8051 C Compiler

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:XtMmSvCYAz8EFAKb@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
> USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.

Yes, me too. But - such an arrangement means only one person can use the 
application at any time. Most people tend to see this as "within the spirit 
of the license", like buying one hammer...

YMMV ;).

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com 

Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

> Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:19:35 +0200 schreef Ian Bell
> <ruffrecords@yahoo.co.uk>:

>>
>> I think there are very few reasons to persuade 8051 users to us ARM.
>> There will always be applications for which the 8051 is ideally suited,
>> especially with its highly integrated peripherals. The 8051 is an order
>> of magnitude simpler than the ARM such that getting your head around the
>> entire device and its instruction set is still possible and beneficial.
> 
> For many applications, complexity tends to increase over time, creating a
> need for faster processors.

Indeed you might think so. In many cases there are better approaches. It is
all to easy to put in a faster processor or use bank switching and add some
ROM/Flash. However this means all the complexity is concentrated in one CPU
and piece of code. From the point of view of managing increased complexity,
ensuring reliability, simplifying debugging and system integration it is
often better to consider a multi-processor approach.

> The step from Keil for 8051 to RealView for 
> ARM is not so big, because it's all ARM.  And with a good IDE and
> C-compiler you don't need to get your head around the entire device and
> it's instruction set; at least not all of the developers in a group.
> 

Therein lies the road to ruin.

Ian

Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <44f1b89c@news.wineasy.se>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.re
> movethisbit.com> writes
>> The number of people who illegally copy a software tool is irrelevant,
>> at least in the short term (it is important if your aim is to damage
>> other manufacturers as much as to increase your own income - I don't
>> think that applies in the embedded tools market).  What is relevant is
>> the number of people who use an illegal copy who would otherwise have
>> paid for it.
> 
> Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked
> IAR.
> 

To a company selling a product, does it matter if a user uses a 
competitor's product, or a hacked copy?  In some cases, yes - if it is 
important to you that your competitors fail (as I said, I don't think 
that's the case in this market).

>>  That's a very different number - and I believe in many
>> cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering.
> 
> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> one compiler for any given target....

Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal 
copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software 
piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license.  If 
a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have 
afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand. 
Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich 
and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as 
the one it is familiar with.

I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there are 
any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal copies 
of development tools.  Random quotes of 90% illegal copying in some 
markets are useless, even if "some markets" refers to large potential 
markets.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real information so 
difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?

> 
> I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
> USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.
> 
> 
>>  But
>> then, my opinions are based on personal use, people I've talked to, and
>> sources like this newsgroup - people who sell these tools presumably
>> investigate the issues more scientifically.
> 
> A bit difficult... will everyone who uses pirated SW please register so
> we can count you :-)  the other problem is that compiler companies are
> not going to shout about it either.  Though there are ways of
> identifying illegal compilers is many cases.
> 
> Due to the institutionalised piracy in some places it does not occur to
> some that they should not call the compiler company for support even
> with a hacked copy!
> 
> 
> 

David Brown wrote:
> 
> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal 
> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software 
> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license.  If 
> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have 
> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand. 
> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich 
> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as 
> the one it is familiar with.
> 
> I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there are 
> any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal copies 
> of development tools.  Random quotes of 90% illegal copying in some 
> markets are useless, even if "some markets" refers to large potential 
> markets.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real information so 
> difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?



  One company that looks to be actually testing this,
is Borlands spinoff :

http://www.turboexplorer.com/

  Here, they offer what I'd call free and commercial versions,
tho they seem a little unclear on where exactly that line falls
themselves.

  To do seem to appreciate the marketing power, and educational 
penetration,
of a free version.

-jg

David Brown wrote:

> Chris Hills wrote:
> > Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked
> > IAR.
> >
>
> To a company selling a product, does it matter if a user uses a
> competitor's product, or a hacked copy?  In some cases, yes - if it is
> important to you that your competitors fail (as I said, I don't think
> that's the case in this market).

It matters if a user is using a hacked copy or a competitor.

I would prefer that a customer uses a competitors product than
a pirated copy. That way we can focus on creating a product that
is competitive with our competitor and our customers would
benefit by having us both put our competitive energy into creating
better products rather than directing resources to prevent or
track piracy.

It hurts our honest customers because they are paying for the
various costs of piracy rather than a superior product.

Piracy changes a public sense of product value as it is related
to the cost of creating it and the features it supports.


> > No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> > where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> > one compiler for any given target....

This happens...

> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal
> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software
> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license.

Software piracy is theft it doesn't matter what term is used for it or
or how it is justified.

>  If
> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have
> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand.
> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich
> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as
> the one it is familiar with.

This is a argument that is often used, they would not have bought it
anyway so it isn't a lost sale. It isn't without loss. The losses are a little
more obscure. The one developer that paid for the compiler now needs
to compete with other companies products at a competitive disadvantage.

999 developers are depending on the needs and support of a single
developer to determine features and focus of the tools that they will
use in their application area.

> I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there are
> any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal copies
> of development tools.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real information so
> difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?

Hard information is difficult. My first comment may surprise most
who have been reading this thread. The problem is smaller than the
guesses that are most often referenced. The industrial economic
impact is significantly  larger than the pirated copies multiplied by
list price (I did say list not volume discounted) The major forms
of piracy are

1) Multiple seats with single license
2) Corporate sponsored piracy
3) Resell of copied software
4) Redistribution of copied software

We have reasonably good information on the distribution of the
various forms of piracy and can statistically extrapolate with some
degree of confidence.

The best way to measure the economic impact of piracy of
is to compare the tool costs in industries where piracy has been
essentially eliminated. The best example is the automotive industry
is an example where about 10 years ago essentially industry wide
a pirated copy of software was worth someone's job

The cost of supported tools was about .04% (A real number
I looked up the supporting information a  couple of minutes ago)
of the project costs, there is very little anti piracy protection and
tools are feature rich with heavy focus on the actual intended
applications with considerable customer feedback.


A second case is a lot more complicated. Here a full competitive
compiler is available to anyone using the supported silicon.
Complicated because everyone who bought an proprietary
emulator also received a copy of the compiler. Compiler revenue
was tied to emulator sales but compiler distribution was also
available free from the company website. Statistically some users
would have not used the compiler tools. No reasonable development
could be done without the emulator effectively assuring us that all
compilers distributed would be revenue producing. Support costs
dropped both in real terms, cost per copy and administratively.
(Everyone who contacted us had a legal unprotected copy) Support
calls were shorter, customer feedback was focussed on the the
intended applications.

The most interesting number was the cost per copy tied to the
emulator sales was less than 15% of the normal commercial cost
for very similar compilers. The customer and vendor advantages
were large similar to the automotive case.

w..

David Brown wrote:

> Chris Hills wrote:
> > Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked
> > IAR.
> >
>
> To a company selling a product, does it matter if a user uses a
> competitor's product, or a hacked copy?  In some cases, yes - if it is
> important to you that your competitors fail (as I said, I don't think
> that's the case in this market).

It matters if a user is using a hacked copy or a competitor.

I would prefer that a customer uses a competitors product than
a pirated copy. That way we can focus on creating a product that
is competitive with our competitor and our customers would
benefit by having us both put our competitive energy into creating
better products rather than directing resources to prevent or
track piracy.

It hurts our honest customers because they are paying for the
various costs of piracy rather than a superior product.

Piracy changes a public sense of product value as it is related
to the cost of creating it and the features it supports.


> > No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> > where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> > one compiler for any given target....

This happens...

> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal
> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software
> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license.

Software piracy is theft it doesn't matter what term is used for it or
or how it is justified.

>  If
> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have
> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand.
> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich
> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as
> the one it is familiar with.

This is a argument that is often used, they would not have bought it
anyway so it isn't a lost sale. It isn't without loss. The losses are a little
more obscure. The one developer that paid for the compiler now needs
to compete with other companies products at a competitive disadvantage.

999 developers are depending on the needs and support of a single
developer to determine features and focus of the tools that they will
use in their application area.

> I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there are
> any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal copies
> of development tools.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real information so
> difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?

Hard information is difficult. My first comment may surprise most
who have been reading this thread. The problem is smaller than the
guesses that are most often referenced. The industrial economic
impact is significantly  larger than the pirated copies multiplied by
list price (I did say list not volume discounted) The major forms
of piracy are

1) Multiple seats with single license
2) Corporate sponsored piracy
3) Resell of copied software
4) Redistribution of copied software

We have reasonably good information on the distribution of the
various forms of piracy and can statistically extrapolate with some
degree of confidence.

The best way to measure the economic impact of piracy of
is to compare the tool costs in industries where piracy has been
essentially eliminated. The best example is the automotive industry
is an example where about 10 years ago essentially industry wide
a pirated copy of software was worth someone's job

The cost of supported tools was about .04% (A real number
I looked up the supporting information a  couple of minutes ago)
of the project costs, there is very little anti piracy protection and
tools are feature rich with heavy focus on the actual intended
applications with considerable customer feedback.


A second case is a lot more complicated. Here a full competitive
compiler is available to anyone using the supported silicon.
Complicated because everyone who bought an proprietary
emulator also received a copy of the compiler. Compiler revenue
was tied to emulator sales but compiler distribution was also
available free from the company website. Statistically some users
would have not used the compiler tools. No reasonable development
could be done without the emulator effectively assuring us that all
compilers distributed would be revenue producing. Support costs
dropped both in real terms, cost per copy and administratively.
(Everyone who contacted us had a legal unprotected copy) Support
calls were shorter, customer feedback was focussed on the the
intended applications.

The most interesting number was the cost per copy tied to the
emulator sales was less than 15% of the normal commercial cost
for very similar compilers. The customer and vendor advantages
were large similar to the automotive case.

w..

"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message 
news:44F3675C.E7CC64EF@bytecraft.com...
>
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>> > Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked
>> > IAR.
>> >
>>
>> To a company selling a product, does it matter if a user uses a
>> competitor's product, or a hacked copy?  In some cases, yes - if it is
>> important to you that your competitors fail (as I said, I don't think
>> that's the case in this market).
>
> It matters if a user is using a hacked copy or a competitor.

Sorry, but your responses (2 identical ones, I think) were unreadable.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com 

Ian Bell wrote:
There
> will always be applications for which the 8051 is ideally suited,

I cant think of one, can you? Its old, slow, limited instruction set,
not well suited to HLLs and it's expensive.

> especially with its highly integrated peripherals.

Most variants dont have anything exceptional.

 > Ian

Chris Hills wrote:
>
> >  That's a very different number - and I believe in many
> >cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering.
>
> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
> one compiler for any given target....
>

It's very probable that they only need 1 compiler

> I have seen companies in Europe who try to get out of buying compilers.
> USB dongles and parallel port dongles on hubs/switches are not uncommon.

Done for convienence mostly.

- people who sell these tools presumably
> >investigate the issues more scientifically.
>
> A bit difficult... will everyone who uses pirated SW please register so
> we can count you :-) 

So where did your 90% figure come from?

Walter Banks wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>> Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked
>>> IAR.
>>>
>> To a company selling a product, does it matter if a user uses a
>> competitor's product, or a hacked copy?  In some cases, yes - if it is
>> important to you that your competitors fail (as I said, I don't think
>> that's the case in this market).
> 
> It matters if a user is using a hacked copy or a competitor.
> 
> I would prefer that a customer uses a competitors product than
> a pirated copy. That way we can focus on creating a product that
> is competitive with our competitor and our customers would
> benefit by having us both put our competitive energy into creating
> better products rather than directing resources to prevent or
> track piracy.
> 

I can see that makes sense, especially for a more long term strategy. 
It's easier to convert someone who is used to paying than to convert 
someone used to stealing.

> It hurts our honest customers because they are paying for the
> various costs of piracy rather than a superior product.
> 
> Piracy changes a public sense of product value as it is related
> to the cost of creating it and the features it supports.
> 
> 
>>> No so. In some markets piracy is 90% of the market. There are some areas
>>> where if there are several SW engineers on a team you only get to sell
>>> one compiler for any given target....
> 
> This happens...

I certainly don't find that hard to believe.  It can be very easy for a 
department manager to feel that they've already bought a license, so why 
can't everyone use it?  After all, they share the oscilloscope... 
Floating licenses, I suppose, go some way to controlling this situation 
- I know of at least one vendor which now only supplies floating licenses.

> 
>> Again, the relevant number is not the number of people using illegal
>> copies (I wish we'd drop the silly and inappropriate term "software
>> piracy"), but the number who would otherwise have bought a license.
> 
> Software piracy is theft it doesn't matter what term is used for it or
> or how it is justified.
> 

It is not justified, but it is not theft and it is not piracy.  I don't 
know about the details in your country, but here it is a civil offence 
but not a criminal offence (you can't be jailed for it), and is either a 
copyright infringement or a licensing infringement.  Larger cases (such 
as distributing illegal copies) can be criminal offences, but that's 
because they are conning and deceiving people.

I don't think the problem of illegal software usage is helped by 
exaggerating the name or numbers involved.  When I hear claims that 90% 
of a market uses "pirated" software, I see it as someone using the wrong 
data to magnify the problem and drum up sympathy.  When I hear claims 
that an estimated 10% of sales are lost through illegal copying, I 
understand that it is a big dent in the developing company's income. 
Hard information in realistic terms is what's useful.  In a more extreme 
case, the RIAA's campaigns to daemonize all copying of music has led to 
a general hatred of the organisation and their tactics, and probably 
done nothing to help their cause.

>>  If
>> a thousand companies use illegal copies, but only one could have
>> afforded the full price, then your loses are one sale, not a thousand.
>> Those other 999 can be considered advertising - if one of them gets rich
>> and decides to play honestly, it will probably choose your product as
>> the one it is familiar with.
> 
> This is a argument that is often used, they would not have bought it
> anyway so it isn't a lost sale. It isn't without loss. The losses are a little
> more obscure. The one developer that paid for the compiler now needs
> to compete with other companies products at a competitive disadvantage.
> 

The honest user has the disadvantage of having paid the money, but he 
gets other advantages too, such as support, newer versions (cracked 
versions are often out of date), and better access to customers that 
value honesty more highly.  But I do see your point about less direct 
effects of those 999 copies.

> 999 developers are depending on the needs and support of a single
> developer to determine features and focus of the tools that they will
> use in their application area.
> 

I don't follow this point.  I'd say the honest user has the edge, 
because he can influence changes in later versions of the software to 
suit his requirements, while the other 999 have to follow with what they 
can get.


>> I feel I'm going round in circles, but I am curious to know if there are
>> any reasonable estimates of the problems and loses from illegal copies
>> of development tools.  Are there any realistic numbers?  Or is real information so
>> difficult to come by that this is simply a guessing game?
> 
> Hard information is difficult. My first comment may surprise most
> who have been reading this thread. The problem is smaller than the
> guesses that are most often referenced. The industrial economic
> impact is significantly  larger than the pirated copies multiplied by
> list price (I did say list not volume discounted) The major forms
> of piracy are
> 
> 1) Multiple seats with single license
> 2) Corporate sponsored piracy
> 3) Resell of copied software
> 4) Redistribution of copied software
> 
> We have reasonably good information on the distribution of the
> various forms of piracy and can statistically extrapolate with some
> degree of confidence.
> 
> The best way to measure the economic impact of piracy of
> is to compare the tool costs in industries where piracy has been
> essentially eliminated. The best example is the automotive industry
> is an example where about 10 years ago essentially industry wide
> a pirated copy of software was worth someone's job
> 
> The cost of supported tools was about .04% (A real number
> I looked up the supporting information a  couple of minutes ago)
> of the project costs, there is very little anti piracy protection and
> tools are feature rich with heavy focus on the actual intended
> applications with considerable customer feedback.
> 
> 
> A second case is a lot more complicated. Here a full competitive
> compiler is available to anyone using the supported silicon.
> Complicated because everyone who bought an proprietary
> emulator also received a copy of the compiler. Compiler revenue
> was tied to emulator sales but compiler distribution was also
> available free from the company website. Statistically some users
> would have not used the compiler tools. No reasonable development
> could be done without the emulator effectively assuring us that all
> compilers distributed would be revenue producing. Support costs
> dropped both in real terms, cost per copy and administratively.
> (Everyone who contacted us had a legal unprotected copy) Support
> calls were shorter, customer feedback was focussed on the the
> intended applications.
> 
> The most interesting number was the cost per copy tied to the
> emulator sales was less than 15% of the normal commercial cost
> for very similar compilers. The customer and vendor advantages
> were large similar to the automotive case.
> 
> w..
> 

I'm afraid that sounds like saying that when the software tools are 
free, there is no problem with illegal copying.  I have little doubt 
that when the software can be tied to useful (or essential) hardware, 
you have a very different situation.  I write software for a living - it 
is all in connection with hardware we sell, and I can be confident that 
the rate of illegal copying is zero.

The real question that still remains is not so much whether illegal 
copying is a problem, but what can be done to minimise its impact while 
minimising the inconvenience to honest users.  Perhaps it is best to 
simply accept that such copying happens, and ignore the problem (at 
least at the level of individuals).  That's what happens in the computer 
games industry - many games are unprotected, and for those that are 
protected, they are easy to copy nonetheless.  Perhaps it is best with 
such elaborate protection systems that they are practically unbreakable 
- have your compiler run on a dedicated computer (using a non-x86 
processor) would work, and not add significantly to the cost of high-end 
tools.