Writer's Block
These last few weeks have presented conflicting views, and for those who've been subjected to these multiple messages, it's been nothing short of sensory overload. ******************************** It started with Ron Rohrer – and I don't care what you've heard about his closing keynote at DAC 2005 in Anaheim, it was downright depressing, albeit compelling.There weren't that many hearty souls who showed up for the closing keynote at DAC in Anaheim on that Thursday – guess they were all tuckered out from attending the opening keynote on Tuesday morning, or the CEO panel, or the zillions of other sessions, panels, presentations and/or the parties that peppered the week leading up to the closing hours of the show on June 16th. It's too bad more people didn't come, because there was a certain dark spontaneity and raucous rancor to Rohrer's presentation – a talk that I believe caught even the DAC Committee by surprise. Rohrer started off by making a weird (read "rude") joke about the man who had introduced him, chatted at length about how problems, prototypes, partners, products, and profiteering in their various forms have always characterized the EDA industry, hit his stride in comparing those who sell EDA tools to the hypothetical pimp who's dating your teen-age daughter, and ended by going through an arcane calculus to prove that fully half of the companies exhibiting there in Anaheim had no right to be in business – the economics of the industry wouldn’t support them, he said. Before he signed off, Rohrer also threw out this truism: "Don't screw your entrepreneurs [in EDA], because you need to recycle them." See what you missed? Turns out The Ron Rohrer Show was the Saturday Night Live of DAC 2005 – raw, revealing, and hilarious in a bitter and biting sort of way. When Rohrer finished – probably 5 or 10 minutes short of his allotted time – he said basically, "That's it. Thanks." and stepped away from the podium. Bill Joyner, DAC Chair, seemed totally unprepared for the abrupt ending, jumped up onto the stage from his seat in the front row in the ballroom, thanked the quickly departing Dr. Rohrer, and wished the audience well and au revoir until DAC 2006 next year in San Francisco. Ironically, Dr. Rohrer is currently on the staff of the company who, in my mind, is making an end-around in this industry to establish World Domination within the design automation paradigm. [Rohrer is Corporate Vice President for Advance R&D at Cadence.] And either by way of his current employment status or by way of his authentic belief in his economic modeling of the industry, Dr. Rohrer is adding to the fuel to that particular fire in my mind. After all, if there should only be half as many companies in EDA, there should only be half as many companies competing with Cadence. Fewer companies, less competition, more committed customers for Cadence. QED. ******************************** Fast forward to July 7th and 8th. I'm on the phone, first with Rich Goldman, Vice President for Strategic Market Development at Synopsys, and then with both Steve Schulz, President and CEO of Si2, and Rich Goldman. They're yielding up additional details about the thinking behind the DAC announcement that Synopsys would (finally) be joining Si2, signing up for the Band of Brothers who are committed to OpenAccess, mutually compatible databases, and interoperability. Here's my take on what they had to say over those several phone calls: Phone Call on July 7th Rich Goldman: "We believe what's really needed is an open environment for designers. On the digital side, the designers get the benefit of having a variety of companies providing tools for them, but on the custom analog side it's a totally different story – custom analog is the only place where there's a monopoly left in EDA, and that's owned by Cadence. What we need is an open environment for the custom analog environment, just like the digital designers have. OpenAccess exists and is available for them, but [success] all depends on the migration from CDMA to OpenAccess. [But] there's a huge amount of legacy work, which is in the CDMA environment and Cadence has that all closed – designers are trapped. What we need to do is to provide a migration path for them." I ask Rich to clarify one point: "Doesn't everyone pretty much see Synopsys' market share in synthesis as being tantamount to a monopoly?" Rich says: "We don't have a monopoly in synthesis. We have been blessed with having many competitors in that space and we have an environment, which is open, one that many third-party EDA companies can integrate into. But that just hasn't happened on the analog side – EDA customers have not been allowed to migrate away from CDMA – Cadence hasn't allowed it, so the designers haven't had the benefit of competition in custom analog." I ask Rich: "Why the long delay in Synopsys joining Si2?" Rich says: "So, there are two things. The reason that we're joining is to act as advocates for the migration to an open environment. We stated that last year at DAC, and that's where we really want to focus. It will give us access to the community of designers and our fellow EDA companies who have banded together to make this migration happen." I ask: "Is there any downside for Synopsys in making this move?" Rich responds: "Moving designers to an open environment is an upside for everybody. It's pretty exciting for us, and the feedback that we've been getting from both customers and EDA companies has been very positive. My experience at this past DAC was one of not being able to take more than a few steps [on the show floor] because company after company was coming up to me and asking me how they could help with the migration." Phone Call on July 8th Steve Schulz says: "I see [this move by Synopsys] from a very broad [perspective] – the shared problems are being able to put flows together economically in a time-efficient way to allow for data interoperability at 90 and 65 nanometers. There's more coupling of issues [at those nodes] that require better cooperation between the tools – and now there's a more diverse palette of products out there – digital, memory, analog, and IP. All of these problems are on the minds of Synopsys and many other EDA vendors. Having Synopsys come on board in Si2 as one of the leaders in the industry is extremely significant." I ask: "How did you get Synopsys to join?" Steve says: "The credit needs to be shared. Fundamentally, it comes down to Si2's members and Synopsys' customers. It took good listening skills on the part of Synopsys and Si2, as well. One of the first things I thought was important when I came on-board at Si2, three years ago, was to understand the lay of the land. At that time, I was shocked to find how bad the scenario had been [in the industry]. Maybe it was just a perception, but there was no sense of community or trust." "I communicated with Rich and he communicated back. There were, frankly, a number of things I agreed with him on – and that was the beginning of the process. You have to [work at] the process of building relationships and integrity and trust over time. I think Rich would agree with me on that – it takes a long time to build perceptions, to build bridges and to follow through on work. I found that Synopsys was concerned about [some things], and so we followed through on those things. Now if there are honest differences, we share them. And importantly, when there are honest alignments we build on them." Rich says: "Steve is right on. We had some large issues with Si2 under previous administrations. Steve's coming on board has really brought a lot of integrity to Si2. He has built trust with us. He has explored the problems and made sure that Si2 is much more representative of the entire industry. That's played a big part in why we are now willing to be part of Si2." I ask Steve: "Is there any downside to Synopsys joining Si2?" Steve says: "I don't choose to see things that way, although there may be some in the marketplace who will be concerned over frictions, or tensions – and how that might change the dynamics of things. There might even be a small minority who are concerned over ulterior motives, but I'm past all that – I view this move as a sign of the maturing of the EDA marketplace. It's a part of how we are all advancing together." I ask Steve: "Is this a new age of co-opetition?" Steve says: "The term New Age is bandied about pretty liberally these days. We've got the opportunity to advance the efficiency of design in what we're doing. I hear all the time from customers out there who have to modify their design flows – the same is true from the broadminded EDA suppliers. One of the real value-adds of OpenAccess is the building of platforms. If there are things that accelerate how data and flows come together, that improvement brings [good things] to both the EDA supplier and the EDA customers." Nice. ******************************** Fast forward to July 19th. I get e-mails from a number of people with a link to an article in SiliconValleyWatcher in which journalist Tom Foremski recounts a candle light dinner with the press hosted this week by Cadence Senior Execs (and for those who asked – no, I wasn't invited). Foremski tells of a round of questions thrown at the Cadence leadership regarding their position within the EDA community, within the larger semiconductor supply chain, and on the Street. Per Foremski's glowing report, the Cadence leadership was capable and composed: "For example, at one point Mr. Fister said Cadence was the largest, or second largest, in every one of its markets, and that there were only one or two other small, insignificant competitors." "But surely this lack of competition is bad for the industry as a whole, I asked? [Fister responded], 'The lack of competition in this case, creates an enormous amount of innovation. Because now, you don't need to integrate dozens of design tools to create an advanced chip. Whatever your sector, whether automotive or wireless, we've done it for you.' Cadence thus becomes a design platform on which many thousands of chip designers can use to innovate new chips." Wowza. ******************************** Can you see why it's sensory overload of the worst kind? * There's not enough room for all the companies currently ranging around in EDA, yet there continue to be lots of companies ranging around in EDA. * Synopsys has lots of competition, but common wisdom says otherwise. * Cadence has little competition, but common wisdom says otherwise. * Everybody's wanting to link hands on behalf of the customers, yet the customers only need one set of hands. Given the messaging from Rohrer, Goldman, Schulz, and Fister, I'm so confused. Is it Fraternity Compromised, or Fraternity on the Mend? I don't know – but given the tenor of some of the messaging of late, I'm a'feard there are forces on the move that will lead to: Fraternity Cancelled. Writer's Block says I don't know where to go from here, so I'm taking a cue from Dr. Rohrer. "That's it! Thanks." ********************************
Peggy Aycinena owns and operates EDA Confidential. She can be reached at peggy@aycinena.com
|