( ESNUG 474 Item 7 ) -------------------------------------------- [07/02/08]
Subject: non-Mentor and non-Cadence EDA employees
THE RIVALS -- These letters came from EDA vendors who were NEITHER Cadence
nor Mentor employees.
"As an EDA vendor do you want this merger to happen? (CHOOSE YES or NO)"
NO ############################### 63%
AMBIVALENT ########### 23%
YES #### 14%
Their responses were interesting reading -- some approve of the merger
because it'll simultaneosly mess up both Cadence and Mentor; while others
disapproved because it'll hurt customers with reduced competion; plus lots
of personal attacks on Fister -- and a few Fister adulation letters, too.
BE SURE TO READ ALL 8 PARTS OF THIS REPORT OR YOU'LL BE MISLED.
2.) As an EDA VENDOR what did you think of this move by Mike Fister?
3.) As EITHER, do you want this merger to happen? (CHOOSE YES or NO)
For the good of the industry, No. For the good of my company, Yes. The
resulting chaos would eliminate my biggest competitor.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Mike Fister is a sleazy guy. First he blows out what ever little value
Cadence had left by making rock bottom all you can eat deals lasting to
eternity with NXP and Freescale to get his bonus, then he needs to
replenish the technology pipeline since the revenue well will otherwise
fall dry. Doing so with an acquisition will surely give him another big
payoff and a great way to exit the industry gracefully. He should be
featured on Jim Cramer's CEO wall of shame but I guess the industry is
too small for that.
The good news is that hype is increasingly getting separated from truth
and it is becoming visible that some vendors have been operating more
responsible than others during the last cycle.
Also the combined Mentor/Cadence entity is going to have a huge culture
clash to overcome and a myriad of overlaps to sort out. Under the
prerequisite of starting with a significant debt load and being quite
cash strapped the chances of the combined company to go down are quite
good which would create quite a vacuum in the market. This may be an
opportunity to restore pricing and innovation in the industry overall.
NO. I think Mentor has actually assembled a very promising hand from a
technology perspective and I would like to see if it can capitalize on
it as a standalone entity.
The writing on the wall seems to be more that TSMC needs to make a move
in buying an EDA vendor if they want to follow Intel and IBM to sub 32 nm.
They should seriously consider intercepting Cadence.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It smells of desperation. If it were visionary, why wait until Cadence
stock is at $11 and Mentor is at $12. Last year CDNS at $20+ and MENT at
$8 would have shown some real vision.
Here's the only way this happens and gets unanimous shareholder approval.
I picture Wally calling up Mr. Fister and saying:
"Hi Mike, it's Wally, we're willing to take the deal, but there are
3 demands that must be met:
1. Cadence ups the bid to $2B. I have to make some money out
of this after all.
AND
2. Cadence and Mentor agree to divest certain businesses. There
is too much overlap to get approval (emulation, verification,
board, etc.). The Mentor team will decide which technologies
of Cadence's go away.
AND
3. I get to be the CEO of the whole thing and you'll be moving
to 'strategic projects' "
I think that all of the shareholders would vote for this -- including
the Cadence board!
No. This is bad for the industry.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Interesting step because Cadence was on the defence since Mike took over
and could not set through his company strategies so long (going private,
enhancing R&D and new product development, worldwide Virtuoso IC 6
industry introduction on productive level, growing revenue substantially
apart from acquisitions, etc.).
But it is quite clear that if this step will fail this was probably the
last action item of Mike with Cadence.
NO, but probably it will happen.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I haven't been a user for awhile but if I were, I would be vehemently
against it. Removing competition is the last thing EDA needs. If Exxon
had a dominant market share, we would be paying $4+ for gasoline today...
Oh, wait...
I wonder at Fister's motives given the rumors of his interviewing back
in the semiconductor business (where he belongs). Maybe the Cadence
board wants the Mentor management team? In any case it would surely
free up a lot of sales and marketing types for the rest of us to hire.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think the takeover would be a bad thing for the industry
I think it smacks of arrogance and puts personal ambitions before the
company or the industry interests.
NO
- Dave Noble of Pulsic
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This would have been considered a good move by Mike Fister, if he would
have taken it couple of years back. Then he would have been in a position
of strength and since that was his honeymoon period in EDA investors would
have backed him up.
It seems pretty clear that Fister's ploy all along was to get Cadence R&D
trimmed down, get expenses in control and set it up nicely for some VC
consortium to take it private. But after the deal fell through they have
been vague in terms of their long term direction. There is no new
product/technology in pipeline (X and Catena have been buried). So now
this move is more like a desperate gambit to take on Synopsys.
EDA investors have been advocating consolidation in the industry for some
time. The only consolidation here will be on the human resource side
(Simulation/Emulation and PCB design being chief victims) and will shrink
the EDA workforce by atleast 10-15%. This might be good from business point
of view as it will cut operating expenses. But from R&D point of view will
lead to large scale demoralization and defocussing in the short term.
But both Cadence and Mentor have to address the key reason for poor
performance. The presence of too many Me-Too kind of tools. Unless they
develop some unique technology, price pressures from SNPS and LAVA will
persist and no real benefit can be drawn from the merger.
NO.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence still has some visionaries - the Catena group is an excellent
example, but the company is weighed down with duplicity, and a
touchy-feely mentality that exposes the fact that the executives aren't
game enough to just hatchet one product (or group) in favor of another.
Instead they apply the 'let's not piss anyone off, and keep overlapping
products going' rule.
Which has never worked in EDA. Ever.
So now, with Mentor, even more overlap and duplicity. And sure enough,
no hatchets.
And what about Calibre? Well, Mentor's visionaries left the company a
LONG time ago - there is no-one left. Engineers, sure, but no architects.
The folks at the helm now are merely aiding evolution of an old product.
Milking the cash cow. Are they thinking about Calibre Mk 2 ? Nope.
There isn't anyone left who would know where to start. The competition
is fully aware of that, and are coming up to speed quickly. Did nobody
learn anything from Dracula?
So I don't think it would be a good idea for 2 top-heavy EDA companies
to merge - for them, or for users.
Sounds like Fister needs some publicity -- nothing else he is doing seems
to be working.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It will be bad thing:
a) There will be no competition in PCB (they have the most of the market)
b) There is too much overlap in products
c) In my opinion (+18 yrs in EDA, as former MGC and SNPS employee), such
acquisitions kill the innovation (i.e. less companies doing R&D on
specific topics), jeopardize customers relationships/activities,
creates frustrations among employers and concerns about their future.
d) It slow downs business as a potential customer of any company will
wait to see the outcame before buying anything (and eventually will
choose something else if available on the market).
I personally think Fister's crazy and that he didn't really think about
consequences.
NO.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It is bad for users for historical reasons, Cadence has not been very
successful with acquisitions.
It's a desperate attempt to take the investors away from the Cadence
quarterly revenue earnings number.
Yes, then it will be one less competitor.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It's a desperate attempt for Fister to save his job.
It doesn't matter to me either way.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing. Diversity of supply gives choice and better value - not
just in EDA tools but in general.
It seems that many CEOs are beholden to Wall Street whose sole aim
these days seems to be to enrichen the few at the expense of many
through spreading lies.
I know people at Mentor who'd left Cadence for a variety of reasons
in the first place and who are not enamored of the thought of being
re-assimilated (and then promptly spat out).
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It will be better for customers. They will end up paying less because
they will get Calibre for free.
If Mike were doing the right thing for the share holders, he needed to
do something in DFM. He's been buying technology, with very little
market share vis a vis Mentor and Synopsys. Since the DFM "design win"
is 3 nodes out, he was running out of time as Moore's law will be coming
to an end as we approach atomic line widths.
If Mike is doing the right thing for himself, he likely has some sort of
bonus tied to revenue growth, and the only way to do that is to by
another big company. Mentor is the logical choice.
Will he succeed? I doubt it. Wally and the Mentor board have a nice
family style business in sleepy Oregon, why upset the cart?? I'm pretty
sure Synopsys has made one or two runs at Mentor in the past, and very
likely got the same "not rich enough" offer response. And Carl Ichan
has bigger fish to fry at Yahoo!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I don't think it is a 'hostile' takeover bid. Mentor's reply sounded
like a coy negotiation, not a refusal.
I've been employed by Avanti, CoWare, Get2Chip, Cadence (twice), and
Mentor. I think the deal would be terrible for everyone involved.
Except for the execs who get plenty of $$ no matter what, being
aquired by Cadence is rarely a good thing.
The proposed merger/aquisition looks like a way for Fister and Rhines
to cash out and leave everyone else with the mess. I think Gary
Smith has the right analysis.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It is clear it reduces competition and is not good for users.
Desperation by Fister. Not many other avenues left for growth.
No
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
My theory behind this is that the Cadence board of directors is getting
tired of Mike Fister and his Intel gang, and wants to bring some serious
EDA technology leadership in to run the company.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad, because CDNS has been known to mess up with acquisitions.
Fister is trying to get new technolgy to enhance the CDNS portfolio PLUS
kill one competitor.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The hostile bid by Cadence will make Wall Street look closely at our
all-but-forgotten industry. The industry leaders seem to be happy with
status quo; should we not at least try something different before we
disregard it? Valuations are stagnant, more and more college grads opt
for other industries, when will the bleeding stop?
So, while I don't think this move is good for users or EDA vendors, I
applaud Cadence and Mike Fister for shaking things up a bit.
- Sashi Obilisetty of VeriEZ
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From EDA vendor's perspective, looks like a strong move by Mike Fister
on all counts. Finally, the big EDA fish makes enough of a splash that
Main St. might take notice, beyond the scope of the few remaining analysts
that cover EDA. In big fish circles, it's good to make a splash.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In the long run it would be a bad thing. This would be a trust.
I think, in Mike's shoes, I would do the same. Mentor has some of the
best tools on the market, and both Cadence and Mentor would profit
with this deal.
NEVER!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I am not an EDA user, but I suspect they would think more competitors are
better than fewer competitors so they could negotiate better prices. On
the other hand, many users are trying to limit the number of suppliers
they actually use.
For Fister this is brilliant! The EDA industry is being torn apart by
"all-you-can-eat" price wars and big time discounts. The margins are
suffering hence there is a struggle to generate the necessary R&D funds
to meet the fast changing market needs. Finally the EDA industry is
certainly not a darling on Wall St. when it comes to shareholder value.
This merger could potentially help on all fronts.
Yes. As an EDA vendor focused on DFT what it means to me is one less
DFT competitor. Let the fun begin.
- Jim Healy of LogicVision
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Depends on the way Cadence proceeds further with the existing tool sets
of Mentor. I feel it will not be a good option for me a as a EDA user
(purchaser). It will be good if Cadence takes care of flagship tools
of Mentor & support activity... Also it will be good if they join the
Interoperable PDK Library (IPL) Alliance
NO.
- Syed Akbar of Icon DA
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It would reduce innovation. Cadence is big enough, and cumbersome enough
already.
This could be some deliberate cage-rattling. Help create a little FUD,
and close some 50/50 contracts. Cadence could also make some money out
of this, with careful exit timing, and also see Mentor's share price
destabilise.
Mentor, as the smaller fish, is only likely to be harmed.
No.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
In the short term this would be a good thing for Magma due to the
out-and-out disruption that this would cause at CDN/MENT. Same goes
for SNPS.
However, long term the clear threat is that CDN could become such a
dominant player in the market that the remaining EDA companies would be
left in the dust. Or Fister destroys both companies in the process and
everyone else benefits.
One other thought - EDA is not a healthy industry right now. Maybe a
major shake-up will re-invigorate things at little.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Both a good thing and a bad thing. They have to do SOMETHING to survive;
but there will be no "other" benefit to the users because some GOOD tools
will not survive the acquisition.
Both companies have grown arrogant; the only company that exceeds this is
SNPS, who just swallowed Synplicity whole -- so I'm left sort-of-hoping
that CDNS chokes on MENT. In the end, I guess they deserve each other.
NO.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It's a good thing in general, though snapping up a big fish like Mentor
is less preferrable to seeing a lot of smaller EDA companies being
acquired. EDA industry consolidation is needed as there are a large
number of emerging EDA vendors who's products are good and useful, but
can't realistically stand on their own as a sustainable business. I
think this move is clearly a response to Synopsys acquisition of
Synplicity.
Yes.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is foolish - counter-productive to Cadence, Mentor, and the industry
in general. There is not a net positive value.
- Greg Conley of TSI, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad. They cannot two very different cultures & accounting systems. Even
their business selling styles are radically different.
This is a desparate move used as preempt to the industry. In the end this
merger will not happen. CDN will then go after Magma, this to will likely
fail, then CDN will become second tier, which Magma will acquire.
No, it is not good for EDA but it will bring in a new "big" four as CDNS
drops to 7th or 8th value, revenue, etc.
- Richard Bosenko
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad - pretty much give them a monopoly in Analog and board level
The move is bold and risky as the same time; Mentor is totally different
culture than Cadence and it may be a long and tough road to work as a
single company.
Yes, I hope they do it.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad for users because of less competition.
I think private capital is behind this. I suspect that after acquisition
Cadence will go private, will restructure, cut off losing business, and
lay off workforce.
No.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Bad, less competitive and Cadence only need Calibre from Mentor.
No.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It helps me, since it adds confusion. Both Mentor and Cadence have
competing products with ours, so one of them will eventually die.
In the very short term, you bet. I love seeing my competition churn.
But in the long term, probably not overall good for the industry.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think this is a necessary move by Cadence in order to avoid a slow death.
Future design tools will be closely linked to the fabrication technology.
Cadence (and Magma) has no significant presence in the DFM area. To an
average member of the EDA herd, DFM came and went. But as an Intel
graduate, Fister must be painfully aware of this very real problem: no
DFM, no future.
Buying Mentor solves this problem. No other solutions in sight.
But I don't think this will happen, not at $16.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I am an EDA developer. I doesn't matter for me. Its good for EDA to
consolidate now, there are too many small players who go out of business.
Also, Magma and Synopsys DFM strategies have to be completely rethought.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
As an EDA vendor - this is a bad thing. Regardless of how it is being
'positioned' it will ultimately lead to less choice for our end users,
and that's bad for everyone.
Do I want it to happen? No.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BAD! BAD!! BAD!!! Cadence and Mentor have too much overlap and this
would practically remove a lot of tools from the market. Too little
competition, and of course for people looking for career will have one
less choice. I am expecting a couple of thousand people out of job
with this deal.
Cadence starts too many things and fails on most of them. They seem
to be very short term oriented and use hack-and-slash techniques
to get business done.
NO!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Depends. On one had Cadence will have more pricing power. On the other
hand Cadence will have more R&D resources to work on new and improved
tools. Overall good.
Good move. Improves pricing.
Yes.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Stepping back and looking at the industry, we absolutely need change and
consolidation. There are simply too many vendors selling overlapping
tools. Who ever heard of a market (like HDL simulation) where the
revenue was split in what appears to be a three way tie?
At the same time, if I were a Cadence shareholder, I would have a hard
time believing that spending $1.6B on Mentor would lead to a better return
than T-bills. If I were a Mentor shareholder, this would look like a
pretty decent return, and Mentor's stock hasn't exactly brought
interesting returns.
Overall, I think an LBO of Mentor would be a more successful route where
Mentor gets split out and sold in pieces; can't say that would get those
shareholders better than $1.6B.
YES. Let's see some change.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This would eliminate competition and reduce the exit opportunities of
EDA start-ups, make it harder for them to get VC funding and thus reduce
the innovation power in EDA.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This is highly anti-competitive! Many large companies do business with
at least 2 or 3 of the top 4 vendors. Adding Mentor to Cadence
drastically changes the competitive arena. This will likely result in
significant increases in costs to the users!
When the "Intel Team" took over Cadence they said NO MORE ACQUISITIONS;
Cadence Engineering needs to develop new products that are competitive,
etc. I guess that this is an admission of failure by the Cadence
management team!
Once the combined company has enough clout, they might play "bundling
games", making it truely impossible for competitors to get into Cadence
accounts and/or forcing competitors out of some of these accounts.
Let's hope that Synopsys, Magma, et al complain in an anti-trust review!
NO NO NO!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This has to be the worst business deal in the history of EDA. Clearly
Cadence is going down the tubes and they want to make it appear by doing
mergers that they are not only staying in business but getting bigger.
No one is going to buy this fiction. The assets at any EDA company are
the people and they will all leave if this deal goes through.
I would also suggest that the antitrust folks will never let this deal
proceed under any circumstances. One dead company buying anther dead EDA
company to pretend they are still really in business and are viable.
What a joke!
- Bob Schopmeyer of Veritools
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Overall, I see the balance of power has swung too far to the side of the
tool purchasers to such an extent that the EDA industry may not be viable
in the future. This has had the net effect of smothering much of the
innovation. It is well known that most innovative products in the EDA
space originate in startups. However startup activity is bordering on non
existant right now, because VC's don't want to invest in a dying industry
(especially when they can fund a an internet or energy company and likely
get 20X cash on cash). If the financial health of the EDA industry were
better, this could mean more investment and more innovation which would be
good for everybody.
YES, based on this, I am in favor of the merger.
- Paul Hylander of Hyper Analytix, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I think there is too much overlap between the product lines to make this
a symbiotic merger. Products will be cut in the overlap. With that debt,
I see little opportunity for investing in new technology to stay ahead of
the curve. To take on a billion in debt just to start parring down the
merged company makes no sense to this EDA R&Der.
Of course the fat lady has not yet sung and the role of "White Knight" has
yet to be cast, although this fairy tale may yet end with an "Indian
Prince Charming" instead. :D
Hell NO!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The good technology that Mentor has will get diluted, de-focused, and will
lose its momentum in the process. The customers and the industry as a
whole will lose. I am not against consolidation in the industry.
Sometimes it is good so that we get out of price wars. However, this
proposed hostile take-over will mean taking the thrust and focus from a
very good technology which is respected by its customers and converting it
into just 'another-me' technology.
All of this is to reach some MBOs to cash a huge bonus without regard to
the future of the people behind the technology, the technology, and the
long-term value to the industy.
NO.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence buying out Mentor would not be a good thing. There are not too
many serious or good EDA Companies around anymore. I remember when we
started there was so many we stopped counting, now there is Cadence and
Mentor and Zuken and Altium.
I believe competition is healthy for the market. What happens when only
one of them controls everything and they have the monopoly of pricing and
developing the features they want?
The product starts to degrade, I seen it to many times here in Canada,
when major phone companies had a monopoly. Since competition started,
their prices have been cut down to 60% and still going down, with more
features. Same happened with the airlines like Air Canada, etc.
No!
- Jean Godbout of EDAForce, Inc.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Doesn't make sense. The debt burden would kill both companies. In the
current credit environment, anyone loaning this kind of money is not
going to wait around for years waiting for a payoff. The only way to
make this work would be if the reduction in competition allowed a
corresponding increase in tool prices, shortening the payoff time.
No. The debt burden will kill both companies.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This shows Cadence can only grow with acqusitions. There is enough
overlap between 2 companies which will cause big layoffs, but quick
money (adding $200 M revenue) for Mike Fister and team.
Technically, Mentor is on the right path with SV, AVM/OVM, DFM,
Calibre. Wally and team needs to show to shareholders that they can
deliver value (higher than Cadence offers) with current team.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This would eliminate further competition and reduce the exit opportunities
of EDA start-ups, make it harder for them to get VC funding and thus
reduce the innovation power in EDA.
NO
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
A bad thing since there will be less competition and it will become a
seller's market. If Cadence and Mentor merge, quite likely Synopsys and
Magma may be forced to merge and then there will be two large entities
which will have a backdoor cartel arrangement
This will save Cadence's day. Today they are getting pressure on their
main breadwinners like Virtuoso.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
For the EDA user this will be yet more of the same thing.
From an EDA Vendor's point of view this move was to be expected. "When in
trouble, acquire !!!" It does not address the fundamental issue the
industry is struggling with: how to structurally make money by allow
electronic design engineers to make ever-better products?
Don't care, but tend to No
- Hans Driessen of Handshake Solutions
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This will be bad for all customers. Because there is no synergy between
both companies and they have a majority of products which will overlap
and it would be tough to take a decision on which tool to retain or which
to scrap. Finally Customers will be in trouble if this merger happens.
I strongly feel this is not the right move, because the basic idea
for Mike with this merger is to retain the #1 position in the EDA industry
but this is going to be tough. Getting customer confidence is going to be
a big challenge considering the overlapping of the tools which both Mentor
and Cadence have and how Cadence has handled this situation in the past.
NO. This will be bad for the EDA Industry overall.
- Suresh Kumar of D'gipro Design
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
We can safely make the assumption that this move will create serious
turmoil in the EDA industry. Changes also create opportunity.
Cadence will not be able to retain all of Mentor's business. That
creates opportunities for others. Also, if this reduces the price
competition in the industry, it will improve the overall health of
the industry.
Yes.
- Prakash Narain of Real Intent
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
It can't be good news for customers and it certainly is not good news
for the industry. The writing is on the wall that the industry is going
to consolidate and that will have a dramatic effect on new companies and
innovation. If Mentor can't make it work at $850 M how can a little
outfit compete and survive?
No
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
This smacks of the hostile take over of Cadnetix by Daisy Systems in 1988
which ended up Daisy filing for Chapter 11 in 1990 and bought by
Intergraph in the same year. Granted we're talking different companies
and different times.
I'd be curious to know if any of the executives have some sort of bonus
tied to making Cadence over a $2 billion revenue company.
NO.
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Cadence has a huge accelerated revenue problem. In the past, they have
taken too much revenue for sales that should have been spread out evenly
over a longer period. Made them look good then, but it gets harder and
harder to hide as time goes on.
How do you goose revenue fast? Buy some, from Mentor.
Not good for Cadence (they would take on too much debt, and lose focus
even worse than now), not good for Mentor (too many product overlaps
leading to too many perfectly good products tossed in the trash and too
many layoffs), not good for customers (never good when vendors focus on
things other than product development).
I believe this even though I compete with Cadence.
Frankly, I can't believe the Cadence board is going along with this!
- [ An Anon EDA Employee ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I don't think it's a hostile takeover attempt. I think it's a very good
proposal by Cadence and will definitely clear some of confusion which is
faced by today's design companies with regards to different music played
by different EDA vendors.
- Sapan Garg of Atrenta
Index
Next->Item
|
|
