"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> schreef in bericht news:4A55EF75.21389E48@bytecraft.com...> > > 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 > > >Nevertheless I know at least one small company that moved from PIC to Atmel because of the good, free GNU compiler. petrus bitbyter
Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers
Started by ●July 6, 2009
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
"Leon" <leon355@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht news:eabcb5ad-c626-48fc-93c9-027d094664dd@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On 9 July, 02:57, who where <no...@home.net> wrote:> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:07:50 +0100, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:32:25 +1000, The Real Andy wrote: > > >>>> Is somebody buying the rights to these products? > > >>>Unlikely, as they would probably include common code that is part of > >>>the PIC > >>>compiler which Microchip want to keep for themselves. > > >>>Dave. > > >> Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free > >> of charge? Atmel uses gcc, so it must be getting some good market > >> share on that aspect alone. I recently did some work on the AP7000 > >> running linux, and whilst I hate linux its clear that Atmel has done a > >> lot of work to make it all free. Gcc is pretty good, can microchip > >> beat it? > > >Microchip uses gcc for their higher-end products, but modifying gcc for > >an 8-bit target isn't realistic. > > >I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free. > > (snip) > > 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.| | Evidence? | | Leon | Only a little bit: Myself. I've done some small PIC projects lately using PICs that can (best) be programmed in assembler. Microchips tools for this are good. Good enough for me that is. The last larger project that required a C-compiler I used HI-tech. But the next larger project I'll go Atmel. I know, nobody will care or even notice. But what if some thousends of others will do the same? petrus bitbyter
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:14:05 +0200, "petrus bitbyter" <pieterkraltlaatditweg@enditookhccnet.nl> wrote:> >"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> schreef in bericht >news:4A55EF75.21389E48@bytecraft.com... >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >Nevertheless I know at least one small company that moved from PIC to Atmel >because of the good, free GNU compiler. > >petrus bitbyter >I normally design using PICs, I've been using them since at least 1990. I've had the Byte Craft compiler and now use the Hi-Tech compilers and the cost has not been an issue until recently. One of my customers wants to take over updating the code for his products. The free complier is no good because the PIC size has been chosen for the pro compiler. He is not keen to buy the compilers for the volume he uses. Currently I'm disabling the compiler my end so he can activate a copy at his end and then he disables so I can reactivate to use it here. Atmel with free software is looking good for new designs.
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:> > 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?I think that it is a good thing as well. Get the technology right then do a clean implementation. The chip companies don't have a significant advantage by being used in high volume prototypes w..
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:39:53 +0200, "petrus bitbyter" <pieterkraltlaatditweg@enditookhccnet.nl> wrote:> >"Leon" <leon355@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht >news:eabcb5ad-c626-48fc-93c9-027d094664dd@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >On 9 July, 02:57, who where <no...@home.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:07:50 +0100, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:32:25 +1000, The Real Andy wrote: >> >> >>>> Is somebody buying the rights to these products? >> >> >>>Unlikely, as they would probably include common code that is part of >> >>>the PIC >> >>>compiler which Microchip want to keep for themselves. >> >> >>>Dave. >> >> >> Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free >> >> of charge? Atmel uses gcc, so it must be getting some good market >> >> share on that aspect alone. I recently did some work on the AP7000 >> >> running linux, and whilst I hate linux its clear that Atmel has done a >> >> lot of work to make it all free. Gcc is pretty good, can microchip >> >> beat it? >> >> >Microchip uses gcc for their higher-end products, but modifying gcc for >> >an 8-bit target isn't realistic. >> >> >I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free. >> >> (snip) >> >> 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. >| >| Evidence? >| >| Leon >| > >Only a little bit: Myself. I've done some small PIC projects lately using >PICs that can (best) be programmed in assembler. Microchips tools for this >are good. Good enough for me that is. The last larger project that required >a C-compiler I used HI-tech. But the next larger project I'll go Atmel. I >know, nobody will care or even notice. But what if some thousends of others >will do the same?One possible advantage to PICs is the availability of (most? all?) parts with OTP PROM instead of flash (the "C" parts versus the "F" series). For something that may need to just work, for decades, in high ambient conditions such as the controller on an outside plant HVAC unit, that could be desirable insurance. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
On Jul 10, 5:14=A0am, "petrus bitbyter" <pieterkraltlaatdit...@enditookhccnet.nl> wrote:> > Nevertheless I know at least one small company that moved from PIC to Atm=el> because of the good, free GNU compiler.It is not JUST the compiler that designers look at, it is the whole development and debug flow as well. The fastest way to get a (new) device onto a designers desk, is to offer a USB-Stick (or slightly larger) type very low cost, ie a 'Slicon datasheet' with USB debug. If that toolkit also has a nice set of hackable examples, then that helps as well. Microcontroller silicon is getting cheaper so quickly, that details like compiler differences will be lost in the timelines. Most of our recent device-selections were driven by peripherals, not by tools, (and not by core). example: in one selection, Microchip PIC32 actually made the shortlist, (surprised me ;) until the fine print revealed that TxCK was only available on the bigger package. Bummer... Pity, as their EVK was affordable, _and_ had a proper debug pathway. Some more expensive systems are only partial, and beware lines like this in the Guides : ["Optionally, if you have a SAM-ICE=99, instructions are also given about how to debug the code."] - and that Sam-ice is twice the price of the whole PIC32 evk !? (and the SAM3U EVK is way more complex than we need too, which bumps the price to $200+$100 vs $55...) NXP parts DO have the right peripherals in the right package mix, so now we trawl this : http://www.standardics.nxp.com/literature/other/microcontrollers/pdf/arm.mc= u.tools.pdf
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
"petrus bitbyter" <pieterkraltlaatditweg@enditookhccnet.nl> wrote:>Only a little bit: Myself. I've done some small PIC projects lately using >PICs that can (best) be programmed in assembler. Microchips tools for this >are good. Good enough for me that is. The last larger project that required >a C-compiler I used HI-tech. But the next larger project I'll go Atmel. I >know, nobody will care or even notice. But what if some thousends of others >will do the same?One reason people will not go Atmel is the relatively low probability of being able to buy the same chip in two years time (especially with them looking financially weak at the moment). Microchip still sell chips for designs I did 15 years ago. Atmel's 'Not recommended for new designs' means go redesign your product because we are not making them anymore. --
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> 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.Are you grazy? It takes me a day to get into a new platform and start working with it. Period. Last time I had to do a PIC design. The days work included writing a wrapper so PICC could be invoked like it is GCC from Eclipse. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" --------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:> > >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.The problem with commercial tools is that each MCU has a different crappy IDE and a different toolchain. That is why the combination Eclipse, GCC en GDB is so powerful. You learn the tools once and can apply that knowledge to any target. Besides, Eclipse beats most IDEs hands down. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer!" --------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●July 9, 20092009-07-09
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:24:05 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:> > >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.Not all $$ are created equal.>Accompanying tools support (about 40% of our support calls are >application more than tool related) makes tools very low cost overall.Cost and price being completely different things, of course.
