krylov_subspace
New member
Innovation? In EDA?
Array ( [content] => [params] => Array ( [0] => /forum/threads/synopsys-acquires-magma.1152/page-2 ) [addOns] => Array ( [DL6/MLTP] => 13 [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070 [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200 [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010 [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010 [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010 [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970 [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570 [XF] => 2021770 [XFI] => 1050270 ) [wordpress] => /var/www/html )
Innovation? In EDA?
There are many innovative people in EDA, but my experience in the last couple of decades is that the big guys are not really interested in changing how they do things. E.g. we should have moved up from RTL to higher levels of abstraction for synthesis, but Synopsys makes it's money there so you can't get anything through the language committees, likewise Cadence blocks progress in analog. The tech-bust saw the demise of CAD methodology groups outside the EDA companies, so most users just buy into whatever their vendors tell them to do - the design tools suck because they are old and clunky, but never mind we can sell you all these neat verification tools that catch bugs on the back-end.
Personally I'm looking to be innovative in other domains where the big guys can't get in the way - http://parallel.cc
I proposed that ALL of the EDA software licenses be deactivated for one month so the semiconductor industry better appreciates EDA.
Innovation? In EDA?
Prices will go up. We will make more money. All is good! Right?
I think that would be fine if value had gone up, but in this case the users will just be paying more so it will probably drive some more customers out of business - so it'll be back to the status quo.
Disabling the licenses would be good for open-source so I'm all for that!
The only way to expand EDA (IMO) is to improve the results so that the whole process of designing chips is cheaper.