Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers

who where <noone@home.net> wrote:

>At the moment users are migrating away from Microchip in numbers,
>contributed to by the tools situation.

If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another
processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either
supplier to care. 

-- 

Nobody wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:57:45 +0800, who where wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free.
>> (snip)
>>
>> Why not?
> 
> Because they charge $500 for C18, and the Hi-Tech compiler is supposedly a
> better product (why else would they have bought it?)
> 
>> That surely is the optimum business model.  Let's face it, their core
>> business is selling silicon.  If giving away the tools (which cost them
>> incrementally nothing per copy) gains/retains buyers and user base, they
>> are in front.  At the moment users are migrating away from Microchip in
>> numbers, contributed to by the tools situation.
> 
> I can't see the cost of tools being a significant factor for major
> customers. Even if they charge nothing for the software, the time it
> takes for an engineer to get up to speed on the platform will equate to a
> few grand in salary.
> 

Even for commercial companies, the monetary cost of getting started with 
a new device is important.  New architectures are often introduced in 
small projects, for prototypes, or as part of training periods for new 
employees.  While it's true that the biggest true cost is normally in 
time (and salaries), the cost of development tools has a big 
psychological influence, disproportional to the final costs.  When 
considering a choice between different architectures for a project, if 
one has free tools and the other has tools costing a few thousand, you 
can be sure that the free tool device will be tested first "because it 
costs nothing to try it out".

Then there are the other benefits of having zero cost tools.  Typically 
you can download them and start working immediately - there are no 
purchase orders to deal with, no waiting for dongles in the post, no 
contracts to sign.  You can install them on multiple computers or at 
home offices without worrying about licenses.  You never have to make 
decisions like "it would be useful to have this running on the laptop as 
well - but is it worth x thousand dollars?".

I don't mean to say that all tools should be free - just that 
microcontroller manufacturers would do well to make good free tools 
easily available, even within professional markets.  They (or third 
parties) can profit from charging for /better/ tools - but only 
providing bad tools for free is, IMHO, a silly strategy.

nospam wrote:
> 
> who where <noone@home.net> wrote:
> 
> >At the moment users are migrating away from Microchip in numbers,
> >contributed to by the tools situation.
> 
> If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another
> processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either
> supplier to care.


   And if that company's next product needs $100,000,000 worth of
processors, who are they going to give the first choice to supply the
silicon?


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Robert Roland wrote:

> >Even if they charge nothing for the software, the time it
> >takes for an engineer to get up to speed on the platform will equate to a
> >few grand in salary.
>
> Exactly. By giving away good tools, they will attract young hobbyists
> and students who don't have a lot of money. Years later, some of these
> people will inevitably end up in jobs in large companies.
>
> Imagine a situation where the new employee tells his boss: "I can do
> it. If we use an Atmel chip, I'll have it done by Friday, but if we
> use a Microchip chip, I'll need a few weeks to learn.".

It is an obvious conclusion that is not supported by our marketing studies.

Microchip's customer support has been a effective part of their business
promotion.

Tool cost is small part (~2 man days cost) of overall project cost.
Accompanying tools support (about 40% of our support calls are
application more than tool related) makes tools very low cost overall.

Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

David Brown wrote:

> I don't mean to say that all tools should be free - just that
> microcontroller manufacturers would do well to make good free tools
> easily available, even within professional markets.

The chip companies that provide a core of free tools for casual
use and small projects that leave the door open for other tools
generally do well. Third parties bring new ideas and approaches to
problem solving. Application area's evolve and third party have
the advantage of developing application support for several
targets.

Chip companies that try to dominate the tools used for their
products for free or otherwise fail over time to have competitive
tools. Chip companies often buy tool companies and find that
within a few years the tool support no longer is competitive.

> They (or third parties) can profit from charging for /better/ tools - but only
> providing bad tools for free is, IMHO, a silly strategy.

Wounding tools especially code generation  is a waste of time
and resources for a tool company. Costs sales, is demoralizing
for the tool company.


Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

> > If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another
> > processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either
> > supplier to care.
>
>    And if that company's next product needs $100,000,000 worth of
> processors, who are they going to give the first choice to supply the
> silicon?

The lowest cost silicon that can be delivered that meets the application
functional requirements. The code will be ported as part of production
engineering.

We  regularly see prototypes done on silicon with far more capabilities
than production parts.


Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

Walter Banks wrote:
> 
> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> 
> > > If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another
> > > processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either
> > > supplier to care.
> >
> >    And if that company's next product needs $100,000,000 worth of
> > processors, who are they going to give the first choice to supply the
> > silicon?
> 
> The lowest cost silicon that can be delivered that meets the application
> functional requirements. The code will be ported as part of production
> engineering.
> 
> We  regularly see prototypes done on silicon with far more capabilities
> than production parts.


   That isn't always a bad thing.  It allows changes to the design
without a complete redesign.  Would you try to save a penny per chip by
dealing with a company that you don't trust?


-- 
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Jul 9, 8:26=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

> easily available, even within professional markets. =A0They (or third
> parties) can profit from charging for /better/ tools - but only
> providing bad tools for free is, IMHO, a silly strategy.

Really, you're ignoring a 500-pound gorilla. The reason there is such
a wide performance gap between "unoptimized" and "payware" is because
the PIC ISAs are horrendous (at least up to PIC18, I have no real
experience with PIC24 and dsPIC). Ceteris paribus there is no good
reason to choose a PIC over an AVR or MSP430.

On Jul 9, 8:12=A0am, nospam <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:

> If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another
> processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either

Buying a $1000 tool at my (multibillion dollar, millions-of-units EAU)
employer involves a capital appropriations request process that can
take six months and needs to go up and down the management chain,
across a minimum of three countries (US, Switzerland and Mexico -
possibly also India), through accounting, up and down and round the
mulberry bush, worse than any Vogon bureaucracy you can imagine. Time
is money. If I can download vendor A's tool free, or wait six months
and endure agonizing paperwork to get authorization to buy vendor B's
tool, I'm damn unlikely to go route B.

(Sometimes vendor B will give us free licenses to use while the CAR is
in progress, but not always, and it's still painful).

who where wrote:

>> I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free.
> 
> Why not?  That surely is the optimum business model.  Let's face it, their core
> business is selling silicon.  If giving away the tools (which cost them
> incrementally nothing per copy) gains/retains buyers and user base, they are in
> front.  At the moment users are migrating away from Microchip in numbers,
> contributed to by the tools situation.

Hear, hear!