auto industry has collapsed.
- Globalization caused the death of Detroit.
- Japanese imports nearly destroyed the auto industry in the early 1980s…
- … until auto protectionism saved it.
Once these myths are set aside in favor of a clear, accurate understanding of the auto sector and its history, there is no reason to be optimistic that the Trump administration’s protectionist approach to the sector will work as intended. Indeed the case for it falls apart entirely.
Sometimes we extrapolate from similar, but different, data sets.
Apparel, for example, is a quintessential globalized good, its factories shifting across the globe in search of the lowest labor costs. The United States once made a lot of clothes. Today it employs more than 90 percent fewer workers in apparel than it used to, and produces 90 percent less of the output. Apparel was a classic “China Shock” industry, where imports caused substantial and long-lasting economic disruptions in the parts of the country where it used to be concentrated.
Extrapolating from apparel to automotive doesn’t fly.
But the domestic auto industry is different. It remains alive and well, with 10.5 million vehicles assembled in American factories last year. This number is down from the peak of the post-NAFTA boom period, but it is well above the depressed years of the 2000s and nearly equals the average of 10.3 million annual vehicles made in the pre-NAFTA period dating back to 1969.
What about economic value?
The economic value of the cars being made has climbed substantially through the years. As a result, real value added and industrial production — two different ways of measuring actual output — are now at all-time highs.
And jobs?
What about jobs? The auto industry today employs 1 million workers. Between 1950 and the signing of NAFTA in 1993, it averaged 1.1 million workers, just slightly higher.
Take a closer look.
But we are left with a puzzle. The perception that the auto industry has been decimated — and decimated specifically by globalization — is widespread. Where does it come from?
The likely answer is that in Detroit, the decline of the auto industry is certainly not a myth. But its very real decline was caused by competition not with the rest of the world, but with the rest of the United States.
The deindustrialization of Detroit is typically understood as a phenomenon of the 1970s and 1980s, and it is therefore blamed on the growth of trade during this period. But the fact is that auto investment and employment had started moving out of Detroit decades earlier.
I pieced together data from a variety of sources, which shows that auto manufacturing employment in the City of Detroit had already peaked in 1950, at just over 220,000 workers. [3]
By 1970 the biggest declines had already occurred, with employment falling by more than half, to fewer than 100,000 jobs.
An important nuance is that many of these lost jobs migrated to other parts of Michigan, at least for a while. So while auto employment was collapsing in Detroit, the rest of Michigan managed to hold auto employment stable for another five decades until the 2000s, when it started falling everywhere in the state.
What about investments?
The historical record paints the picture. Henry Ford II announced in 1950 that his company’s investments would no longer be concentrated in their established industrial centers. By the mid-1960s, Ford had made major investments not just in the southern states of Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia, but also in New York and New Jersey.
For its part, GM made investments in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Mississippi, and California, while Chrysler invested in New York, Delaware, Indiana, and Ohio — all by the late 1950s.
He continues his analysis with data from Japanese imports through foreign investment in the US. For anyone concerned with manufacturing in America, this is an essential read.
by Gary Mintchell | Jul 8, 2025 | Commentary
There are two groups of people I’ve yet to see anything approaching intelligence about manufacturing—politicians and journalists.
M.G. Siegler writes in his latest newsletter about the new pressures from the Trump administration to get Apple to manufacture iPhones in the US. These politicians seem to think there is a magic wand that will immediately set up factories, find workers, build automation, establish supply chain, and start production at a competitive cost.
Now we know what the magic wand is—AI.
Siegler quotes:
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook on Monday over the company’s response to pressure from the Trump administration to make more of its products outside China.
“Going back to the first Trump term, Tim Cook has continually asked for more time in order to move his factories out of China,” Navarro said in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.” “I mean it’s the longest-running soap opera in Silicon Valley.”
I first ran across Siegler when he wrote for Michael Arrington’s old TechCrunch website. He then became a VC for a while after Arrington sold TechCrunch. He’s on his own, now, writing about technology, especially Apple, and entertainment.
Siegler continues:
On one hand, it’s sort of wild that the administration has zeroed in on Apple here given not only all of Cook’s legwork over many years now to get into the President’s good graces, but also because the entire idea of manufacturing the iPhone in the US is just pure crazytown fantasy. Even if it were possible for Apple move such manufacturing, it would take years to get all the pieces up and running. And it would all-but destroy Apple’s business as we know it today because it would destroy the economics of their most-important device.
Siegler then offers advice to Tim Cook:
It’s not that complicated. Cook should just say they’re going to move iPhone manufacturing to the US – and then never actually follow through with it. Sure, this takes some amount of soul-selling to do, but honestly, we’re past that point already. How many other companies have promised things to give the President a good soundbite that simply are not going to happen? Undoubtedly a lot.
But then Navarro has a simple solution:
With all these new advanced manufacturing techniques and the way things are moving with AI and things like that, it’s inconceivable to me that Tim Cook could not produce his iPhones elsewhere around the world and in this country.
So, all of you manufacturing technology geeks who read my musings, what are you doing? Why haven’t you used AI yet to magically reduce manufacturing costs and smooth the supply chain and source materials?
Am I being sarcastic? Those are all questions (except the AI part) I wrestled with 50 years ago. I bet you are all wrestling with them today. Every day. As we used to say, it’s nontrivial.
by Gary Mintchell | Feb 27, 2025 | Commentary, Workforce
OK, I’ll admit it up front—I am a white male.
I’ve never lived in a gated community with people only like myself. I grew up in a small village where I associated with a wide variety of people. I’m glad I became more cosmopolitan over the journey of my life, but I maintain my history of associating with just about anyone.
I bring this up partly over the little media splash caused by Apple’s shareholders overwhelmingly voting down a proposal put forward by a conservative “think tank” to specifically end Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. I have never seen where Apple has ever had such policies as defined by current discussions.
In the National Lampoon seasonal classic movie, Christmas Vacation, Clark explains to Ruby Sue that “Christmas means something different to everyone…”
Similarly, DEI means something different to everyone.
Some organizations implemented a version of the initiative that was clearly meant to be discriminatory toward white men. A solid voting block for our current President was white men who had not been to college. Therefore a call to end those practices seen as discriminating fits a solid political payoff. That’s just politics as expected.
My observation is that not all DEI programs were purposely discriminatory toward white men. I don’t think all programs were as over the top as some elite organizations. Studies show that the best operating teams include people from a diversity of backgrounds, genders, races, ages.
The best companies are going to hire the best candidates for the position while encouraging a diverse set of applicants.
From my youth I have bought into Martin Luther King’s thought, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
I have a dream that that holds for everyone (with no qualifiers).
