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

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:26:04 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

>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?".

Ten years back, I justified a laptop based on the node-locked tools I
had to run.  I needed to work in the lab as well as my office and a
laptop was a lot cheaper than another $80K for another seat (high end
FPGA stuff).  Now I wouldn't consider buying any node-locked software.
Indeed I won't buy any FPGA development software, because I don't need
to.

>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.

Having bad tools is a silly strategy.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:34:51 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>
>
>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.

Because they refuse to adequately fund something that doesn't generate
profit/revenue.  The counters of beans refuse to see that you have to
give  bait away to catch fish.

>> 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.

Yet it's SOP.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:12:03 +0100, nospam <nospam@please.invalid>
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. 

Classic attitude of a company just about to go bust.

In article <4a56773b.3302684031@news.planet.nl>, nico@puntnl.niks 
says...
> 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.
> 
> 
IAR has a decent commercial tool chain where many processors use the
same IDE.  I've only used it for the ARM, but the IDE and debugging
facilities seem OK to me.  YMMV.


Mark Borgerson

On Jul 9, 7:39=A0pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
>
> Classic attitude of a company just about to go bust.

Eh... You do know that in the very recent past it looked as if
Microchip was going to buy Atmel, right?

The Real Andy wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:01:49 +1000, "David L. Jones"
> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> nobody@nowhere.com wrote:
>>> Does anybody know what has happened to their old compilers e.g.
>>> H8/300 or Z180?
>>
>> They binned them, as to be expected.
>>
>>> 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?

Microchips own branded compiled is based on GCC and is free for most series, 
e.g 18, 24, 32
Some speed/size optimisation limits may apply on the free student version, 
but no code size limits etc, so close enough to free for many uses.

Dave.

-- 
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:02:33 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:

>>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.

There's a difference between "start working with" and "up to speed". A big
difference.

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 9, 7:39&#4294967295;pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
>>
>> Classic attitude of a company just about to go bust.
>
>Eh... You do know that in the very recent past it looked as if
>Microchip was going to buy Atmel, right?

And this is relevent how?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:58:20 +1000, David L. Jones wrote:

>> 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?
> 
> Microchips own branded compiled is based on GCC and is free for most series, 
> e.g 18, 24, 32

Only the 16-bit (PIC24/30/33) and 32-bit (PIC32) compilers are gcc-based.
It wouldn't be practical to port gcc to the 8-bit families (10/12/16/18),
they're just too far from the kind of architecture for which gcc was
designed.

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. 

But small jobs lead to big jobs.  Hobbies lead to small jobs.  If you 
really want to sell chips, win the hearts and minds of the hobbyists and 
students.