( SNUG 10 Item 5a ) --------------------------------------------- [04/22/10]
Subject: How 238 users see "Primary EDA Vendor" pitch (part I)
I DON'T GET IT (Part I): Ask any experienced chip designer if he'd be OK
with being restricted to using only one vendor's EDA tools and after he's
done laughing and laughing and laughing, he'll ask "so when did the chip
get cancelled?". It's common knowledge that no one EDA vendor has a
complete set of best-in-class tools -- even the stupidest warm body in
Synopsys Corporate Marketing knows this -- yet they're insulting customers
with their inane "Primary EDA Vendor" pitch??? I don't get it. Why?
Does your company buy into the Synopsys Corporate Marketing
"Primary EDA Vendor" sales pitch? (Yes or No plus Comments?)
Yes : ########## 23%
No : ################################## 77%
Read the user comments closely and you'll see they're also saying:
I hate the idea : ############################## 71%
I'm neutral : ###### 14%
I love the idea : ####### 16%
And be sure to read the I DON'T GET IT (Part II) of this report, too!
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Our IT department believes the "Primary EDA Vendor" pitch. On the
other hand, our R&D has had to get out the pitch forks and torches
in response.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. "Primary EDA Vendor" is the EDA equivalent to a CDO. You take
a bunch of crap, throw it in with a few AAA rated products and try
to push the entire package off as AAA rated. Remind me how that
worked for the CDOs?
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, mgmt liked it very much. That's how we ended up with some many
tools which failed technical evals and do not work now.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. There's nothing smart about being locked into one vendor.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No, see previous comments on focus of SNPS being profits, not customer.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Primary EDA Vendor concept is primary sales driven concept.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No, because we prefer competition among vendors, so that we get the
best price. Also, because we will maintain a multi-vendor flow.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No - unrealistic statement. Just a phrase.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
NO. We get MUCH MORE support and direct access to R&D from Cadence
and Mentor/Olympus because we're not in a Primary EDA vendor deal.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Unfortunately, yes.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No no no!
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No - there is simply no one primary vendor.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. We buy the best stuff we can find (based on a combination features,
price and perceived price/performance.) We deliver IP that has to work
with every P&R/backend flow under the sun so it pays to be agnostic.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No, we try to maintain multiple vendors to play them off each other.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No - don't pay attention to sales pitches.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. One company doesn't have it all.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes -- more than I would hope for. Hoping the engineers convince IT
that it is better to get the best tool from all 3 vendors. Paying for
tools we don't use or want to use is not a good deal.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Unfortunately "YES". Mgmnt bought into SNPS marketing. If I am the
decision maker, I will not do that for sure. I will buy the set of
tools/flows that serve our immediate/future needs from stable vendors
and make sure that the different vendors work seamlessly to integrate
within our environment. Also make sure that the vendors keep enhancing
their capabilities to meet our demanding technology and design progress.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. We pick and choose the best-in-class for each of the segments.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No, other vendors are not far behind and are fairly usable.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. Because Synopsys will commit supporting resources. On the other
hands, if Synopsys is not the primary EDA vendor it means...
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, unfortunately. Synopsys has NO INCENTIVE to fix things or change
things.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. We're a mostly Cadence shop.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
We have a primary EDA vendor deal with Cadence.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Our primary EDA vendor is probably Cadence.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, but not Synopsys; Cadence.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. We can't afford new tool purchases anyway; we're barely staying
afloat paying maintenance costs on the tools we already own.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. With limited funds in a small company, much of our decisions are
tempered by cost for our entire CAD framework. I believe we worked out
a package deal.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. It's good for our company as we get better price. It's nightmare
for smaller EDA company.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, but we are stuck to the "Cadence Primary EDA vendor" for the
next 2-3 years
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, I do, one set of tools, one set of constraints start to finish.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes, my company bought into the "Primary EDA Vendor" pitch. It's just
that in our case it's Cadence all the way. Not quite everything though,
we're using Mentor ATPG tools.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. I can't argue with the idea of having one company handle all of
the flows seamlessly. But I still haven't seen a flow that has superior
products in every category and until that happens I don't think we will
go completely with one company.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Yes. On the one hand, it makes it easier to work with SNPS tools and
to get the amount of licenses really needed for the project. On the
other hand, if non-SNPS licenses are needed, the process to convince
central CAD team to get them got harder.
- [ An Anon EDA User ]
Sign up for ESNUGs! Fun!
Index
Next->Item
|
|
