( ESNUG 474 Item 1 ) -------------------------------------------- [07/02/08]
Subject: 81% of EDA users disapprove of the Cadence-Mentor merger (Part I)
CREATING A MICROSOFT IN EDA -- The biggest fear that 81% of users have about
a Cadence-Mentor merger is that it creates a new monopoly, a new MicroSoft
of EDA, where there's less (or in many cases, no) competition. This new
"improved" Cadence will be able to, with impunity: charge higher prices,
provide less technical support, ignore industry standards so it can lock
users into their own proprietary standards, and not have to innovate because
its customers will have no realistic business alternatives.
"As an EDA user do you want this merger to happen? (CHOOSE YES or NO)"
NO ######################################## 81%
YES ######### 19%
Those 19% who approved of the merger already have all-you-can-eat deals with
Cadence so they'll happily get the Mentor tools for "free" or they want a
stronger Cadence to help fight Synopsys arrogance.
What you're reading below are VETTED users' direct responses to this survey.
That is, I personally checked that each email here came from a legitimate
EDA user (not @gmail.com nor @yahoo.com nor @aol.com nor etc.) and that ALL
the other voices on this topic are in different parts of this report.
BE SURE TO READ ALL 8 PARTS OF THIS REPORT OR YOU'LL BE MISLED.
1.) As an EDA USER would a Cadence controlled Mentor be a good thing
or a bad thing for you? Why?
3.) As EITHER, do you want this merger to happen? (CHOOSE YES or NO)
It will be a bad thing. There will be less competition, less innovation,
higher prices, and crappier service (if that is possible).
NO.
- Paul Chang of Broadcom
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A BAD thing because it will be a monopoly .
A BAD thing because no need to improve as this will be a monopoly.
No
- Gal Gottlieb of DSP Group LTD
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Big bad thing. Already Cadence behaves like Microsoft.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I believe it's a bad thing because Cadence does not show the same kind of
innovative spirit as Mentor does. A joined company would be even harder
to deal with, because they create a monopoly and can make up their prices.
NO
- Reiner Mueller contracting at Tivo, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I don't think anyone likes to see a 'Microsoft monopoly' in EDA.
It demonstrates no understanding of the EDA business. Where would the
synergy be? My calculator says: $1.6B + $0.8B revenue becomes less than
$2.0B revenue. But with a large round of lay-offs (at both sides!),
Cadence might still make it to a relative success.
But it would be bad for the EDA business, bad for the EDA engineers and
bad for the EDA customers.
NO WAY!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD. It would be a monopoly.
Cadence products and service are not as good as Mentor. Most likely,
Cadence would bring Mentor down to their level.
Typical greedy CEO.
NO.
- Alex Beltran of Abbott Labs
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think we need more EDA companies to compete among themselves and come
with good products. Given this move will make Cadence "Microsoft like",
I am against it.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Less choice is usually bad unless the companies are so weak that
they cannot survive on their own. That is not the case here. Cadence
does not have the cash to make this happen without placing themselves
at serious financial risk.
Fister is driving Cadence into the ground. He appears to be making
decisions as if Cadence is Intel or Microsoft with only weak competitors
to contend against. If I was a Cadence shareholder I'd be calling for
his and the board's heads.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is a bad thing. The last thing we need is a tri-opoly to be a
duopoly! Cadence have enough power in the EDA market as it stands, and
the users of the tools have everything to lose by Cadence wiping out
their competition!
Definite NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD, because Cadence will have a widen monopoly on other parts of the
flow (DRC, LVS, ...) Mentor generally bring a good support. Cadence
not. My fear is to start having support problem on Mentor product, too.
This is also killing competition between them to have better tools.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a user of Mentor tools, I'd fear Fister would try to make life harder,
perhaps kill off the tools I use and force me to use crappy Cadence tools
instead.
The EDA market is so small already, before you know it there's a triopoly,
then a duopoly, and then a monopoly, and we're all royally screwed....
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good: We have a large Cadence custom-design base. PVS is not there,
Calibre is the golden standard for physical verification. Functional
verification will be better off with an accelerated adoption of OVM.
Other synergies exist in board products. For us we will have increased
leverage in negotiating for bigger discounts on larger size contracts.
Bad: If only two verif tools are left (2 functional and 2 physical),
the pricing will firm up and this is a quasi monopoly.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is a very bad thing, because it will create a virtual monopoly of
several key EDA tools. This merger should definitely not be allowed on
antitrust grounds.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing from a monopoly perspective. If you are an analog shop,
your choice would be only Cadence everything. Though they are probably
not trying to buy the company for Calibre alone.
Little concerned with Cadence's low profile in the industry these days.
Thinking missing person on EDA panels ....
Close call, we use a lot of Cadence tools so it would be nice to have
Calibre in the fold for licensing, but then would it keep its edge?
I would say No.
- Noah Aklilu of Scanimetrics, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad idea. Cadence hasn't innovated much of anything in the last 8 years,
other than buying companies and then messing up the good product they
bought. As a Mentor user who's pretty happy with their simulation, DFT,
and some of the back-end tools, I'd hate to see Cadence wreck that up.
As an example, when First Encounter was bought by Cadence, they managed
to wreck the software, screw up the license scheme, and then charge
double because they "bundled" it with other useless Cadence products we
didn't need. I dread to see what would happen to Modelsim and the
forward progress they've made to System Verilog if Cadence acquired
Mentor. I think you'd see a large uptick of VCS customers after that.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Not good at all
Certainly not
- Amit Vikas of STmicroelectronics
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. Frankly Mentor is not keeping up. With Cadence it'll get
that much needed push and I'll get my favorite ModelSim simulator back.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing - less competition => prices goes up
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Not sure but experience wise, I like Mentor tools as compared to Cadence
tools in terms of ease of use.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Very bad thing:
- less competition => higher prices, less quality, less innovation
- Cadence has a bad reputation of integrating other peoples software
into their environment.
- Good tools will be killed since Cadence will only continue either
the former Cadence or the former Mentor tool if they are similar.
In lots of cases they are similar but depending on the specific case one
of them fails while they other still performs great. So less choices
for the users.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It's a bad thing. Limited choices and Cadence may kill redundant
products from Mentor though Mentor's products are better then Cadence.
Less players, less competition more margins, less cost for Cadence.
NO.
- Anilkumar Kaneriya of Cisco
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A good thing for us. We have a good deal with Cadence, and Mentor hasn't
been that forthcoming with us. So this will make our foot into Mentor's
door effortless. We also didn't have a urging need to go the extra mile
and get engaged with Mentor anyway. For us the only tools from Mentor
that would have an edge over Cadence's would be their physical
verification stuff.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence has a long history of buying companies that make good products and
not carrying the value forward to the degree one would expect. However,
consolidation in the EDA space is needed, so this is not surprising.
Since we use both companies, this is not a huge issue in the short term.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence doesn't serve the FPGA market and does not drive innovation. They
are last on System Verilog. They try to keep "e" alive. Their RTL
synthesis isn't great. They have no credible Verification Methodology...
Mentor has its flaws but they serve the FPGA market well with ModelSim and
other Verification Methodology and tools.
NO !
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a user this would be a bad thing. Competition is good. As a Mentor
user I'd hate to see my tools go away or get merged with Cadence tools.
It would be like Intel buying AMD. What choice would that leave us?
- Martin Mortensen of Intel
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
High time somebody absorbed Mentor, and integrated their few key products
into an appropriate suite. Just look at Mentor's revenue and market cap
for God knows how long.
YES, although Cadence or not-Cadence is hardly of any significance.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A good thing. As it is now we have 3 vendors, and top brass is pushing to
axe one of them or at least cut the contract a lot. That one could have
been Mentor. Now if they merge the contract will be cheaper, our users
will get more tools available and everyone is happy.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Pluralism is something that is needed probably everywhere, and especially
for big EDA players. The chances to see a real merger are very low, most
likely we see good product go away,
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD - if it results in standardization.
BAD - if the number of bugs increases.
BAD - if Mentor prices will increase to Cadence levels.
NO!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Considering the support Cadence gives.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A definite positive for someone who is caught up in a world dominated
by Synopsys bigots. At least, this will make the Synopsys AEs to take
their jobs of customer support more seriously. A combined Cadence-Mentor
EDA portfolio offsets the all round advantage Synopsys enjoys right now.
This is an extremely strategic move to reverse the market trend of
gradual polarization of big semi-con players in the Synopsys camp. It
also does not augur too well for Magma, especially their custom design
and physical verification tool suites as a Cadence-Mentor combo can
tackle any mixed signal design challenge with elan.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There would be positive and negative consequences:
+ maybe the CDN/Mentor tool interactions would work better, e.g. the
Calibre integration into Virtuoso. At least there would be a
responsible company if it doesn't work.
- I would expect an overall decrease in tool quality for the Mentor
tools as lots of people would leave the company (being laid off
or leave on their own account).
- As users, we would be even more dominated by the two large
companies CDN and SNPS. The "captured customer" system works well
already for CDN, but they probably think there is still room
for improvement.
In total: have you ever seen a tool improve after a take over?
I haven't, and I don't expect to see it happen now either.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Would be bad as there will be one supplier gone at the end. And esp.
Mentor at the moment offers still a "low cost" solution for customers
coming from the FPGA world to "real silicon".
For Cadence it probably gets rid of a nasty competitor (esp. in the
PCB layout area where Mentor is strong).
Yes and No, but probably more No. (We would have one Design Kit less
to support.)
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I'm working in DFT and DFM and it makes me nervous. Mainly DFT has
quite different approaches in each company. In addition Mentor claims
the NXP DFT buying and an internal restructuration. What is the goal?
In regard of DFT health, I answer NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing is, when 2 companies merge, some features disappear/sacrifice.
And it may not merge well, talking about the tool kernel.
Good thing is, hopefully 2 (among all EDA companies) in 1 will make a
better competitor in the field, as individually they have been holding
their seats.
Anyway, I am currently using Synopsys/Magma, so this means less to me.
YES. They may make a better vendor than Synopsys.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. In recent years Mentor has demonstrated a high degree of
useful innovation and good customer support. Cadence, on the other hand,
has historically not been so innovative, and at times their innovative
abilities virtually disappeared (pre-SOC Encounter era).
In short, I don't want to see Mentor disappear into the Cadence monolith.
NO.
- Jonathan Edwards of STmicroelectronics
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It's good because we hope they can provide better competition against
other EDA gaints like Synopsys.
It's bad because Mentor folks might loose job and some good Mentor
tools will die.
Yes. I would like to see a few quality competitors in the market.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It is a bad thing, since competition is always best for us.
No.
- Subhas Basu of Silicon Interfaces
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence will probably take the good tools like DFT and Calibre and
improve its overall flow. The overall package to customer will be
more cost effective.
Yes, I would like to see this merge happen.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad - There'll be less options.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. From a higher level perspective, they have almost the same
product portfolio. If the takeover happens, I would expect Mentor tools
to die away sooner or later, so I lost one choice. And if things go
worse, Cadence (or the new company) suffers so bad from the deal in terms
of financial strain, they need to cut down R&D and offer bad products.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For us it would be great - access to more tools, including several
"best in class" that we currently can't access.
We have a very flexible access agreement with Cadence, so adopting any
"new to Cadence" technologies should be rather straight forward. For
example, currently we use Assura - access to Calibre under our Cadence
deal would be fantastic. Cadence is rather weak in the AMS_VHDL space.
Access to Mentor simulation technology in that space would also be
very helpful on the mixed mode side.
YES, and we still have the big stick of moving back to Synopsys if they
get too "arrogant" or pricey.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. I have concerns on the tool overlaps in Verification and PCB.
Actually we have been migrating away from Incisive to Questa, now who
knows what will happen?
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Mentor has a great corporate culture that leads to good
customer service. Cadence would likely totally destroy that.
NO. I'm sure Magma is ecstatic, though, because I have a feeling it
will be very positive for them if the merger goes through.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Mentor provides a certain flavor to the EDA world that is not
provided by Synopsys or Cadence. They provide niche products and
services that keep the other two in check. They are the orangutan in
the room with two gorillas.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A Cadence controlled Mentor would be a bad thing unless the board
replaces Fister with Wally.
Mentor has shown a willingness to work with competitors to create open
industry standards. Except for the Verilog language so many years ago,
Cadence seems to always prefer the business strategy of trying to lock
users into a Cadence flow to prevent interoperability.
I have enjoyed watching Synopsys gradually erode Cadence's dominant
position in the industry over the years. Cadence taking over Mentor
would set back that momentum and delay the day that Cadence is forced to
work with competitors for the benefit of users as a result of not being
so dominant.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence taking over Mentor would be a bad thing for my company.
My take on Cadence is that they have some good tools, mostly in analog
schematic capture and layout, but also have a lot of tools that are
patchwork of acquired point-tools that combined is not state of the art.
Mentor is a more dynamic and responsive company, at least in their
interaction with us.
My fear is that Cadence would discontinue some of the Mentor tools where
the 2 companies have overlapping offerings and leave us with some
semi-automatic translator SW to transfer designs from Mentor to Cadence
format. And the tools surviving a merger are not always the best of the
competing tools.
NO - I would rather want a Magma / Mentor merger.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good for PCB design tools since MGC back-end tools have missed the mark.
Bad for simulation/verification, since competition is good.
NO. Competition in the market place should produce better customer
support, and if there's less competition, the level of support will go
down while the prices will go up.
- Charles Martin of BAE Systems
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing
a) Integration of Mentor tools (e.g. Calibre Layout Verification)
with Synopsys and Magma implementation tool suites will vanish.
b) Mentor's Modelsim is IMHO the only competition to Cadence's NCsim.
One will be dead (guess which one), so no competition anymore!
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Best of both worlds (analog and digital). Mentor interface much
more user friendly and less fragmented.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. Integration of superior verification into the ICFB cockpits.
YES
- Jason Werkheiser of LSI
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Very bad. (We're Mentor users here.) Since there's significant
overlap between what the companies offer, it sure seems like this as an
effort by Cadence to eliminate competition, not "build on synergies".
What will happen to Modelsim? Will they eventually kill it? Same old
take-over fears... but I can't see this as a good thing... competition
is definitely good, and this would eliminate it in at least one
significant arena (digital sim).
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing, going from 3 suppliers to 2 will raise prices, decrease
competition yata yata yata.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing.
Cadence support is not good today.
Sierra support was great.
Mentor owned Sierra support was good.
Cadence owned Mentor support will be worse.
Also who will really focus on making good quality tools any more,
rather than just selling licenses?
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Mentor offers schematic entry, netlisting tools that can be used
for analog ASIC simulation for a reasonable price. These same front-end
tools can interface nicely to the PC board parts libraries and layout
applications. Network licensing is not outrageously priced and
schematics can be viewed and edited from across our company. The
software is mature, can integrate into design flows with other tools and
fits our needs.
A Cadence takeover would likely mean obscene licensing fees, whether they
are immediate or slightly delayed. As a smaller company, I think we'd
look elsewhere for our front-end and board layout tools.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad for EDA users. It reduces competition of tier-1 EDA companies to
Synopsys and Cadence/Mentor, and Magma in the PD space. Mentor has
proven to be good at niche markets. So, I can see that it's good for
Cadence to pick up Mentor's best of breed tools in these markets.
NO.
- Al Czamara of LOA Technology
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good if Cadence does not kill Mentor's software projects, but instead
replace's their software (i.e. assura and AMS).
YES. It would mean my company would switch over to using Mentor's
tools for LVS and mix-signal simulation. A nice back door.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad for everybody. Cadence competes by eliminating the competition so
it can continue to overcharge for it's crappy products.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This possibly a really good deal for Mike Fister if Gabe Moretti is
correct on the potential 'unprecedented bonus' Mike could receive for
meeting revenue gains by simply purchasing yet another company.
EDA users will have to settle with a larger, slower and less innovative
company to support and enhance the tools they used to like.
But Fister will be able to walk away an even richer man and that is
really what this deal is all about, right?
No. I like Mentor tools as they are.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It will make Cadence a stronger company in the long run since Cadence
lacks the strong test and physical verification that Mentor has. This
will help someone complete against Synopsys and Magma which can only
be seen as a positive over the long run. My biggest concern is with
the simulators that each company has. Qwesta was just starting to gain
traction so I would hope that momentum isn't lost or outright canceled.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing.
a. more competition is good for consumers - this would be less
b. they might kill-off / Cadence-ize ModelSim
c. Mentor, going back to its ModelTech / Exemplar product roots, has
traditionally been more small-customer friendly, as opposed to
Cadence which really hasn't had the interest unless you were a
major account. Maybe this would change, and it does seem like
lately Cadence is trying harder than it used to, but it's still
not very reassuring.
NO
- Elchanan Rappaport of Gila Logic
Index
Next->Item
|
|
