Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 4:47 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cadence Design Systems Inc. Message Board

  • whtthefk whtthefk Jul 23, 1999 2:22 PM Flag

    Your fingers smell

    from all that picking. It makes me sick to hear your garbage on this board. GO home, you mommy is calling. When you've picked yourself out of the trash heap, you can come back.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • >So what do you attribute the Quickturn
      purchase to? (nearly >another 1/4 Billion Dollars!) I
      kept hearing about how buying
      >Quickturn was
      going to kill Mentor. I never heard a good

      >reason why, but that is what management at CDN was
      spouting.
      >I wish they would have worried about
      SNPS! I am still holding
      >stock I bought in the
      CDN ESPP at $23.88.

      Okay, I'm going to get
      really speculative here. My info. is half-rumor at best.
      The Quickturn acquisition was part of a strategy to
      half-way buy themselves into a major position in the
      formal verification market. There is a belief that
      design sign-off with simulation has hit the wall:
      verifying a sea-of-gates with simulation vectors is not
      feasible as you approach 1 million gates. One solution is
      partitioning the design throughout the design process, that's
      a basic premise of all this "system-on-a-chip"
      (SOC) junk going on right now. Another solution that
      was explored was formal verification. CDN productized
      a formal verification tool developed at their
      Berkeley lab that competes directly with the products of
      Chrysalis and Synopsys. Quickturn comes into the picture
      because they have some software technology that some
      execs in CDN thought they could marry to their formal
      verification tool to give them the edge. What about
      QuickTurn's hardware emulation? Scuttlebutt was that CDN
      would gladly take the revenues for that but that no one
      believe their was any growth potential in that
      market.

      I left CDN before the QuickTurn acquisition because
      of my doubts about formal verification. IMO, I don't
      think any of the execs (and also a number of the
      development engineers) understand that at a fundamental level
      formal verification isn't really "formal" which is why
      it doesn't work in the real world. If you ever get
      the chance, ask someone working on formal
      verification how hard it is (worst-case complexity) to figure
      out if two 16-bit multiplier circuits are the same if
      one is an array multiplier and the other is a
      Wallace-Booth.

    • But it was a good reason. There were several good
      reasons, but the biggest reason CDN bought Ambit was to
      prop up place and route. Standalone synthesis is just
      the short term issue. And no one be so naive to think
      that CDN would lose a deal on price - they may choose
      not to compete on specific deals for other reasons,
      or they may not be able to justify the discounts
      based on deal size. Its all a matter of negotiation,
      and its never an apples-tp-apples comparison.

    • I meant to say after CDN dropped/EOL Synergy. Not Bought!

      my apologies

    • Interesting post Raj, but I have a different take
      on it. I think the design services point that you
      made would make it hard to justify an approximately
      1/4 of a billion dollar purchase. What I heard at my
      time at CDN was two reasons for buying
      Ambit.

      1. Management needed to fill in the product line.
      Synergy was a lost cause with a single digit market
      share. After they bought Synergy, it was a foregone
      conclusion that Ambit would be bought. Cadence management
      was always talking about a complete solution front to
      back. No Synthesis offering was a big problem! SNPS and
      AVNT are hard at work trying to get a complete ASIC
      flow front to back.

      2. Synopsys was bundling
      VCS with Design Compiler sales which was killing the
      sales of NC-Verilog and Verilog XL. Basically buy DC
      for big bucks and for another few pesos, you can have
      a simulator:) With no Synthesis offering, how could
      they counter against this? So part of the motivation
      was to defend the Simulation business. Last number
      that I heard was that CDN did between $60-70
      Million/year in Leapfrog/XL/NC.

      I agree that management
      had big plans for the design services group.
      Obviously, it didn't work out that great:)

      So what do
      you attribute the Quickturn purchase to? (nearly
      another 1/4 Billion Dollars!) I kept hearing about how
      buying Quickturn was going to kill Mentor. I never heard
      a good reason why, but that is what management at
      CDN was spouting. I wish they would have worried
      about SNPS! I am still holding stock I bought in the
      CDN ESPP at $23.88.

    • >From my view of the world, it seems it will
      never be a fair
      >sales evaulation between DC vs
      Ambit. Every one doing synth >is already using DC.
      Ok, some people use that 2nd rate
      Exemplar
      >offering! It comes down to a choice between more seats of
      DC vs
      >a new Ambit buy. Big advantage goes to
      the incumbent just like
      >in
      politics!

      Here's the scoop: the big bargain for Cadence of
      acquiring Ambit is for Design Services use. Before Cadence
      acquired Ambit, Cadence announced that Design Services
      would use Synopsys. But before this there used to be an
      internal policy to push use of Cadence tools whenever
      possible and track their use for bookkeeping. At that time
      Cadence had a logic synthesis tool called Synergy. It
      really couldn't compete with Design Compiler but
      Synopsys refused to sell any seats to Cadence (the only
      way Cadence could use DC was at the customer sites).
      But there were accusations from Cadence tool
      developers that Design Services was actually using more
      seats of tools than they reported. Why would they do
      this? Well, if they actually paid for the tools they
      used, Design Services costs would skyrocket and nail
      their bottom line. That is, design services was accused
      of using tools for "free" and, in effect, taking
      revenues from the tools to pay the designers. Late in '97,
      Synergy was officially killed and a short time later an
      agreement with Synopsys allowed Design Services to license
      Synopsys. Cadence sure didn't get a big discount on these
      licenses, and now Design Services really did have to pay
      for their synthesis tool. I'm guessing Design
      Services revenues got slammed. Less than a couple months
      after this, Ambit was acquired. If you don't know,
      Ambit BuildGates is designed to be as much as possible
      a drop-in replacement for DC. It will read DC
      synthesis scripts, and only minor changes are needed to use
      Synopsys synthesis pragmas in HDL code. Now, Design
      Services once again has a logic synthesis tool and it's
      possible for them to not pay for any outside tools to do a
      design.

    • I am not sure if you guys are aware that CDN
      rewrote their ESPP? The way that it works now is that
      there is a moving 2 year window on the purchase price.
      The low price at 6 months invervals sets the buy
      price for two years. The price today will set the max
      buy price for the next 2 years. If the stock rises,
      the buy price stays at today's level. If it drops,
      the buy price gets adjusted down.

      My
      ex-coworkers are really pumped up about the drop in price. It
      is really strange, but these guys wanted the stock
      to drop through the end of this month. Management
      found a brilliant way to motivate employees. Since most
      options are dead, this is a way to make some bucks.

    • I work for an ASIC vendor, so I perdiodically hit
      the road to talk to customers face to face. We had a
      customer who was interested in using Ambit. Some
      background, customers is a small engineering startup who
      currently uses Design Compiler(like everybody else doing
      Synth). The company has doubled up on design engineers.
      The choice comes down to buying more seats of DC or
      buying Ambit first time.

      Technically, they said
      Ambit stacks up favorably against DC. Additional DC
      seats were offered at $60K. Ambit seats(remember new
      buy) were priced in the $90K range. Guess who they
      bought?

      Synopsys 1, Cadence 0!

      From my view of the world,
      it seems it will never be a fair sales evaulation
      between DC vs Ambit. Every one doing synth is already
      using DC. Ok, some people use that 2nd rate Exemplar
      offering! It comes down to a choice between more seats of
      DC vs a new Ambit buy. Big advantage goes to the
      incumbent just like in politics!

      We had a handful of
      customers kicking the tires on Ambit, but they all went
      back to DC. It looks like Synopsys dropped the price
      and Ambit is locked out! That's the view from the
      road:)

    • I've heard that current ESPP period ends tomorrow.
      Will employee's dump the stock on monday?
      Are they likely to sell enough shares to cause the price to drop significantly next week?

    • By the way, for the Long only, CDN will be $30 next year about this time.

    • Actually, he was brought in by Costello.

    • View More Messages
 
CDNS
17.07-0.01(-0.06%)Jul 11 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.