Ulf, what of these new AVRs? :)

Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> writes:

> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:48:17 +0000, John Devereux
> <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Apparently he is talking about *development tool* distributors. Why
>>anyone would expect *them* to supply free chips is a mystery to me.
>
> More often than I recall once happening, I'm seeing the IC vendors
> supplying tools -- some at rather steep pricing.  If you look at
> Analog Devices (for which I have long experience to draw upon), you
> will see first that they provide the tools to use their ADSP-21xx
> series for free.  It runs in DOS and works extremely well.  Any number
> of seats you want -- they don't care, just buy their chips and they
> are happy.  No problems with the tools.  Even their ice board, which
> is a green circuit board with a push button in the middle, 4 rubber
> glued-on pads underneath, and easy enough to use, was dirt cheap. Even
> I bought one for personal use.
>
> Then they shifted to Windows, bought up a developer group or two, and
> shifted over to a complicated and painful registration process and
> charged serious money for the tools (several thousand dollars, as I
> recall.)  Now, they charge even more.  And the ICE systems aren't
> cheap, either.  Now, you have to pony up some serious cash just to get
> in the door.
>
> Some manufacturers are definitely making the software a profit center
> of its own.


Then again I get the impression that some of them would like to
support GNU more than they do, but are afraid of falling out with
their "official" tool suppliers.


> Also, I also understand (from a number of conversations over the years
> and trouble events I've experienced) that when the manufacturers used
> to depend on outside software developers for their tools, their
> manufacturing competition would sometimes "buy up" that company and
> create a sudden trouble for their competition by refusing to continue
> any relationship with them -- forcing them into disaster mode.  So,
> perhaps some of this is inevitable defensive measures.

This would also be an argument for manufacturers to actively support
free tools. And I think this is happening. Take your example of Analog
Devices. I have no inside knowledge, but it very much looks like they
have sponsored the Blackfin port of gcc.

-- 

John Devereux

John Devereux wrote:

> > Some manufacturers are definitely making the software a profit center
> > of its own.
>
> Then again I get the impression that some of them would like to
> support GNU more than they do, but are afraid of falling out with
> their "official" tool suppliers.

Cirrus Logic told me this once. I wish I could remember the guy's name
there, he is the most helpful semi vendor apps support engineer to whom
I've ever spoken.

Chris Hills wrote:

> >Your posting said in more or less these words that people who use free
> >tools won't get, and don't deserve, part samples, because they're cheap
> >bastards who will never make a profit for anyone (an inference that
>
> No so. I recall getting samples for you at one point.

I'm just paraphrasing what you said. Go back and read what you posted:

>>> "Part of the problem is the attitude of some of the designers.
>>> They will contact a distributor and say I need samples and
>>> then go on to say they will be using all free/open source
>>> tools. IE they are putting no investment in. So the
>>> distributor thinks there is nothing in it for them
>>> and can see no reason to supply any parts."

Note: You got me a sample eval board, not sample chips. I just gave it
to a co-worker a couple of months ago, incidentally - though it likely
will not lead to a design-in since Philips is persona non grata here.

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:WW6XWUBm4jzDFAsm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <878xtdvhhv.fsf@cordelia.devereux.me.uk>, John Devereux
> <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> writes
>>Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>>
>>> What the silicon companies do is provide samples to the local
>>> distributors. Most small distributors can get samples of anything. They
>>> know the local market well. I know of many small  companies and one man
>>> outfits who can easily get samples of almost anything. It depends who
>>> you ask for samples.
>>>
>>> The system is not perfect but it works quite well. The problem is that
>>> every home/hobby/acaddemic/student user wants free samples. They can buy



There are some valid points in this thread.

Not in ANY other industry do people expect to buy retail quantities, get wholesale 
pricing and support and expect to talk to the Manufacturer's design engineers when 
something goes Fubar...

Quite ridiculous really. There is an established food chain in the electronics 
industry and while it's natural to want more, you can't snub manufacturers for 
directing traffic through the correct channels.

I don't enjoy purchasing petrol at retail prices - but do I expect to fill up at the 
refinery?   Noooo...

-Andrew M 

In article <43cf697d$0$23593$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, Andrew M <noone@home.?> writes
>"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
>news:WW6XWUBm4jzDFAsm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <878xtdvhhv.fsf@cordelia.devereux.me.uk>, John Devereux
>> <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> writes
>>>Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> What the silicon companies do is provide samples to the local
>>>> distributors. Most small distributors can get samples of anything. They
>>>> know the local market well. I know of many small  companies and one man
>>>> outfits who can easily get samples of almost anything. It depends who
>>>> you ask for samples.
>>>>
>>>> The system is not perfect but it works quite well. The problem is that
>>>> every home/hobby/acaddemic/student user wants free samples. They can buy
>
>
>
>There are some valid points in this thread.
>
>Not in ANY other industry do people expect to buy retail quantities, get 
>wholesale 
>pricing and support and expect to talk to the Manufacturer's design engineers 
>when 
>something goes Fubar...
>
>Quite ridiculous really. There is an established food chain in the electronics 
>industry and while it's natural to want more, you can't snub manufacturers for 
>directing traffic through the correct channels.
>
>I don't enjoy purchasing petrol at retail prices - but do I expect to fill up at 
>the 
>refinery?   Noooo...
>
>-Andrew M 

Exactly. 

The manufacturers talk to the large buyers
The silicon distributors talk to the medium and smaller buyers
Often the tools distributors are left to talk to the smaller users as
even the people who only want a few will need to develop with tools.

That is how it works. So you either need to be buying a large number or
at least the tools for development.  This is the general rule but of
course everyone will know exceptions. 

My point was that if you only want a few parts and you are not now, or
have or will in the future buy any tools in whose interest is it to
spend time and money supplying you with parts? BTW time also cost money.

With the fuel analogy if you want 100 tankers worth you go to the
refinery (and they will probably fill up your car for free when you go
to do the deal). If you want 10 tankers worth you go to a distributor
(and they may fill up your car at cost when you do the deal).

If you want a car tank full you go to the local garage and if you are
lucky they give you vouchers to spend more money with them. 

On the other hand if you are an F1 racing team or a vehicle manufacturer
who is going to make lots of vehicle that will use the fuel they will
supply you with free fuel for design and test. Have a tanker or two....

Nothing is free in this life. That is a fact. It is all paid for
somewhere. Either in hard cash or in time which also cost money.

This is why the silicon vendors like the free tools. They can get their
chips in on a low risk strategy. They don't have to spend money to try
the chips. Accountants like this.

It is a commercial not a technical decision.  This is business not
religion. 

This is why the silicon distributors often let the tools companies have
samples to distribute. If an engineer is buying one set of tools the
they have made their margin and are happy to supply some samples. It
does not waste the time of the silicon disti and the tool vendor does
not care if the engineer makes one or 1000 systems. 


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1137619682.345581.63340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, larwe
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> >Your posting said in more or less these words that people who use free
>> >tools won't get, and don't deserve, part samples, because they're cheap
>> >bastards who will never make a profit for anyone (an inference that
>>
>> No so. I recall getting samples for you at one point.
>
>I'm just paraphrasing what you said. Go back and read what you posted:
>
>>>> "Part of the problem is the attitude of some of the designers.
>>>> They will contact a distributor and say I need samples and
>>>> then go on to say they will be using all free/open source
>>>> tools. IE they are putting no investment in. So the
>>>> distributor thinks there is nothing in it for them
>>>> and can see no reason to supply any parts."
>
>Note: You got me a sample eval board, not sample chips. I just gave it
>to a co-worker a couple of months ago, incidentally - though it likely
>will not lead to a design-in since Philips is persona non grata here.

Ok.... so I won't do it again. 

BTW was that a sensible comment from you? Who will take a chance of
helping you now if they get that sort of reaction? 


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <1137619682.345581.63340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, larwe
> <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>>> Your posting said in more or less these words that people who use free
>>>> tools won't get, and don't deserve, part samples, because they're cheap
>>>> bastards who will never make a profit for anyone (an inference that
>>> No so. I recall getting samples for you at one point.
>> I'm just paraphrasing what you said. Go back and read what you posted:
>>
>>>>> "Part of the problem is the attitude of some of the designers.
>>>>> They will contact a distributor and say I need samples and
>>>>> then go on to say they will be using all free/open source
>>>>> tools. IE they are putting no investment in. So the
>>>>> distributor thinks there is nothing in it for them
>>>>> and can see no reason to supply any parts."

It seems pretty reasonable that if someone phones up a tool vendor, 
tells them they have no interest in the tools they are selling, but asks 
for sample parts, the tool vendor should politely suggest they go 
elsewhere.  It is pretty unreasonable if they get the same reaction when 
phoning a parts distributor and get the same reaction.  Since you, 
Chris, made no indication that you were talking about tool distributors 
rather than parts distributors, most people assumed that you meant parts 
distributors.  Things get a little more complex if the distributor sells 
both parts and tools, I suppose, but most are heavily biased one way or 
the other.

>> Note: You got me a sample eval board, not sample chips. I just gave it
>> to a co-worker a couple of months ago, incidentally - though it likely
>> will not lead to a design-in since Philips is persona non grata here.
> 
> Ok.... so I won't do it again. 
> 
> BTW was that a sensible comment from you? Who will take a chance of
> helping you now if they get that sort of reaction? 
> 

He bought (or got free?) a sample card, but it didn't work out so they 
are not using the part.  What's wrong with that?  That's what samples 
are for - to evaluate parts or cards, before committing to manufacture.

Chris Hills wrote:
> >
> >Note: You got me a sample eval board, not sample chips. I just gave it
> >to a co-worker a couple of months ago, incidentally - though it likely
> >will not lead to a design-in since Philips is persona non grata here.
>
> Ok.... so I won't do it again.

Put this in context again, please: You gave me the EVB approximately
two years ago to be the kernel of a book project as long as I would use
Keil tools in the book. I couldn't make a good project out of it at the
time [to be accurate, I couldn't think of a book idea that was
sufficiently different from my first book to be worthwhile].

Approximately two MONTHS ago, a co-worker was looking at various ARM
options, so I gave him this board to experiment on and evaluate the
LPC21xx part that's on it (it's so long ago now that I don't even
remember what it is).

> BTW was that a sensible comment from you? Who will take a chance of
> helping you now if they get that sort of reaction?

ROFL. I'm not concerned - Philips comes here regularly to beg us to
design in their parts again. We are a multi-billion-dollar corporation
with a directive to design out Philips. I think that "help" will come
from Philips, in the form of crateloads of samples, evaluation boards,
live-in field applications engineers, fully stocked portable mini-bars,
and personal masseuses, if ever we show the slightest interest.

As far as my personal/contract/writing projects are concerned, the
dispute between Philips and my employer is amusing, but nothing to do
with me. (This is another reason why you won't - except for one totally
random instance - ever find my name and my employer's name on the same
page on the Internet).

The processor on my PDP-1 emulator board is a Philips ARM part, by the
way - happy? Z80 or 8088, I don't discriminate.

"Andrew M" <noone@home> writes:
> There are some valid points in this thread.
> 
> Not in ANY other industry do people expect to buy retail
> quantities, get wholesale pricing and support and expect
> to talk to the manufacturer's design engineers when 
> something goes fubar...

> Quite ridiculous really. There is an established food
> chain in the electronics industry and while it's natural
> to want more, you can't snub manufacturers for directing
> traffic through the correct channels.
> 
> I don't enjoy purchasing petrol at retail prices - but
> do I expect to fill up at the refinery?   Noooo...

Not a good analogy -- gasoline is a commodity and it's
all the same everywhere.  You don't need info from the
refinery about the details of its internal workings to
be able to use it.

In article <1137683943.215843.152000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>
>Chris Hills wrote:
>> >
>> >Note: You got me a sample eval board, not sample chips. I just gave it
>> >to a co-worker a couple of months ago, incidentally - though it likely
>> >will not lead to a design-in since Philips is persona non grata here.
>>
>> Ok.... so I won't do it again.
>
>Put this in context again, please: You gave me the EVB approximately
>two years ago to be the kernel of a book project as long as I would use
>Keil tools in the book. I couldn't make a good project out of it at the
>time [to be accurate, I couldn't think of a book idea that was
>sufficiently different from my first book to be worthwhile].

Fair enough. Mind you I think at the time you were also "distracted" by
a change of employment due to the company you worked for folding.  As
you say it is difficult to do two books on the same architecture and
make them that different.

>Approximately two MONTHS ago, a co-worker was looking at various ARM
>options, so I gave him this board to experiment on and evaluate the
>LPC21xx part that's on it (it's so long ago now that I don't even
>remember what it is).

OK.... 
BTW I thought you said you had a directive to design out Philips?

>> BTW was that a sensible comment from you? Who will take a chance of
>> helping you now if they get that sort of reaction?
>
>ROFL. I'm not concerned - Philips comes here regularly to beg us to
>design in their parts again. We are a multi-billion-dollar corporation
>with a directive to design out Philips.

That is different to one person/small company  asking for a sample.

> I think that "help" will come
>from Philips, in the form of crateloads of samples, evaluation boards,
>live-in field applications engineers, fully stocked portable mini-bars,
>and personal masseuses, if ever we show the slightest interest.

:-) Nice position to be in but it is a commercial world. If John Doe
phones up and asks for  sample for a run of 10  I bet he won't get the
same reaction (if any) 

>As far as my personal/contract/writing projects are concerned, the
>dispute between Philips and my employer is amusing, but nothing to do
>with me. (This is another reason why you won't - except for one totally
>random instance - ever find my name and my employer's name on the same
>page on the Internet).

Fair enough.  It also proves my point that it is a commercial world and
the more money you are looking to spend the more help you get. So for a
person looking for free samples who is not spending any money is not
going to get anywhere. 

The way round this, in part, for the silicon distis is to let tool
distis have some samples. Then when some one is buying tools for the
part in question they can throw in some samples. 

In some cases samples go to people who bought tools "last time"  if not
now. IE bought an ARM compiler for Philips but this time want to look at
an Atmel ARM now etc. 

So most Engineers can get samples even for hobby projects.  If I have a
good customer who says can I have some samples for a personal project It
is not usually a problem. Surely you have good relationships with some
silicon or tools vendors who will give you samples for you own use? 


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/