( ESNUG 394 Item 15 ) -------------------------------------------- [05/29/02]
Subject: ( SNUG 02 #6 ) User Says Dataquest Vera Sales Numbers Are Inflated
> STRUGGLING FOR MINDSHARE: When I asked about Vera/Specman/RAVE usage, the
> most common response I received was 'we don't use them' and 'we make our
> own test suites with C/Perl/Verilog' -- which means it's one small market.
>
> Dataquest FY 2000 Functional Test Simulator Market (in $ Millions)
>
> Synopsys Vera #### $12.0 (43%)
> Verisity Specman 'e' #### $12.0 (43%)
> Forte/Chrono RAVE # $3.6 (13%)
>
> Total ######### $28.0
>
From: Dave Chapman <dave@goldmountain.com>
I don't think the Dataquest numbers are accurate. While everybody says that
e and Vera have the exact same level of sales, my numbers for Vera are:
2000 2001
------ ------
# of Vera Users 5000 3300
Vera Revenue $100 M $66 M
Nicely demonstrating the 1/3 drop in revenue all over the valley. What I
think causes no end of confusion is that the pricing model used at Synopsys
often involves "all you can eat" site licenses. When Synopsys sells one of
these, who can say how much of the revenue was from VCS, or Vera, or
whatever? They use a formula... My guess is that the Dataquest numbers
are way low because they only count invoices which have a Vera line item.
- Dave Chapman
Gold Mountain
|
|
