( ESNUG 386 Item 2 ) --------------------------------------------- [01/16/02]
Subject: ( ESNUG 385 #2 ) Aart Claims Openness; Verisity Says It's Not True
> We have found that customers want...
>
> b.) Interoperability: There were a number of references to interoperability
> issues in ESNUG 384 #6. Many of you use a Synopsys-Cadence flow and
> have also produced impressive results. Whatever your choice of tools,
> we will actively continue to support flows with competitors via
> standard interfaces. We have always believed that providing strong
> open interfaces is a must. (Note that we have been open with several
> interfaces, including .lib, SystemC, SDC, and OpenVera.)
>
> c.) Competition: No one wants any supplier to become too powerful. As of
> today, there is one strong complete supplier of front-to-back
> solutions and two smaller suppliers. When Synopsys and Avanti merge,
> there will be two strong suppliers. Competition from both large and
> small companies brings out the best in everyone: best design flows,
> best support, best solutions, best pricing, and best ROI for customers.
> (ESNUG 384 #8)
>
> - Aart de Geus
> Chairman & CEO of Synopsys
From: Francine Ferguson <francine@verisity.com>
Hi John,
I found Aart's post to be very interesting. If promoting competition and
interoperability are truly important for Synopsys (and customers) as Aart
claims, then I am truly baffled by a recent turn of events.
Verisity has been a member of Synopsys' in-Sync program for several years
and Synopsys is a member of our interoperability program, VIP. This year,
for the first time, we were informed that we (Verisity) would not be
allowed to participate (as we always have) in the vendor fair that is
always held during SNUG. This was a shock. It has always been open to all
in-Sync partners before. But apparently, not this year. This year there's
a "tiered" system and surprise, surprise Verisity did not make the first
tier. It is confusing to me since verification is a big issue for Synopsys
customers. We are not a small player - our Specman tool has quite a large
user overlap with Synopsys' VCS simulator and our booth has always been
quite busy at SNUG (perhaps indicating customer interest...) So I'm
curious as to 2 things: which other vendors were excluded and also what was
the criteria? Was it perhaps that we are competitors? Is favoritism being
given to those companies that are helping to push Synopsys standards? Is
this what the customers want? Is this truly in Aart's stated spirit of
interoperability and competition? Or is it in fact Synopsys trying to
choose for the customer rather than listening to the customers?
Perhaps interoperability and competition are only important when it is
Synopsys that is trying to compete against Cadence.
- Francine Ferguson
Verisity Design, Inc. Mt. View, CA
|
|
