( ESNUG 485 Item 9 ) -------------------------------------------- [05/27/10]
Subject: The USER perspective on the recent Cadence-Denali acquisition
IT DEPENDS: On the downside, DENALI users are EXTREMELY troubled about
Denali IP going under Cadence Walmart support plus many of them have some
less-competition,-higher-prices,-and-monopoly fears. On the upside, CADENCE
users are very excited about getting "free" Denali IP as part of their CDNS
package deal plus believe Cadence-Denali flow will now be fully supported.
"Cadence just announced it's wholly acquiring Denali for $315 million."
"As an EDA *user*, is this is GOOD news or BAD news? (CHOOSE) Why?"
BAD. We don't want Denali IP under crappy Cadence support!
: ########################################### 43%
BAD. Less competition, higher prices, and monopoly fears.
: ############################ 28%
GOOD. We'll get free Denali IP in our CDNS package deal!
: ##################### 21%
GOOD. Now the Cadence-Denali flow will be fully supported
: ################## 18%
BAD. Denali culture will die inside the Cadence gulag.
: ############### 15%
BAD. Waaaaaaa! The Denali DAC Party is no more!
: ############ 12%
BAD. Denali IP will be made to not work in SNPS/MENT sims
: ######### 9%
GOOD. Cadence growing helps stop the Synopsys juggernaut
: ### 3%
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD news. Actually, more than BAD... This is TERRIBLE news! I hate to
see another good, smaller EDA vendor get bought up my a big company. The
culture of Denali varies significantly with Cadence. Cadence has a
history of buying other EDA companies & breaking apart the technology,
losing the technical experts, delaying the innovation, etc. I already
have enough experience of having to drop tools once Cadence took control.
Denali as it is will be ruined. Sad...
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD, Denali has one of the best supporting models and very professional
in their support. I see, merging with the bigger Cadence entity, they
will loose their agility in support. If we look at the Verisity's case,
the support was lousy at least in the beginning. :-(
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD - This is very hurtful to the EDA world. We all know what happens
when Cadence "acquires" something. As a Denali user I will probably
have to start looking elsewhere for my IP!
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Somewhat BAD. I'm concerned about how the pricing and service will
change. As a customer of Denali for more than 10 years Denali has
been very responsive to our needs.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. Less choice.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mundo Bummer!
Now Cadence will have the perfect opportunity to screw up a perfectly
good company. As a user of Denali products, they had good products,
priced slightly high (they gotta make money tho), and had decent
technical support when things broke. Sure, their VMM-based models
still need better docs and support, but it was baseline good-enough to
use and I think they were successful in the industry.
I can't think of one acquisition CDNS has done in the last decade which
hasn't resulted in the EDA user getting hosed over on product quality,
pricing, support, etc, after the acquisition.
Could someone please acquire Cadence to stop this nonsense? Changing
CEOs hasn't helped so far...
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For all the users it is a BAD deal just because of I am worried about
the support quality from a larger institution like Cadence cannot
expect as good as with the Denali by it self.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good news because now my company as a client of both Cadence and Denali
can get better deals for both products.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good, good to have IP's packaged with tool.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good News. Now we get Denali plus Cadence in one remixable deal.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is a GOOD news. We can now purchase the memory model and tools
from Cadence. That should integrate well with the verification suite.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good news. Gives us the capability to remix licenses as per need basis.
Bad news in terms of support. Cadence is very slow in responding.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Denali had very very good support, as you probably know Cadence doesn't.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD news. IP behavior model and tool usage become more close.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad News - I can expect Denali to become less responsive
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. I'm an 8 year customer of Denali. I am highly doubtful if
Cadence can support Denali's portfolio better then Denali does.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a EDA user, Cadence acquiring Denali is a good news because any
additional knowledge will make the tool to get better. It also will
control the monopoly of synopsys.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD, Cadence is notorious for customer supplied debug of their products
and asimulating code into their mega structure. I suspect Denali
quality will suffer in the end.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD, less competition between vendors leaves Cadence free to inflate
prices.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD, Now when a particular version of Denali crashes with a particular
version of Cadence we only need to deal with a single company.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good News
We can leverage relationship with pricing, support, etc. from Cadence.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence users -- good in that Cadence can offer a more complete solution
and integration.
Other EDA users -- bad in that Cadence can have uneven integration with
rival (Synopsys/Mentor) verification environments.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Generally, BAD.
As a "niche" EDA player, Denali had a reason to be responsive to customer
issues. I can't help but believe that the response will now go "through"
a general Cadence response team that will put the issue into a large pool
with other issues, and will, inevitably, make the response time longer.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I am a IP user and this is a BAD news because Cadence is more a EDA
company and it doesn't completely understand the requirements of
IP-using customers.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD news, as we rely on Denali VIPs and now we have to rely on Cadence
support system, which is really bad.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD, this will kill off what was the best DAC party host in history,
plus result in increased costs, lower service, and no more innovation.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD news. My project is using Denali Ethernet VIP and the support is
excellent from Denali. Based my dealings with Cadence and their
previous track records on acquired companies, it does not give me
warm & fuzzy feelings on the future of Denali.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Terribly BAD.
Denali is a two part company, IP for controllers, PHYS, etc. and the
model part. Looking at past history of Cadence, they either kill a
technology, drive the key people away, or poison its use for everyone
else. IP from a tool company, no thanks. And good luck getting
implementation support on P&R for the IP except Encounter, and DDRs
are notoriously hard to get timed correctly. Has CDNS recovered
from "e" yet, and the half baked implementation of System Verilog as
a result of trying to force "e" instead of SV?
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. Reasons : a) Cadence will respond very slow response for any
issues. b) customers are going to pay more.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is bad news, IMHO. Yet another small but competent EDA provider
has been overpowered by one of the big three. The cost can be expected
to increase and the quality of support to diminish. Not to mention the
demise of the Denali DAC party, where EDA vendors and users of all
stripes can mingle. Assuming any of us still have travel budgets to
get there, that is.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Probably bad in the sense that Cadence may raise its rates to cover the
acquisition. Cadence also has more information about what you are
willing to pay -- in total -- for licensing which increases their
negotiating power.
For Cadence, it's probably a good thing. Cadence can get a sense of the
customer's total simulation volume by the number of Denali licenses they
have, so for sim competitors Mentor & Synopsys, it's probably bad news.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is definitely bad news - Denali's help and support avenues are
very user friendly and easy to access and use -- can't say the same for
Cadence (especially their on-line help facility and web site which are
extremely difficult to use).
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad news - Denali is in a niche market. Niche markets need to serve
all customers to be profitable. With one or the major EDA vendors
owning Denali, the products will over time have poorer support for the
other major vendors and will lose 2/3 of the revenue - the revenue
necessary to allow further investment in the product line.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From a user perspective this is bad news. Long has Denali provided a
set of verification IP that has been simulator independent. For example
in the past I have recommended to clients to use their PCIE verification
model and test suite. At a previous client, we were using Synopsys'
PCIE core IP and even though they asked us to use their test bench model
as well (it came with their core) I recommended we use Denali for
verification IP. The advantage was that neither the Synopsys core nor
the Denali model/test suite were perfect and we found bugs the core, the
model and the test suite. Also extremely helpful was that both vendors
interpreted the PCIE specification slightly differently and we were able
to account for those differences in the design which I believe made the
design more robust.
Obviously having one less competitor is worse for users. Of course if
you're a Cadence user, having the Denali IP be integrated in their token
system removes a burdensome cost. From the same client above, Denali
licenses were our limiting regression depth parameter.
- Matt Hsu, Consultant
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. We use Denali models verification and I found the Denali models to
be quite buggy. But what was good was that they had excellent support
and support system even for small customers like us. By far the best,
compared to Synopsys and way better than Cadence. Needs to be seen how
the Denali support will be affected by this. Although the only thing
positive might be coming out is better support/performance with Specman,
but again, with Specman use declining it needs to be seen what happens.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good for NC-sim users, which we are, in the sense that the integration of
Denali PLI's would become seamless. Hopefully things will stay the same
for users of other simulators, which we are.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a DAC goer, this is very bad news... No more Denali party. ;)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
What's going to happen to the DAC party???
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As an EDA *user* -- BAD news. Denali was a financially strong company.
So, the customer support will not be much different. However, Cadence
may demand and get higher price for Denali products and services.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD. We don't use competing Cadence and Denali tools at the moment.
We do intergrate Denali IP into our designs and that leads to integrate
Denali IP tools into the simulator. Since we use Cadence as a simulator,
one might hope that this will be easier as they are one "tool house".
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There is little growth opportunity in EDA. IP is the logical way for
EDA vendors to sell more value to their customers. For two Synopsys
competitors to join makes sense. The Denali product lines will lose
customers, but Cadence will gain business.
Such consolidation is generally BAD for users because company-wide
package deals impede chip designers freedom of choice.
- Jonah Probell of Arteris, Inc
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is good, it gives us one less vendor to deal, consolidation is
always good from a negotiation point of view, one deal will get us
all the technology we need.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence destroys every company/technology it acquires. It has a long
and distinguished record to support this assertion. So goodbye Denali.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No more Denali parties. What a shame.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It is bad news. EDA vendor acquiring IP vendor and competing with its
customers. This is similar to what Synopsys is doing.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD News. CDNS will not develop NEW EDA tools in the future. They only
got the big share in MSRF Spectre RF application. As a Cadence EDA user,
we waste too much budget to buy Cadence license.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. Cadence will dominate VIP market. That also means dominating the
methodology and flexibility.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD news.
It has been shown in the past that when EDA companies buy other EDA
products it restricts competition. They do it on the "it does not
compete with our other products" premise but this is usually bull.
Like when Mentor purchased PADS. They were claiming that it gave
PADS users a forward moving path to Expedition, supposedly a higher
end tool. What it really did was give Mentor an inflated user
base; mostly used for bragging rights, "we are the biggest!" And
killed all of the good development that was going on in the PADS
area. Why develop a tool more if you have a "higher end" tool to
migrate to?
In reality people who use PADS had no interest in Expedition. They
end up dumping maintenance because Mentor is doing nothing improve
the PADS tool any more.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
At the end of the day, the success or failure of this acquisition will
come down to one and only one thing in the eyes of most EDA users:
Cadence's commitment (or lack thereof) to Denali's longstanding
tradition of throwing a bitchin DAC party.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good, since we we've been using both of them for IP & EDA tool,
consolidation would improve support & correlation.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD news. Expect Cadence solutions to work better with Denali IP.
In turn, expect other EDA vendors to improve IP integration in their
solutions resulting in productivity improvements for the EDA user.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD -- it limits sources of IP. Cadence's history implies a steep
price increase.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD.
Cadence has never been that good at integrating third parties into the
mainstream and keeping them going. I think the tool suites will start
to degrade and have less function/value.
There goes the great Denali parties.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad, Cadence now has a lot of IP and everyone will pay $$$$ for it.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As an EDA customer this is BAD news.
Denali has always been easy to negotiate with, easy to work with, and
responsive to issues we submit to them. Cadence has always been
difficult to negotiate with, arrogant in dealing with us, and slow to
fix bugs to our satisfaction.
I would not be surprised if the long-term effect of this acquisition
for us is to drive us back to Synopsys DesignWare for memory models.
Even though Denali has unquestionably better technology, Cadence is
just awful to work with as a business partner and we have been actively
moving out of their tools.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. There will be one less choice for both VIP and design IP. The
Denali portfolio overlaps the Cadence portfolio in several major ways.
I assume that Cadence is going to keep the Denali stuff and trash the
Cadence stuff.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Customers need a more stable alternative for silicon IP interface
controller and phy. It also puts a ceiling on Synopsys prices and will
accelerate the availabilty and broaden the configuration supported.
Denali gets access to better Phy designers and deeper pockets for more
thorough validation resources. Customers get better quality time to
market IP.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. Over time I expect the independent aspect of Denali VIP will erode
and so unless you are a Cadence house it is hard to see any upside. And
then there is the issue of sales channel, since Cadence is really only
focused on large multi-year, multi-million dollar megadeals it might be
harder to purchase Denali product. If on the other hand they keep a
separate Denali sales force, but then you have to ask how that will work
out since these multiple sales force deals usually flounder sooner or
later, usually sooner.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD - EDA users may be forced to buy a package of "tools" & "IP" even
though the "tools" or "IPs" is not a proper choice.
Quality of post-sales support to "IP" may become an issue!
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I have no opinion on whether it is good or bad news for Cadence to buy
Denali. I do, however, think that it was utter stupidity for them to
stand by and let Synopsys buy CoWare, and then to decide they could
spend $315 million on Denali.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There is not a lot of overlap between Denali and Cadence so if Cadence
is smart they will leave Denali alone. The question is whether Denali
is now tied to a sinking ship.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Dearly Beloved. We are gathered here today to mourn the loss of perhaps
the most fun EDA startup that has ever existed. From the early days,
when Sanjay was both their CEO and lead sales person, you could tell
there was something special. Even as they grew, they did not let you
forget that a customer visit, was more than sales call, it was a chance
to go skiing. Finally as they threatened to become a large EDA vendor,
they consolidated that joy for life into some of the best DAC parties
that may ever be.
We shall miss Denali dearly.
May they rest (they need it) in peace.
Hopefully with large sacks of money. :)
Join
Index
Next->Item
|
|
