{ "profiles": [ { "category": "AI Foundation", "chain": [ { "actors": "Cloud providers, data owners and tooling suppliers", "bottleneck": "Can data rights and serving costs support the intended use?", "revenue": "Compute consumption, data licensing or tooling contracts.", "role": "Supply the resources used to build and run AI systems.", "title": "Compute \u0026 data" }, { "actors": "Model developers and deployment platforms", "bottleneck": "Does reliability hold under real workloads, not just benchmarks?", "revenue": "Usage-based APIs, capacity commitments or licenses.", "role": "Turn resources into usable inference and evaluation services.", "title": "Models \u0026 deployment" }, { "actors": "Software vendors, integrators and enterprise teams", "bottleneck": "Will verified savings translate into repeat paid use?", "revenue": "Subscriptions, implementation projects or usage fees.", "role": "Embed a capability into a customer's operating process.", "title": "Applications \u0026 adoption" } ], "dataset_rank": 1, "drivers": [ "Which workflows have measurable time savings?", "Do pilots become recurring paid deployments?" ], "economics": "Follow customer revenue after inference, support and integration costs. A growing user count alone does not establish attractive unit economics.", "evidence": [ { "source": "aws", "text": "Amazon Bedrock publishes input/output token pricing for several models, providing a concrete example of usage-based inference billing." }, { "source": "nist-ai", "text": "NIST's AI RMF is voluntary guidance for managing risk across AI design, development, use and evaluation." } ], "geography": "Global business-model lens; US framework and vendor examples.", "id": "ai-software", "keywords": "artificial intelligence models inference enterprise automation 人工智能", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "Include inference, retries and human review; compare like-for-like tasks.", "name": "Cost per completed task" }, { "meaning": "Track continued paid use, not registrations or free trials.", "name": "Paid retention" }, { "meaning": "Use a defined test set and disclose human intervention.", "name": "Task success rate" } ], "name": "AI Software \u0026 Services", "question": "Who gets paid when an AI capability becomes a useful workflow?", "related": [ { "title": "AI risks and industry turbulence", "url": "/post/ai-risks-layoffs-industry-turbulence/" } ], "risks": [ "Model errors, data rights and accountability may block adoption.", "Falling model prices may help customers without improving every supplier's margin." ], "scope": "Enterprise AI software and services; excludes a standalone valuation of chipmakers or cloud infrastructure.", "sources": [ { "id": "aws", "published": "Undated; live pricing page", "publisher": "AWS", "supports": "Billing-model example only; no price or market-size estimate is reproduced.", "title": "Amazon Bedrock Pricing", "type": "Company documentation", "url": "https://aws.amazon.com/bedrock/pricing/" }, { "id": "nist-ai", "published": "AI RMF 1.0 released 2023-01-26", "publisher": "NIST", "supports": "Risk-management scope; not a revenue forecast or an official value-chain taxonomy.", "title": "AI Risk Management Framework", "type": "Government framework", "url": "https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework" } ], "summary": "From computing inputs to models and paid workflows." }, { "category": "AI Foundation", "chain": [ { "actors": "Chip designers and design-tool/IP suppliers", "bottleneck": "Can the design meet performance, power and cost requirements?", "revenue": "Chip sales, design services or intellectual-property licensing.", "role": "Specify the device and prepare it for production.", "title": "Design" }, { "actors": "Foundries, integrated manufacturers and input suppliers", "bottleneck": "Are yield and utilization sufficient to cover fixed costs?", "revenue": "Manufacturing services or internally produced chip sales.", "role": "Fabricate circuits on wafers using specialized facilities.", "title": "Wafer fabrication" }, { "actors": "Packaging/test providers and integrated manufacturers", "bottleneck": "Can packaging capacity and reliability meet product requirements?", "revenue": "Packaging and testing services or bundled chip sales.", "role": "Separate, test and package devices for customers.", "title": "Assembly, test \u0026 packaging" } ], "dataset_rank": 2, "drivers": [ "Which applications are creating durable design wins?", "Where do customer requirements exceed available production capability?" ], "economics": "Separate design economics from capital-intensive manufacturing. A shortage in one process or package does not imply a shortage across all chips.", "evidence": [ { "source": "sia", "text": "SIA's primer distinguishes design, front-end fabrication and back-end assembly, test and packaging. The three-stage map here follows that production sequence." } ], "geography": "Global production lens; industry-body primer.", "id": "semiconductors", "keywords": "chips integrated circuits foundry design packaging 半导体 芯片", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "Good devices as a share of output, for a specified product/process.", "name": "Manufacturing yield" }, { "meaning": "Track actual loading, not announced capacity alone.", "name": "Capacity utilization" }, { "meaning": "Read together to distinguish shortages from order inflation.", "name": "Inventory \u0026 lead time" } ], "name": "Semiconductors", "question": "Which production constraint determines where value is captured?", "related": [ { "title": "Semiconductor industry report", "url": "/post/semiconductor-industry-report/" } ], "risks": [ "Capacity additions can arrive after the demand cycle changes.", "Geographic dependencies and customer concentration require separate analysis." ], "scope": "Semiconductor production, with equipment and materials as enabling inputs. Not a ranking of individual companies or process nodes.", "sources": [ { "id": "sia", "published": "2015-02-25", "publisher": "Semiconductor Industry Association", "supports": "Production stages; foundational reference, not current market sizing.", "title": "Semiconductor Industry Primer: The Stages of Production and Business Models", "type": "Industry-body explainer", "url": "https://www.semiconductors.org/semiconductor-industry-primer-the-stages-of-production-and-business-models/" } ], "summary": "From chip design to fabrication, packaging and testing." }, { "category": "Energy", "chain": [ { "actors": "Miners, refiners and component suppliers", "bottleneck": "Do quality, supply security and chemistry choices align?", "revenue": "Material and component sales under spot or contract terms.", "role": "Provide battery-grade inputs and components.", "title": "Materials \u0026 components" }, { "actors": "Cell makers, pack makers and system integrators", "bottleneck": "Can manufacturing quality and warranty obligations be sustained?", "revenue": "Cell/system sales, integration and warranty services.", "role": "Turn components into a tested, controllable storage system.", "title": "Cells \u0026 systems" }, { "actors": "Developers, utilities and storage operators", "bottleneck": "Will local revenues cover degradation and full project costs?", "revenue": "Contracted or market-based power-system services.", "role": "Connect and operate assets to serve a particular power market.", "title": "Projects \u0026 operation" } ], "dataset_rank": 5, "drivers": [ "Where does variable generation create a need for flexibility?", "Can storage participate and get paid in the relevant local market?" ], "economics": "Do not equate cheaper cells with better project returns. Connection, installation, financing, degradation and market rules belong in the same model.", "evidence": [ { "source": "iea", "text": "The IEA describes concentration across battery supply chains and explains storage's role in flexibility and grid stability. Its 2024 scenarios are not treated here as current forecasts." } ], "geography": "Global supply chain; project economics depend on local power markets.", "id": "battery-storage", "keywords": "battery lithium stationary grid minerals cells 储能 电池", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "Use consistent currency, date and system boundary; distinguish USD/kW from USD/kWh.", "name": "Installed system cost" }, { "meaning": "Measure at the same operating conditions and asset age.", "name": "Usable capacity \u0026 efficiency" }, { "meaning": "Separate contracted cash flows from merchant assumptions.", "name": "Contracted revenue share" } ], "name": "Batteries \u0026 Energy Storage", "question": "Who earns the return: material suppliers, manufacturers or operators?", "related": [], "risks": [ "Safety, degradation and warranties may change lifecycle costs.", "Supply concentration and changing project revenues can offset lower hardware prices." ], "scope": "Battery supply chains, with a stationary-storage operating lens. EV batteries and grid-storage revenue pools are not interchangeable.", "sources": [ { "id": "iea", "published": "2024-04-25", "publisher": "International Energy Agency", "supports": "Supply-chain structure and power-system applications; historical scenarios, not fresh market estimates.", "title": "Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions — Executive summary", "type": "Intergovernmental analysis", "url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/batteries-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary" } ], "summary": "From minerals and cells to installed storage systems." }, { "category": "Digitization", "chain": [ { "actors": "Telemetry, identity and intelligence providers", "bottleneck": "Are the signals relevant, complete and lawful to use?", "revenue": "Data feeds, infrastructure or identity-service contracts.", "role": "Supply the information and controls used by security teams.", "title": "Signals \u0026 foundations" }, { "actors": "Endpoint, cloud, network and identity vendors", "bottleneck": "Can tools integrate without overwhelming operators?", "revenue": "Subscriptions, licenses or consumption-based fees.", "role": "Turn inputs into prevention, detection and investigation tools.", "title": "Security products" }, { "actors": "Internal teams, managed providers and responders", "bottleneck": "Can the customer turn alerts into timely, effective action?", "revenue": "Managed-service contracts, retainers or response projects.", "role": "Operate controls and coordinate incident handling and recovery.", "title": "Operations \u0026 response" } ], "dataset_rank": 8, "drivers": [ "Which assets and workflows create an uncovered exposure?", "Would integration or managed delivery solve a staffing bottleneck?" ], "economics": "Test renewal quality and delivery cost alongside product claims. Security spending is not itself evidence that customer risk has fallen.", "evidence": [ { "source": "nist-csf", "text": "NIST CSF 2.0 organizes cybersecurity outcomes under Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond and Recover. These are outcomes, not six sequential commercial stages." }, { "source": "nist-zero-trust", "text": "NIST SP 800-207 sets out zero-trust architectural principles; it is not a market-sizing or vendor-share study." }, { "source": "menlo-map", "text": "Menlo Ventures' 2022 market map is an illustrative snapshot of product categories and vendors, not a current estimate of spending or company shares." } ], "geography": "Global enterprise lens; NIST provides the risk-management reference.", "id": "cybersecurity", "keywords": "security identity threat intelligence detection response zero trust 网络安全", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "Use a consistent cohort and vendor definition.", "name": "Net revenue retention" }, { "meaning": "Define incident severity and measurement boundaries before comparing.", "name": "Response effectiveness" }, { "meaning": "Include analyst time and infrastructure per customer.", "name": "Service delivery cost" } ], "name": "Cybersecurity", "question": "Does the customer buy another tool, or a better security outcome?", "related": [ { "title": "Cybersecurity industry report", "url": "/post/cybersecurity-industry-report/" } ], "risks": [ "Product overlap and tool consolidation may affect renewals.", "Failures in the vendor's own systems can undermine trust." ], "scope": "Enterprise security products and services. The commercial layers below are DEX's map, not the NIST CSF functions or a compliance checklist.", "sources": [ { "id": "nist-csf", "published": "2024-02-26", "publisher": "NIST", "supports": "Risk-management functions only; does not establish vendor revenue, effectiveness or market size.", "title": "The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0", "type": "Government framework · PDF", "url": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.29.pdf" }, { "id": "nist-zero-trust", "published": "2020-08", "publisher": "NIST", "supports": "Zero-trust architecture concepts; not an estimate of industry revenue.", "title": "SP 800-207: Zero Trust Architecture", "type": "Government publication", "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/207/final" }, { "id": "menlo-map", "published": "2022-09", "publisher": "Menlo Ventures", "supports": "Illustrative historical vendor categories; not a verified 2026 revenue dataset.", "title": "Cybersecurity Market Map", "type": "Investor research · PDF", "url": "https://menlovc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cybersecurity_market_map-091922.pdf" } ], "summary": "From security inputs to products and operational response." }, { "category": "Hard Tech", "chain": [ { "actors": "Motion, sensing and control suppliers", "bottleneck": "Can parts satisfy precision, durability and integration requirements?", "revenue": "Component sales and software licenses.", "role": "Provide the hardware and software building blocks.", "title": "Components \u0026 control" }, { "actors": "Robot manufacturers and system integrators", "bottleneck": "How much customization is required for each deployment?", "revenue": "Equipment sales and engineering projects.", "role": "Combine machines, tooling and software around a defined task.", "title": "Robots \u0026 integration" }, { "actors": "Factory operators and service providers", "bottleneck": "Does uptime and throughput justify the full lifecycle cost?", "revenue": "Maintenance, training and modernization contracts.", "role": "Commission, maintain and improve the deployed system.", "title": "Operation \u0026 lifecycle" } ], "dataset_rank": 9, "drivers": [ "Which repetitive tasks have stable requirements and measurable payback?", "Can integration be reused across multiple customer sites?" ], "economics": "Evaluate the complete installed cell and support burden, not just the robot's purchase price. Pilot demonstrations are not recurring production deployments.", "evidence": [ { "source": "abb", "text": "ABB's robotics services cover installation, support, maintenance and modernization, illustrating commercial activity beyond the initial equipment sale." } ], "geography": "Global industrial lens; ABB is one vendor example, not a market ranking.", "id": "robotics", "keywords": "robots automation industrial integration actuators cobots 机器人", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "Include integration, downtime, maintenance and training.", "name": "Installed-system payback" }, { "meaning": "Measure time actually completing the intended task.", "name": "Productive uptime" }, { "meaning": "Separate pilots from repeat orders and operating installations.", "name": "Repeat deployments" } ], "name": "Robotics", "question": "Can a robot deliver a repeatable outcome in a real operating environment?", "related": [], "risks": [ "Customization and commissioning delays can erode project margins.", "Reliability, operator training and safe integration need on-site validation." ], "scope": "Industrial robot systems and their integration. This is a subset of the explorer's Industrial + Service Robotics row; not a humanoid or service-robot forecast.", "sources": [ { "id": "abb", "published": "Undated; product/service page", "publisher": "ABB", "supports": "One vendor's service offerings; not independent evidence of achieved returns or industry-wide revenue mix.", "title": "Robotics Services", "type": "Company documentation", "url": "https://www.abb.com/global/en/areas/robotics/services" } ], "summary": "From components to integrated, supported automation." }, { "category": "Bio \u0026 Health", "chain": [ { "actors": "Research teams, biotechs and research suppliers", "bottleneck": "Does the evidence justify further development and funding?", "revenue": "Research services or licensing arrangements to investigate.", "role": "Develop candidates and investigate their properties before human studies.", "title": "Discovery \u0026 preclinical" }, { "actors": "Sponsors, trial providers and regulators", "bottleneck": "Are safety, efficacy and manufacturing evidence sufficient?", "revenue": "Trial-service contracts or milestone arrangements to investigate.", "role": "Generate human evidence and evaluate a submission for approval.", "title": "Clinical evidence \u0026 review" }, { "actors": "Manufacturers, commercial teams and health-system buyers", "bottleneck": "Does approval translate into supply, access and viable net revenue?", "revenue": "Product sales, royalties or manufacturing services to investigate.", "role": "Supply approved products while maintaining quality and safety monitoring.", "title": "Manufacture \u0026 access" } ], "dataset_rank": 21, "drivers": [ "What unmet need would a successful product address?", "Which evidence would change clinical or purchasing decisions?" ], "economics": "Separate scientific progress, approval and commercial success. Model development spending and potential dilution before assuming future product revenue.", "evidence": [ { "source": "fda", "text": "FDA's drug-development overview describes discovery, preclinical research, clinical research, review and post-market safety monitoring. The three cards group those activities for readability." }, { "source": "drug-act", "text": "The 1962 U.S. Drug Amendments strengthened the evidence of effectiveness required for new-drug approval. This is historical U.S. law, not a worldwide approval pathway." } ], "geography": "US regulatory reference; not a universal approval pathway.", "id": "biopharmaceuticals", "keywords": "biotech pharmaceuticals drugs clinical trials medicine 生物制药 医药", "metrics": [ { "meaning": "State trial phase, population and endpoints; avoid treating a milestone as guaranteed.", "name": "Evidence milestones" }, { "meaning": "Test spending assumptions and funding needs under delays.", "name": "Cash runway" }, { "meaning": "Distinguish actual sales from headline prices and potential markets.", "name": "Net realized revenue" } ], "name": "Biopharmaceuticals", "question": "How does a scientific asset become an approved and commercially viable product?", "related": [ { "title": "Pharmaceutical industry report", "url": "/post/pharmaceutical-industry/" } ], "risks": [ "Clinical failure and manufacturing problems can change the entire thesis.", "Approval alone does not establish reimbursement or commercial demand." ], "scope": "Innovative drug development. The US pathway is an illustrative regulatory reference; individual products and other jurisdictions require separate analysis.", "sources": [ { "id": "fda", "published": "Undated overview; reviewed on the date shown above", "publisher": "US Food and Drug Administration", "supports": "US development and review stages; not clinical advice or evidence for a particular drug.", "title": "The Drug Development Process", "type": "Regulator explainer", "url": "https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/drug-development-process" }, { "id": "drug-act", "published": "1962-10-10", "publisher": "U.S. Congress / GovInfo", "supports": "Historical U.S. effectiveness requirement and regulatory powers; not a global or modern market-size estimate.", "title": "Drug Amendments of 1962, Public Law 87-781", "type": "Original statute · PDF", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-76/pdf/STATUTE-76-Pg780.pdf" } ], "summary": "From scientific discovery to evidence and commercialization." } ], "reviewed": "2026-09-23", "schema_version": 1 }