that SNPS announces that the current quarter will likely be a shortfall from Analysts estimates.
Hasn't the CDN management team been stating that things aren't quite as rosey as SNPS has been making them sound?
It would be interesting to see where the shortfall is coming from...renewals, margins, market share shift, pipeline???
P.S. Good job by SNPS execs of timing the split announcement with the current quarter miss to mitigate impact to the stock price...
Yes. Agreed. Unfortunately people don't realize that strong management and strong leadership are separate and distinct roles and talents.
A company with very strong management but no leadership will fail. A manager without leadership skills who attempts to play that role simply overmanages without conveying the focus and direction. Employees without leadership when left to their own devices for determining direction will proceed along different paths. Who's at fault?
Cadence Red Lion Inn accountant CEO, Bingham, is much better suited to managing hotel supplies and hotel workers and should return to his area of skills.
Typically it takes at least 7-10 years to correct buisness failurs such as this.
Some of you may notice that great new products from hot companies seem to disappear when Cadence buys the company. It is kind of like a racing car running into a pile of sand.
Cadence has been buying best-in-class software. It has a large, well organized and managed team for integrating the various parts together. The problem is that the company, like many large companies, is very top-down oriented. Managers of large companies often find it easier to manage the 'process' rather than all of the many pieces. As a result, low level functions like Human Resources end up reporting directly to the CEO. Engineers end up at the bottom of the totem pole. Engineers start out working for small dynamic start-ups, developing innovative new products while being pampered as the stars of their companies. They have the most power and influence (along with marketing and sales). Functions such as payroll and human resources, and even, to an extent, upper management, are properly seen as supporting functions for the stars of the company. Then the company gets bought by Cadence, and everything gets turned on its head. Suddenly the 'star' engineers and their managers become pawns in a giant machine. Simple things like getting a week off for paternity, or getting a superstar engineer a bonus, which could be done with a hallway conversation before, become bureaucratic nightmares (reminds me of Franz Kafka's 'The Castle'). You can't fight the machine because it has all the power, and the engineers have none.
The most innovative engineers often quit in frustration. The remaining 'pawns' crunch through the code as best they can while under the tight reign of the 'machine' and halfway decent code gets released. But the fire is gone. This is why large companies like Cadence have to keep buying companies for their innovation. They are organized wrong at a very fundamental level to have the innovation come from within.
What saves Cadence are two things:
1. There are exceptional talented people within Cadence who like work on its big products and can't be put down by the oppressive atmosphere.
2. A slow marching army of 'privates' will often overrun a small army of hot-shots.
I am fascinated by Cadence. I plan to do some serious research into Cadence. Just wondering if any of you folx here who used to or works at Cadence or are engineers who has had experience with the Cadence flow.
Would love to have a chat and hear your insight. Please email me on: email@example.com
Thanks in advance.
The holy grail, if you will, is the integrated flow. The 'make-chip' button escapes all CAD companies, for the moment. That is the goal line.
Where do the teams stand on the turf? Bash the coach? Don't need the coach (CEO). Game is in hands of the folks in the trenches. Joe predicted the demise of leadership long ago when there was so much lust for quick money.
Change will come with bare-bones engineering effort from those who want to make a top shelf product and get back to sound engineering disciplines.
The core within Cadence carries a knowledge base which holds the lessons learned from dealing with the technology changing and the challenges which fall out from lack of communication between tools.
The bottom line in this effort is pure product development and fundamental engineering. Those who hold the gold do make the rules, but they can't change the grunt level effort expanded to make a good product.
Read 'PIGS AT THE TROUGH'. Not all coaches are participants in this sub-culture, but more do go there these days.
Just some thoughts.
- Chicago Blues
That is all, folks.
I imagine that when Astro is "updated" enough, they will bother to issue a press release. But then, who's really looking at the technology behind the smoke and mirrors of a two-for-one stock split?
<<There hasn't been anything "new" or "updated" about Astro to warrant a press release on it in 2003.>>
You seem to follow EDA stocks closely enough that I'm, frankly, surprised that you appear not to have listened to the SNPS analyst call on 8/22. I don't know whether it's still available, but I suggest you try to find it.
Have you heard anything about customers' reactions to the updated Astro (or "update" Astro, if you insist)? My feeling from listening to Aart de Geus (who isn't inclined to over-exuberance) is that they love it.
I wrote: "When was the last time you saw a **meaningful** advance announced for any of the former-Avant! suite of back-end tools?" - Emphasis on meaningful.
You replied: "August 22, 2003. Aart de Geus announced customers were very impressed with **updated** Astro." - emphasis mine. (I have no idea where you pulled this indirect quote with no reference to any specific customers. Perhaps you wrote the speech for Aart.)
There hasn't been anything "new" or "updated" about Astro to warrant a press release on it in 2003. http://www.synopsys.com/news/announce/press2003/press.html
And there is no mention of Astro being "updated" in the Galaxy press release of February '03.
Here's the exact quote:
"Galaxy Design Platform will integrate Synopsys� industry-leading IC implementation tools and intellectual property (IP), including Design Compiler, DFT Compiler�, Power Compiler�, DesignWare(R), Floorplan Compiler, Physical Compiler�, Astro, PrimeTime, TetraMAX�, Star-RCXT�, Hercules� and Proteus�. Galaxy Design Platform will incorporate consistent timing, common libraries, delay calculation, and constraints from RTL all the way to silicon using the common Milkyway database."
Notice the word "integrate." This is exactly the sort of thing people like you are constantly criticizing Cadence for. No tool has been changed, no tool has been "upgraded," nothing has been added except that they now all work together (as they should have all along).
What's different about Cadence? What's new about Encounter? Virtual prototyping leaps out as one critical new piece of functionality. What virtual prototyping capabilities does Synopsys offer? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
However, the broader issue has to do with rampant propagandizing on this board. If you are not a Cadence investor and feel the company is so doomed, why do you waste your time posting on it?
Are we to accept that you are such a generous person that you want to save investors from their potential mistakes?
Or is it more plausible that you are somehow disgruntled with Cadence in some personal way? You wouldn't be alone. I see a surprising number of posts here that are written with a... vehemence that indicates less than a biased and detached evaluation of the facts.