( ESNUG 474 Item 3 ) -------------------------------------------- [07/02/08]
Subject: 81% of EDA users disapprove of Cadence-Mentor merger (Part III)
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)
Bad thing. I would be concerned about what this would mean to the
ModelTech simulator and the reduction of competition in this area.
No. The lack of competition would seem to be a negative for the EDA
users in terms of loss of certain tools, lack of competition to
drive pricing and features.
- Scott Evans of Sonics, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. In term of ATPG tool, currently Cadence dominates LSSD and Mentor
dominates MUX scan. Although MENT tried to lock the user with their
propietary testKompress solution, we can turn on to CDNS to ask them to
improve their tool as an alternative.
If they are combined, there would be less choices for the user.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence controlling Mentor would *not* be a good thing:
A) We need more competition not less
B) the PCB products from Mentor would conflict with the ones
from Mentor and some would likely be dropped.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Cadence has a bad history of killing/not supporting products they
didn't write. What would happen to Modelsim vs NCsim? etc.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Cadence will raise prices on Mentor tools (like Calibre),
reduce development of new features and quality and support will go
in the tank.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Working with both vendors, I really appreciate the level of support
from Mentor. Also Mentor is a leader in implementing System Verilog
functions. Cadence??? What will happen to competing software like
Modelsim and NC-Verilog? Nothing good I'll wager.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing for me as an designer. The customer service and user resource
will be reduced.
I don't want this to be happening.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad -- I like to see competition in the market and variety -- as an end
user, I want choices, not a single source. Mentor has many good
technologies going while Cadence is living off it's past acquisitions,
and needs new acquisitions as the old products deteriorate. If Cadence
acquires Mentor, then after time there will be only Synopsys as the
remaining major player.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Cadence will most likely squash Mentor toolsets in certain areas
like analog, digital, and mixed signal simulation.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Our experience has been that Mentor support has been superior to what
Cadence provides. I'm afraid we'll get Cadence type of support if the
merger occurs.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Having just the Big 2 left as the main EDA providers (with Magma as a
leftover acquisition target) leaves the EDA industry in a dismal state
and EDA customers as the victims.
Cadentor is bad for the future of EDA - This merger would stifle the
emergence of investments in new startups. In fact, there's already not
as much value for VCs to invest in EDA startups, especially if the only
exit strategy is to be acquired by one of the two remaining players.
No, I dont want this merger to happen.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. Our company made a decision to exlude Mentor tools company
wide. If the merger succeeds, we will be able to use some of the Mentor
tools.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. I use Mentor design tools, not Cadence, and a merger would
mean upheaval in the tool flow and the tools themselves. Cadence will
try to integrate Mentor's tools into their flow (or vice versa), phase
out redundant products, and users will be stuck with whatever is left.
It'll be a few years until things finally settle. I'd expect the Apps
Engineering support to suffer in the transition, too.
Also, with one company where there used to be two, there will be less
innovation for the future.
No
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. It would make OVM System Verilog even stronger and more
unified, versus the current split in Mentor OVM (ie, TLM) versus Cadence
OVM (i.e., Sequence's). It might also finally bring Specman to Mentor.
Where we'd then have built-in license-free native support for Specman
on all three simulators - Incisive, Modelsim, and VCS (rumored to have
Specman support already).
YES!!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This merger would be a good thing in my opinion. Our company just
transitioned from being an exclusively Mentor house to a Cadence house
and we're seeing first hand the strengths and weaknesses of these
vendors. While we're enjoying a definitive improvement on some tools
during this transition, there are some glaring weaknesses in the
Cadence arsenal on critical tools. I'd love to see Cadence cherry
pick the best Mentor tools to broaden the offerings for Cadence
exclusive customers like us.
YES.
- Jim Lear of Zarlink, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Not good -- less competition means lower quality of product, and
possibly slower improvement cycles.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think it will be a very bad thing because the EDA industry has already
lost its invention "brain" and now a merger into a giant don't do any
good; especially in the front-end area.
NO. Bad for users, bad for Mentor and eventually bad for Cadence.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good - better interoperability of tools; mid-time synergy
Bad - some tools will die (e. g. ModelSim/NCsim);
Bad - less competition in market; means also less notice of requirements
of users and less long-time R&D creativity
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Probably bad. The Cadence corporate culture is much less customer
oriented than Mentor. I would expect many key Mentor employees to flee
and many Mentor products to be dropped.
It reminds me of Daisy's hostile takeover of Cadnetix. Remember how
that turned out?
No. It looks like the collapse of the EDA ecosystem to me.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. Less competition, less selection. Who is going to be the
evangelists for SystemC and System Verilog once Mentor is gone? Or is
everyone going to be pushed toward Specman again?
NO!!!!!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad, I think. I'm a verification engineer using Synopsys VCS. I think
Mentor really pushes Synopsys to make VCS better. If Mentor implodes in
the takeover, who'll keep Synopsys on their toes?
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. There are already too few fish in the pond. It will drive our tool
prices up. This will decrease our support on the tools that survive, and
those that don't will cause us problems. Cadence tends to do the "95%"
thing too much. That leaves 5% of your design left in the old tool, which
is the same thing as leaving the entire design there.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
IMO the proposed merger would be a bad thing. There is too much overlap
between the vendors tools and I could see good tools and features falling
by the way in this proposed merger.
No.
- Cliff Cummings of Sunburst Design, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Less competition results in slow innovation. Price control
which is not good for users.
Fister is not interested in innovation, but sales number.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is a very bad thing. We rely heavily on Modelsim and Questasim, and
do not wish to be forced to use Incisive. Also, I am concerned about the
effect of a hostile takeover on existing Mentor staff and the quality of
support for those tools which are kept.
I believe this move would be devastating for both companies, leaving
Synopsys to pick up the pieces.
I would add that the propensity of Cadence to no longer exhibit at trade
shows such as DAC, while staging competing events, and unwillingness to
support emerging standards such as UPF and IPL is not encouraging.
In general, this merger means less competition, fewer options, greater
expense, and worse support for users and new product development.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It would not be a good thing for the EDA user community. A Cadence
takeover of Mentor will stifle EDA diversity and competition. This is a
case of overpaid, good old-boy, Wall Street pseudo-savvy executives who
are unable to lead real technology innovations and sustainable organic
growth of the businesses they are running. In lack of such leadership,
hostile takeovers become a substitute for substance.
Like many other aquisitions Cadence has done in the past, their aquisition
of Mentor will also result in a gradual demise of many of Mentor's tools,
not to mention the many layoffs that will inevitably happen.
It might be good for the very few top shareholders, but it wont be good
for the industry and for the EDA user community.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing.
NO.
- J. Choi of Dawin Tech
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Overall a Bad Thing.
(1) Mentor has better customer focus compared to Cadence. A post-
takeover Cadence may not imbibe this virtue.
(2) Cadence may seek to kill System Verilog and regurgitate Specman.
(3) It will probably lead to higher product prices for customers due
to lesser competition.
(4) Cadence can kill Modelsim and promote only NC-Sim. Not a good
thing to happen in the verfication space.
I believe it is an act of desperation by a company feeling threatened by
a competitor. This move seeks to kill competition and will not
necessarily lead to better products for EDA customers.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I don't think it will be a good thing. There are already very few *big*
EDA companies. Further decreasing it would only decrease the need for
innovation. Also, I think Mentor was coming up with some very interesting
alternatives and approaches for verification. Where as none of the other
vendors were *actually* trying to improve verification.
Cadence is trying to maintain itself the easy way and *NOT* by innovating.
A big NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. If Cadence and Mentor merge, there is no competitor. In such
circumstance, there would be no stimulus, no progress.
No.
- Il Seong of Samsung
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mentor has been very dear company to me. They have given FPGA users
a full flow and very strong one; from design concept to PCB design.
Cadence will kill that flow or mess it up. Users will have some
zombies/Cadence sales persons to deal with, who are supreme arrogant
fellows.
This is shameless attempt by Fister to screw up customers.
NO NO NO..... (do extra no's count?)
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a DFT EDA user, my feeling is that with a Cadence controlled Mentor,
will reduce the choice of DFT tools as single company will like to go
for single toolset. It will kill one competitor. It will have an
impact in getting enhanced R&D in the EDA domain.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think it'd be great. Anything to give Synopsys a bit of competition.
Synopsys has become far too arrogant to deal with again. Cadence has
never credibly figured out the front end either, so maybe Mentor's ESL
folk will give some lessons.
YES! I'd like the deal to happen, even if all it does is scare Synopsys.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing in general. In my opinion, there are too many mediocre EDA
products being put out by the Big 3 right now. Sometimes it seems like
they put out a product merely to fill a gap in their lineup.
Cadence-Mentor will kill off a lot of the mediocre overlapping products
from one side or the other. I'm sure this move will be followed by
further consolidation. In the short term, this will hurt the choice
available to designers. But in the longer run it will open up space for
newer, more innovative products from smaller providers.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I personally feel it is a good thing/move, because this will help in
minimizing many point tools usage, hence good support.
It's a good move/decision from Cadence CEO.
Yes.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is very bad news!
- In my old company we used to switch RTL simulators every now and
then (~2 years), depending on who was faster/price. This competition
goes down the drain, with only VCS left.
- Mentor has an ESL strategy. I doubt that Cadence will continue this.
- Mentor is said to have 'a' working culture, it is a place where you
could imagine yourself to work. Cadence is not (my gut feeling).
- There will be huge lay-offs, and I'm quite sure that a lot of Mentor
people will not join the party, so Mentor technology will run dry.
What makes me most angry is the fact that I have the impression that this
whole thing is initiated to stop Cadence from loosing market share, or as
Gary Smith said, it's a "take the money and run" thing. Arghh..
NO (capital letters)
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing.
This might create a dominant position.
Less need for innovation.
Less price competition.
Not good for employement.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
My first reaction to the news is that it would be a bad thing. Having
experience in using the verification tools with both Mentor and Cadence,
we see this as a risk as we cannot rely anymore on the competitivness
drive between 2 major EDA players to implement new/best-in-class tools.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Probably good. Not much overlap with respect to DFT, IP, and hardware
emulation. DV tools are somewhat duplicated, so phasing out one over the
other will take 5-6 years. Should strengthen the field support for one
common toolset with larger support staff.
Really gutsy move by Fister and could only be done by an EDA outsider.
Still it's a lousy investment and I wouldn't touch any EDA stock.
Yes. I'm glad since it might start minimizing the language explosion
which seems to have started again.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For me good, I use Cadence for everything and Calibre for verification.
I will have to deal with only one vendor!!!
NO - removes competition - now that Mentor wants to get into P&R
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
We use mainly Cadence but have some significant point tools supplied by
Mentor. So it'll be great - we can get all our tools from one source.
Ummm - or perhaps all the Mentor versions will be end-of-lifed and we
will have to switch to the Cadence versions that we already rejected?
Cutting one major player out of the market isn't going to help competition
or new development. Cadence is always looking to cut costs so they are
bound to slash the R&D spend to make this work.
It seemed that Cadence was starting to invest in new tools rather than
just buying them in from promising start-ups. How wrong we were. They
were really storing up a war chest to go after one of the big boys.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think a Cadence controlled Mentor would be a bad thing from a user's
point of view. There is already significant overlap in their offerings
which would reduce the choice.
In addition the EDA industry is heading further and further towards a
two horse cartel leaving less room to negotiate prices. This hits small
VC-backed firms in particular.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Acquisition removes competition. It's pretty basic. Besides, all
the exciting tools belong to Mentor.
Remember Big Blue? Fister does.
Nah. Make 'em duke it out. We used to laugh that someone would take on
Big Blue. Do your readers even know who Big Blue was??
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Less differences in terms of language/methodology support.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is an acquisition where 1 + 1 = 1.5 There's too much product overlap
here to make sense. I think Fister is doing this because he knows CDNS is
in big trouble primarily due to recognizing revenue up front on 3 year
TBL's and now they need to find additional revenue before the house of
cards comes crashing down.
I always thought that the only EDA merger that makes sense from a product
perspective was Mentor and Magma.
NO.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Integrating the 2 companies will be tedious & lengthy. Nevertheless once
accomplished I expect a much more complete and integrated offering from
Cadentor covering the entire design process for IC and system (including
board, package) design.
I am mixed on this one. An acquisition need to be amortized. What I have
seen in the past that after any acquisition the tool prices have been
drastically increased.
So, technically: YES.
Will it be affordable: Maybe One would have to look at total cost of
ownership which has an even longer time perspective than the integration
of the 2 companies will take.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
We very well know the importance of consolidation, but when you takeover
your competitor, the decision to pick one technology/product line becomes
very painful. Synopsys is still struggling with what they got from Avanti
couple of years back.
Mentor filled their donut hole with Sierra acquisition and this solution
will make much more sense with a reliable router and integrated signoff
solution, with a fully functional DFT implementation and validation suite.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
GOOD: - I would expect a better integration of Modelsim and Specman.
BAD: - Cadence is more expensive and on their high horse.
- Less competition between vendors on prices and ideas.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. Competition will not be there
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good. Would give Cadence users access to Mentor tools and may consolidate
use of certain tools such as HDL simulators making the tools cheaper (ya
right) and easier for contracting / design services companies with less
tool chains to support.
YES.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad Thing.
less competition == less choice == higher prices == less quality
Of the Big Three, Cadence is the most miserable of the lot for quality
and customer service.
NO!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As an EDA tool user I think this is a very bad idea. Mentor has been
a better company to work with (IMO) and their tools seem to always work
better than Cadence's. Having two separate companies give us some
additional leverage when negotiating for the best price and we would
certainly lose this if the merger occurs.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!... but maybe if it were the other way around
(Mentor taking over Cadence) then I might change my mind....
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a user of Mentor's DFT tools, at the very least it's a slight minus
for me if they're absorbed by Cadence. I don't think they'll improve
the tools. They've been playing catch-up with their own DFT tools for
some time. However, if Cadence decided to 'integrate' them into some
sort of end-to-end flow, it'd be a much bigger minus, in my opinion.
NO
- John Ford of Solarflare Communications
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I'm an EDA user that strongly wants Cadence and Mentor to stay separate.
I've used both sets of tools to make analog/RF/mixed-signal/digital
chips. Although neither company has a "complete flow", they are as good
as it gets for analog/RF/mixed-signal IC design.
The major reason designers have the tools that they do is the competition
between the companies. Without both vendors, we designers will be in bad
shape since Cadence is really most interested in the bottom line: tools
will degrade if only Cadence survives.
No.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Calibre can be merged into SOC Encounter making physical verification
and DRC closure easier and quicker. So this would be a good thing
for Cadence tool users
I think this is the best move Cadence's future, as well as Mentor's.
YES
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Less competion. They have so much overlap in their tools
so I don't think it makes sense to merger.
NO
- Magnus Soderberg of Ericsson
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad thing. Competition is the only thing that keeps any of the various
EDA vendors honest; the only thing I can see happening for users is that
licenses will get even more costly, and I'll get even less for my money.
NO!
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad and good. We use a couple of Mentor products including ModelSim.
I would expect it to either go away or become more expensive; however,
if they keep it, Cadence might actually fix some bugs that have lurked
for years. (I know, I'm dreaming.)
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Notice there is no mention of board or PCB design. So, for board-level
design it would be a failure because of the Cadence and Mentor product
lines overlap.
If the takeover by Cadence is eventually accepted, it will bring some
uncertainty and confusion to Mentor Expedition, Board-Station, Pads and
Cadence Allegro and Orcad users.
It reminds me the pain experienced when Cadence acquired OrCAd and broke
their commitment to stick to R&D on the product range.
NO
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Good thing. I presently use both tools, would steamline my job.
Would limit choices/competition, could end up costing more for licences.
No
- Don Dazzo of LSI
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As EDA User, I think it would be a good thing. That way I could get
physical verification Calibre and Encounter P&R from same place, and
maybe they be tighter integration for nanometer affects.
Yes, but it's not up to me. I am not a Mentor shareholder or Cadence
shareholder.
- Y.T. of GyreWave
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As a Specman user with Modelsim as my RTL simulator I hope I would be
able to benefit from this move, but on the other hand, it might be that
Cadence is after Mentor System Verilog capabilities, and will gradually
move out of Specman.
Generally speaking, my answer would be NO, since this will leave the
market with only 2 major EDAs.
This means that me as a user, will have less options, or methodologies,
to choose from. Buying the competitor might mean that Cadence does not
want to invent in new ideas, or improve their solutions, which is
obviously a bad thing.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
At $1.6 B, Cadence is underpaying by 10-15%, hence Mentor shareholders
won't approve. Closer to $2B will probably get through. It will run into
some regulatory hurdles as you can imagine. The company cultures are so
far apart it will take years to integrate. Merger of equals in recent
EDA history has not been verify successful; SNPS + AVNT took Synopsys over
4 years to integrate and come up with an improved product.
Magma and Synopsys will gain the most out of this merger since Cadence
will screw the Calibre franchise over and open up door for Mojave and
Hercules.
Given the past history of mergers with Cadence any EDA company should
think hard about what happens to the technology at Cadence. SPC was the
leader now it is a me too player in P&R, RTL Compiler had a leg up on
DC before the merger, today you don't see that.
I think Cadence is better off acquiring Apache and ATOPtech for a lot
less money.
No, I do not want this merger to happen. I would prefer to deal with the
Big 4 EDA vendors and play them against each other.
- [ An Anon Engineer ]
Index
Next->Item
|
|
