( ESNUG 474 Item 2 ) -------------------------------------------- [07/02/08]
Subject: 81% of EDA users disapprove of Cadence-Mentor merger (Part II)
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)
A bad thing, because I expect they'd phase out the Mentor tools we use
in favor of Cadence tools. I believe practically all the Mentor tools
we use (logic simulation, PCB, and signal integrity) have Cadence
competition. Besides, I believe competition fosters better tools.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I believe that it would be a bad thing. Cadence is not known for its
innovation. All the buyout would do is further weaken the market by
degrading quality products (Modelsim in particular) and squash
incentive for innovation by removing competition.
No.
- Bruce Meyer of L-3 Communications
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Some of the overlapped tools will be axed. Which begs the
question with so much overlap in products why would Cadence want Mentor?
Is it mostly for Calibre? I think Mentor has found a nice niche in some
IC point tools and a nice offering in PCB/System tools. I don't see
Cadence that interested in those markets that is why this seems an odd
marriage. I could see Mentor a much better fit for Synopsys since there
would be much less overlap.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I would not like this merger. I think the competition is good for the
users. It keeps the vendors motivated and encourages innovation.
I also think that an acquisition of this size would make Cadence too
big to manage effectively.
- Shalom Bresticker of Intel
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Cadence messes up the products of companies it acquires.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Mentor support was very bad. We hope to get better support.
But Mentor tools will be more expensive.
Yes.
- Ehsan Hosseinzadeh of Icera
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. Cadence and Mentor are two different worlds, it would
never be a happy merger.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad! While verification is a growing field, the big competition in the
constrained-random simulation space is between these 3.
Competition drives innovation.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Any consolidation of vendors is bad for users because it reduces
competition. Being a heavy user, consolidation of the #1 and #2 sim
vendors is very bad. Do you think Cadence would of been so hot to
support System Verilog w/o Mentor being ahead? I think not.
No.
- Greg Tumbush of ON Semiconductor
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence has an arrogant, high handed pricing model that will kill users
in the FPGA space, and the PCB design space. The lack of competition
will make it impossible for small firms in the US to do design work.
If it had not been for Mentor working with small firms, we would not be
in business.
NO.
- Bodo Parady of Pentum Group, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
My reaction as a 20+yr ASIC designer is "Bad Cadence! Bad Bad Cadence!"
Mentor doesn't do a lot, but they do it well. We love FormalPro, and
0-in, and though it's not the fastest simulator, Questa (Modelsim) has
matured and has its place in mixed-code environments. Mentor still has
the only complete DFT suite, and Calibre is consistently the top tool
in its class. Their local support is somewhat informal but very
skilled and helpful.
Cadence, on the other hand, is much more "management/business"-focused
rather than "engineer"-focused. They've fallen behind technically, and
seem to ruin most tools they acquire. Even NC-Verilog has fallen way
behind in the System Verilog space.
If this merger happens, I see a brain-drain coming as all those local
Mentor guys give up out of frustration and move to Synopsys, who will
then crush what is left of Cadence.
No, not a good at all. Perhaps Magma could be their white knight. 8-}
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. This would consolidate some power in two big broad based vendors.
It would also make for more effective competition with Synopsys.
YES. Mentor has some very good tools, but hasn't become a full EDA
toolset vendor. This way their tools can become part of a full set.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This will be bad for the industry in general. The economics say
"competition drives price down to cost." Not only this, limited
competition fosters progress.
If the merger between Cadence and Mentor takes place, the outlook in
the verification/testing area will not look good - at least not for
some years.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In my current arrangement it would be neutral, however I think Mentor
has picked up some good startups and will offer a number of excellent
alternatives in the verification and physical design spaces. If Cadence
takes over, you can bet it is the quick death of Calibre - a la PVS. :)
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. In my experience Cadence support is whole lot worse that Mentor's.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Consolidation of similar products should reduce overall costs,
but there is still plenty of competition to keep Cadence honest.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It could be a bad thing cause:
1. loss of competition
2. discontinuance of products
3. reduced user support cause of cost saving actions
(surely to be expected)
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It would be bad for Cadence customers. Every vendor needs competition.
It would be worse for Mentor customers. No one needs Cadence spending
their money on integration rather than innovation.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. The EDA segment is concentrated enough. EDA needs the competition.
The science of design will not benefit from this combination nor will
the engineers who have dedicated their careers to EDA.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I don't like it solely because of test tool reduced competition. Of the
Big 3, I believe Mentor and Cadence have the two best test tool suites
available. Putting that together, would remove competition of the top
two.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The front-end ASIC side of me doesn't quite care. Mentor's offerings are
deficient there. The systems side of me thinks it's a travesty. Cadence
has never really cared for me there. The EDA industry side of me thinks
it's a bad idea for EVERYONE, including Cadence. ... well, except for the
M&A guys who will take away all the money.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A Cadence/Mentor merger would be bad for the consumers but good for the
suppliers. Less competition is always a bad thing, especially in the EDA
world. In addition to impacting user costs, the level of innovations
declines. For those of us who still recall the Daisy-Mentor-Valid days,
we know that the competition between those three pushed improvements on
an almost quarterly basis.
A Cadence/Mentor merger means the likely end of ModelSim, for example.
(Although I would hope it would be NCsim that died.)
{Explicitive deleted} NO!!!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Sounds like the Anti-Trust Dep't should veto this. It appears to me to
be an obvious move to reduce effective competition in the marketplace.
I see this as a negative as an EDA user: less competition should give us
higher priced, lower quality products in a short period.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Look what Cadence did to Verisity. They bought them out, and
are now slowly phasing them out. They only wanted their customer list.
It is always better to have more EDA vendors for better competition,
not less.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. It will stifle what little innovation MGC has. MGC has far
superior customer support to Cadence. Once this becomes like Cadence's
customer support all will be lost.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Why? Obviously, in the case where Cadence and Mentor have
competitive tools, the competition that has benefited both tools, up
until now, would be gone.
NO, but as a capitalist I understand the motivation.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD - less competition and less innovation.
Fister is another example of the new guy trying to break away from the
traditional culture in attempt to address lack of core EDA growth.
Too bad the industry leaders cannot identify new markets and solutions
to pursue as the solution instead of consolidation.
NO
- Taylor Scanlon of Pintail Technologies
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From a financial POV, I think Cadence is hurting and is looking for a
short term solution. I just don't see it helping the industry as you
will then end up with 2 large companies that many further squash
innovation, rather than spur it.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
What will happen with E Specman versus System Verilog? Will this leave
System Verilog dead in the water?
What will happen with CPF/UPF -- already a problem, now getting worse :-(
We are actually discussing creating OPF - "Our Power Format" and then
parse it to either. ;-)
NO. Three Vendors competing are better than two.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In my view this is a bad thing. Cadence will destroy Mentor's reputation
by focusing on $ revenues only and not tool quality nor customer service.
It's hard for a CEO of a public company to resist in a situation like
this but we have seen some big mergers get shot down lately. I think
Mentor should stand their ground.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is a bad thing. More competition is always good, and going from
3 major EDA vendors down to 2 is unlikely to benefit end users.
NO!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad bad bad. Cadence has a way of killing a good product. History says
so for all past takeovers.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Less competition == worse yet more expensive tools. Cadence was forever
dragging its feet in System Verilog implementation when Mentor was ahead.
No.
- Gautham Kamath of Cirrus Logic
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence will rip apart Mentor. This is not going to be good for Mentor's
product quality and customers will likely lose the bargaining power.
Cadence seems to be in trouble and Mike is looking to put some bandages.
I think their financial outlook is not good. We will have to closely
watch their earnings next week.
Mainly NO, if Mentor can survive by itself.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. This kind of consolidation reduces competition and all the good
things that follow like innovation, low prices, comittment to quality and
customer satisfaction. That's why we have anti-trust laws.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence-controlled Mentor = bad thing; like SNPS, Cadence is so backend-
centric I doubt they can be counted on to manage front-end tools. Mentor
seems to be making real progress in the ESL space, and I think the multi-
year churn of such an acquisition will stifle progress in that space.
Fewer jobs for people in the EDA field as well. (Ditto Synoplicity)
I think this move by Iron-Fister Mike is just what CEOs do. Gobble.
Gobble. It would be good for Cadence economically, user-community be
damned. They stifle some competition, acquire technology and people,
and acquire Mentor accounts, all to their own benefit. They need the
merger in some spaces: to wit, the cooperation with Mentor on OVM as
a response to SNPS verification methodology.
As an EDA tool user, NO, I would not like to see this happen. We depend
much more on Mentor, and I think this will hurt Mentor and end users.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
P.S. I'd like to see Mentor acquire Forte, and maybe Mathworks! Well,
maybe not Mathworks, but you see where I'm thinking. :)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence can do what it wants to ModelSim, but mess with Calibre and we're
gonna have words.
I think this merger would allow Cadence the unique opportunity of becoming
simultaneously the biggest and the worst EDA vendor in EDA history. I
think this is what they've been shooting for all along...
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think it would be a bad thing as it reduces competition. This in turn
leads to less innovation (which is already a problem in this business)
and higher prices (in the long run).
Here is my list of why this merger will/should not happen:
1. I am sure that Mike Fister is smoking crack (ala Broadcom CEO)
2. I think the Mentor people will actually bring down the Cadence quality
3. Less competition in EDA is not a good thing for its customers
4. Wally Rhines will fight this tooth and nails
5. Combining 2 second rate companies will not yield 1 first rate company
Nope.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad.
A view from the Virtuoso front: Cadence has repeatedly shown ineptitude
in integrating 3rd party tools into their flow. Each acquisition
results in another layer of complexity and makes their suite less
usable. Their UI has been essentially static for a decade and it's
clear they favor obscure functionality over usability.
Mentor's mixed signal suite has a reputation for being somewhat buggy,
but looks like a delight to use when it works. The entrance of Synopsys
into this market with Orion looks like an end run around Virtuoso and we
need long term competition for Orion. Cadence acquiring Mentor would
remove this competition and allow Orion to become the rabbit's warren
that Virtuoso is.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. First off, sounds like Mentor doesn't want it, so if it happens
it is being forced. That alone tells me how successful it will be.
As a PNR guy, my biggest worry is the overlap here. Sierra appears to
have a better tool, but SOCE obviously has a much bigger market share.
Does anyone really believe Cadence would have the balls to try to
convert their SOCE guys over to Olympus and kill of SOCE? Instead
they'll most likely spend 18 months on a "two tool solution" and think
this is a good idea while letting them "sort it out internally" (aka a
political mess), eventually they will decide since SOCE has more
traction they will merge in the Sierra technology into SOCE. So we're
talking possibly 18 months of infighting (and some people leaving),
followed by 2 years of lateral movement. Its AVNT/SNPS all over again.
Fister needs to go back and review the Ambit acquisition to see what
happens when you make an acquisition using cash. He should also go have
lunch with Aart and learn about mergers of large EDA companies where
there is a decent amount of overlap (aka Avanti).
I guess the one positive on this, is maybe it finally kills of Vampire
at Cadence.
I guess this will be fun to read about and hear gossip on. The EDA
business, from a pure drama standpoint, has been boring ever since
Gerry Hsu left. I wish these guys though would spend their time
working on better products than dealing with messy mergers like this.
I guess mark me as a "yes".
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Less competition reduces innovation.
For Fister, reduction of competitors is always good but there will be
large layoffs due to large product overlap.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
On the PCB side, there is too much overlap. Something has to give and
many lifes will be impacted.
On the Custom IC side, Virtuoso will continue to be dominant player.
The only area I see a benefit is in the DFM space for submicron.
After reviewing the Cadence balance sheet and computing all the ratios,
this would be a financial disaster for Cadence. It's 1.6 B in cash
when their cash and cash equivalent is 825 M of which 500 M is long
term debt.
As far as tools and flow strategy, cannot predict it at this time.
If it takes place, it will be followed by a huge layoff.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Larger is not better, and more competition is better for end users.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This result would be very BAD.
Cadence uses very sharp business practices and makes the industry
difficult to work within. Mentor on the other is much easier to work
with, is cooperative, etc. With Cadence in the drivers seat, the
industry will be much less pleasant. The combination still does not
have a useful complete flow, but Cadence would like to think that
they do. They make it very hard to work cross vendors, and I expect
that they will continue this abuse and disregard of customer needs.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. We are using mixed Cadence/Mentor tools, and merging will
give us one big source. Of course, from the perspective of competitive
pricing, that's another ball game.
I would say yes, but then a hostile take-over does not sound good at all.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. My group uses Pinnacle heavily, and Cadence will kill off anything
the ex-Sierra group is developing that will compete with the existing
Cadence offering. Meaning no competitiveness for floorplanners nor
routers. Fortunately the Pinnacle optimization stuff is in place and
first-rate.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. The vendor pool shrinks again - choices are fewer - products will
be discontinued, upgrades will need to be purchased, people will lose
their jobs in a tight market.
I predict Mentor users coming after Mike Fister with pitchforks, shovels,
rakes, and implements of destruction...
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a primarily Cadence user, it would give me access to the few point
tools (Calibre) that Mentor has in which Cadence severely lacks.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing - both companies are very difficult to deal with, but having
them as one as a primary EDA supplier would be terrible.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A good thing. Bundled tools would cost less. This would give Cadence a
complete design flow with leading edge tools.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good, would reduce overhead in dealing with vendors and combines
technology. Then I only have to play Synopsys vs Cadence.
Yes
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think it's a bad idea. It also shows how desperate Cadence is. I don't
think Cadence has a very good track record of the companies that it buys.
No.
- Dan Jurich of General Dynamics
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As an EDA user: Bad
- There will be 1-2 years of confusion as Cadence tries to sort out
which tools to keep and which to end of life.
- There will be a brain drain from Mentor within a year of the merger.
If I were a Cadence Shareholder: Bad
- Cadence doesn't have a great track record of maximizing the
potential of the tools they acquire. Ambit comes to mind.
Gateway Automation is an exception.
If I were a shareholder of Synopsys or Magma: Good
- Until Cadence absorbs Mentor's tools, the confusion will send
customers to the alternate vendors, where there is overlap
in the product lines.
On the other hand, Mentor has been fading from the ASIC space for quite
some time, so I don't think the impact will be significant.
YES. Neither company will benefit from a drawn out proxy war.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
There are too many products on which they compete at present. And we are
free to choose the product with the feature set we need. If the takeover
goes through and Cadence decides the product line that will be preserved,
that choice goes away.
Also, lesser competition => higher prices
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As the field shrinks, because everything is becoming an outsourced
commodity there is less and less need for EDA tools. As such, mergers and
takeovers are a good thing to keep tools alive.
- Bill Hanna of Boeing
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. With Cadence gain control of Calibre and Sierra, as our main
tool sets are from Cadence and supplement with Calibre and Sierra, if they
become same company, then our tool cost should reduce.
It will also create internal competition for FE and Olympus or integrate
the best from both tools to create better P&R tool.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In general it would be a good thing. Mentor has had a problem keeping
their prices under control, providing adequate support, fixing defects
in a timely manner, properly integrating obtained capabilities, and
following a roadmap that makes sense.
Cadence had many of the same problems in the mid to late 90s and in
general has been able to address most of them pretty well. Cadence has
been weak in the PWB military market. I suspect that this will help
Cadence there.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. It is good to have more players, even if some of them smaller, even
if not always aligned, even if always fighting.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mentor seems a minor player (in my world). Their scan tool has somewhat
of a reputation, so I think it could boost Cadence's offerings there,
perhaps. I would hope that would create more competition for Synopsys's
DFT tools, which I think are pretty awful.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Calibre tool and associated supported from Mentor has been outstanding.
I have not seen anything like this level of quality and commitment from
any of the other EDA vendors in the layout verification space. My biggest
fear is that the high standards that Mentor has set with respect to
Calibre will deteriorate if this takeover happens.
NO. Overall, I feel this takeover is bad news if it happens.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It is sure a bad thing. Mentor's support and style is much better.
Fister is an idiot in EDA.
No.
- Christina Cui of NetXen, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I would have to say in the interest of competition that this should not
happen. I am jazzed by the thought of having Calibre in the Cadence
suite -- but that is not enough of a benefit to sacrifice the competition
between Synopsys, Mentor and Cadence.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
Index
Next->Item
|
|
