Open side-bar Menu
 What's PR got to do with it?

Posts Tagged ‘Cadence’

Webinar on ESL presented by Gary Smith

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013

 

Do you want to know the latest on ESL?  Curious what today’s tools look like?

Gary Smith will be conducting a webinar this coming Monday on this very topic – ESL – are you Ready?

Gary, along with Mike Gianfagna of Atrenta and Jason Andrews and Frank Schirrmeister of Cadence, will examine the evolution of ESL over the past few years and share the breakthroughs that have occurred in the flow.

When is it?

11:00-11:45 am PDT

Monday, August 19, 2013

Gary will be recognizing the industry’s “ESL Heroes.”  Want to know what an ESL Hero is?  Tune in Monday to find out.

You can register for the webinar here.

3D in Monterey Next Week

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

 

This event is happening next week! Worth signing up if you can get down
there!………

 

EDPS is coming up again!  It’ll be held April 5-6, 2012 at the Monterey Beach Hotel in Monterey California.

This year, the 3D topic will be the focus of day two.

First and foremost,  Riko Radojcic, director of engineering at Qualcomm, will be talking about the 3D IC roadmap as the keynote speaker on day two.   (see his views on 3D standards:  http://www10.edacafe.com/blogs/ed-lee/2011/04/11/riko-radojcic-on-3d-standards/

Following the 1-hour keynote will be four 1/2 hour talks on various specific 3D-related topics:

* Stephen Pateras of Mentor on BIST for 3D ICs

* Arif Rahman of Altera on FPGA design challenges, presumably 3D ones

* Marc Greenberg of Cadence on the wide-IO standard for putting memory stacks on processors

* Sandeep Goel of TSMC and Bassilios Petrakis of Cadence on an end-to-end test flow for 3D IC stacks

Then there’s a lunch panel on 3D, moderated by Steve Leibson of Cadence,  with these panelists addressing: The short-, medium and long-term path to the 3D Ecosystem.

* Herb Reiter

* Samta Bansal of Cadence

* Dusan Petranovic of Mentor

* Deepak Sekar of Monolithic 3D

* Steve Smith of Synopsys

* Phil Marcoux of PPM Associates

Herb is arguably the primary 3D observer and advocate on what technologies have to be in place to handle the upcoming 3D challenge that’s starting to hit designers now.

John Swan is the General Chair of EDPS 2012. Herb Reiter is the Session Chair for the keynote, four shorter presentations and the panel discussion during  “3D Day”, Friday, April 6.

Very worthwhile to attend if you can get the time off.

3D in Monterey

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

EDPS is coming up again!  It’ll be held April 5-6, 2012 at the Monterey Beach Hotel in Monterey California.

This year, the 3D topic will be the focus of day two.

First and foremost,  Riko Radojcic, director of engineering at Qualcomm, will be talking about the 3D IC roadmap as the keynote speaker on day two.   (see his views on 3D standards:  http://www10.edacafe.com/blogs/ed-lee/2011/04/11/riko-radojcic-on-3d-standards/

Following the 1-hour keynote will be four 1/2 hour talks on various specific 3D-related topics:

* Stephen Pateras of Mentor on BIST for 3D ICs

* Arif Rahman of Altera on FPGA design challenges, presumably 3D ones

* Marc Greenberg of Cadence on the wide-IO standard for putting memory stacks on processors

* Sandeep Goel of TSMC and Bassilios Petrakis of Cadence on an end-to-end test flow for 3D IC stacks

Then there’s a lunch panel on 3D, moderated by Steve Leibson of Cadence,  with these panelists addressing: The short-, medium and long-term path to the 3D Ecosystem.

* Herb Reiter

* Samta Bansal of Cadence

* Dusan Petranovic of Mentor

* Deepak Sekar of Monolithic 3D

* Steve Smith of Synopsys

* Phil Marcoux of PPM Associates

Herb is arguably the primary 3D observer and advocate on what technologies have to be in place to handle the upcoming 3D challenge that’s starting to hit designers now.

John Swan is the General Chair of EDPS 2012. Herb Reiter is the Session Chair for the keynote, four shorter presentations and the panel discussion during  “3D Day”, Friday, April 6.

Very worthwhile to attend if you can get the time off.

Predictions 2012 – Persistence of Memory

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

To finish off our series of predictions, I would like to point you to another series of interesting and informative prophesies.  Click on the following topics to see these predictions collected by Brian Bailey, Editor of EDA DesignLine.

Industry Trends

Tools

ESL

IP and Physical Design

The Bold Prediction for EDA

 

A big THANK YOU from Ed & me (Liz) to all who shared their eye opening predictions with us.  Click on their names to see their predictions.  Mike Gianfagna, Karen Bartleson, Paul McLellan, Jens Andersen, Bob Smith, Steve Schulz, Mathias Silvant, Herb Reiter, Max Maxfield, Chris Edwards, John Barr.

 

Only time will tell……

 

The Persistence of Memory, 1931, Salvador Dali

 

Riko Radojcic on 3D standards

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Liz and I sat down with Riko Radojcic of Qualcomm to hear his thoughts on how upcoming 3D design and manufacturing would affect the EDA world.    Naturally, the conversation morphed into a discussion about standards that will be required to make 3D adoption pervasive.

Liz: Thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to sit down with us, Riko. So let me ask you, what is the relevance or importance of standards in adopting 3D?

Riko: Well, first, let me make a general statement about standards.  Sometimes some of the EDA companies view proprietary formats as a source of competitive advantage – a way of locking in a customer base.  This is especially true when a given company has taken a lead with a given solution, and they fear that opening up a proprietary format would shrink their slice of the market pie. However, in general, design standards, or standard exchange formats, or standard models, tend to make the whole pie bigger, as opposed to affecting the size of any one’s slice of the pie. So, in the long run, standards are good for users, like Qualcomm, and for vendors, like the EDA companies.  I keep referring back to the industry experience with SPICE models and the transition from the proprietary ‘Level 28’ model to the open standard BSim generation of models.  I think with all the brilliance of hindsight, the industry has benefited from an open standard model.

For 3D technology specifically, we are promoting the concept of standards, in order to accelerate the adoption of 3D design and manufacturing methods.  We want to help to line up the supply chain behind the 3D technology. I would say that most people – users, industry observers, EDA vendors, etc. all perceive 3D technology as a disruptive change.  The fear of that change is part of the barrier to adoption.  Standards are the other side of this coin of fear.  They bring down the feeling of fear.

Ed: Is 3D more a barrier to standards?  Are we sabotaging our own efforts?

Riko: There is a lot of FUD in 3D.  It is important to realize that there is 3D and then there is 3D.  Some future 3D implementations – like stacking logic on logic – does require disruptive change in design tools.  We will need design methodologies and tools that comprehend entirely a new dimension of parameters for this class of designs, and until these are developed, standards may even be a bit of a barrier.

On the other hand, 3D in the short term means heterogeneous stacking, like memory on top of logic.  So right now, 3D is not that disruptive.   We only need some minor upgrades to design logic in a smart way, to make stacking DRAM on top of it easier and lower risk. For this class of designs, standards would be extremely helpful – having a standard exchange format so that we have relevant information about die A when designing die B or vice versa would be excellent.  For example designing power distribution network on die A needs to know about power demands on die B.

To accelerate and facilitate adoption, we need more design information.   JEDEC for example is doing a nice job of working on the standards for memories

Liz: What is JEDEC doing?

JEDEC is defining the pin assignment and the pin array configuration required for Wide IO DRAM memories to be stacked on logic die.

Ed: What of vendors’ fears that buying into this format will be giving away too much of their own design data?

Riko: We can all make an investment in a standard format that can provide the right characteristics without exposing too much information.  The emphasis is on format, rather than specific content – which should be proprietary.  Again I like to refer back to SPICE and BSim models – where the model format, units, etc. are standardized, but the specific coefficients in the model are proprietary information of whoever owns the process technology.

Liz: Why is this not happening now?

Riko: We are all driven by financial motives.  No one feels they will make enough money out of it right now – and this is especially true for standards, which, by definition, belong to everybody. However, there could be certain advantages for someone creating a standard and then giving it away.  If you make the rules, you have a better chance of winning the game.

The thing that is required is a series of standard ‘exchange formats’ that would communicate the necessary information about the design of the various die to be stacked,  such that 3D stacking of these die is a low risk enterprise.  Basically to communicate design attributes such as power demand characteristics, thermal and mechanical stress sensitivities, maybe some floorplanning restrictions, etc..

Most of the standards bodies don’t have the capability to develop such standards. They have mechanisms to review a proposed standard and to manage and distribute it afterwards – but not to do the engineering required to develop one.  So, there’s a lack of champions willing to put in the work to develop and promote a standard.  It could be an EDA company, like Apache, or it could be an institution, like IMEC, or it could be an academic entity.

There are some activities going on, though. IMEC is working with Atrenta to develop a PathFinding tool – which may also involve developing a PathFinding exchange format.  Apache has taken the lead in pushing a standard power exchange format for 3D. Perhaps some of the academics could be engaged to develop standard exchange format proposals?  Si2 is willing to take a role in managing the standards, but someone needs to give them something to standardize.  GSA is active and willing to coordinate the discussions. But someone needs to make a proposal so the industry can say “I like it” or “I don’t like it” or whatever.

Liz: So you are looking for another EDA guy to come up to the plate, and then what if someone like Cadence comes up with a competing idea?  Then what?

Riko: Once a product is developed, all the EDA companies are invested in one format or another.  We want to get these standards in front of the product development curve, so that it would be easier for any one company to adopt and comply with a standard, rather than  making up their own format.  This is where the users – such as Qualcomm – come in.  We have the responsibility to demand this.

Ed: So it sounds like so far, we have a lot of discussion, but to a certain extent, some organizations are waiting for others to discuss or define a proposed set of 3D standards.   Other organizations are waiting for that proposal to get adopted before implementing the 3D standards.   How do we get off this merry-go-round?

Riko: I would say, let’s take a stab at partitioning the effort.  Qualcomm proposed this last September, at a SEMI/Sematech sponsored meeting in Taiwan.   We proposed dividing the world into two buckets…one set of players and activities focused on design related standards,  and another for manufacturing related standards. For each bucket of standard related activities, we proposed a suitable existing standards body, a suitable forum for discussion, and a suitable set of champions who would propose appropriate standards.  In the manufacturing domain, it would make sense to use SEMI to manage the standards, and Sematech to provide the Proposals. In the design domain it would make sense to use Si2 to manage the standards, and EDA or academics that are involved with EDA to provide the proposals. That way there would be less overlap and hopefully fewer gaps

Liz: What would happen then?

Riko: In addition, we proposed to create a forum which would be conducive to exploring and kicking around some of the proposed standards.  Standards bodies, by definition have a formal review and balloting mechanism – which tends to be slow.  So, in order to accelerate the discussion a separate forum would be nice.  The Sematech 3D Enablement Center is doing this already for manufacturing-oriented standards.  Let’s work with GSA to create a forum to discuss design-oriented standards, and if (or when) a given proposal is flushed out, give it to Si2 to create a true standard.

Liz: Your 2011 hope or wish for 3D standards?

Riko: That our industry can actually define a standard without having to fight a turf war.   We can do this if we get ahead of the 3D product curve.  But only if we all pitch in.. .

Riko Radojcic, who has over 25 years in the semiconductor industry, is a Director of Engineering at Qualcomm, currently leading the Design-for-Through Silicon Stacking Initiatives.

 

 

 

What if….no more big three?

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Continuing with my conversation with Tom Kozas, president of CADmazing Solutions, I asked him about a hypothetical scenario:

 

Ed:   So Tom, what would happen if for some reason, the big three EDA vendors all went away?   So instead of Cadence, Mentor, Synopsys,  the biggest three would be Magma, Apache?  Atrenta?

Tom:  I think this raises even more questions.

Ed:  Hmmm…interesting.  What questions?

Tom:   Several come to mind:  Would this mean renewed growth for the industry? Would the fundamentals change that encourage investment in new startups? Would the design flows become more or less integrated, collaborative, and global?

Ed:  Ok, good questions to ponder.   So what would be THE big issue?

Tom:  The “Silicon” in Silicon Valley is missing.  Without investment in new semiconductor startups, growth simply won’t happen.  Virtually all new design starts are happening within the big systems and semiconductor companies which means the only way to grow an EDA company, is to steal market share.

But would this translate to increased value for the remaining EDA companies in the eyes of the financial community?  What’s interesting about this hypothetical is, even though it would put the remaining EDA companies in a position to take advantage of this opportunity they might not be able to.

Ed:  Just to play devil’s advocate, why wouldn’t that next set of players, whoever they are, be able to take advantage of the sudden disappearance of the big three?    And who do you consider to be that next set of players?

Tom:  Good questions.   But let me respond by saying what they will need to provide.

So, the next big three will have products that have great user interfaces, provide online collaboration, and be part of a new ecosystem that enables innovation.  The industry already has advanced technology but needs graphical and command-line interfaces that exploit the online design environment.

Second, designers don’t necessarily sit in the same building but often have to work on the same problem. For example, two or more designers should be able to share the timing database and bring up the same timing path without having to rerun static timing analysis and do it within minutes no matter where they are in the world.

Finally, the current EDA ecosystem is in the dark ages, there needs to be a new model that facilitates new algorithm and tool development with a reward system.

Ed:  Tom, thanks again for your insights.

 

Tom Kozas on EDA in the Clouds

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

I recently grabbed coffee with Tom Kozas, President of Cadmazing Solutions. Since Tom’s staff works with a variety of domestic and international electronic designers spanning many industries, he sees a lot of different attitudes toward design tools. So I asked him:

Ed: So Tom, what about EDA in the clouds? Do your clients see that as desirable? Even viable?

Tom: It all depends on who is realizing the value.

Ed: When you say “realizing the value,” what do you mean?

Tom: OK, good point. EDA vendors have a completely different reality of their product value than do their customers. The EDA vendors believe that their product provides “absolute” value while EDA customers only see incremental product value. At CADmazing we deal with this reality with every customer and vendor we engage with.

Ed: Why the vast discrepancy?

Tom: Well, it’s the customer that commits the extra time and effort to go from incremental to absolute value for the complete design flow. As for EDA in the cloud it won’t fix the EDA industry.

Ed: No? Why is that?

Tom: Large customers already have their own clouds accessed through virtual private networks. So if a customer’s design environment included tools from each of the three top vendors, would this mean they would have to log into three different clouds?

Ed: Well, would the EDA customers then create their own cloud interface that all EDA tools would have to work? Or that the big three could create a standard cloud interface?

Tom: I just don’t see this type of collaboration happening among the top three EDA vendors. The industry would need something like an “Open Cloud” initiative that enables customers to have access to any EDA tool they want, especially from EDA startups – once the world comes back to its senses and starts funding them again.

Ed: So what’s your take on when EDA will be in the cloud?

Tom: Some EDA companies are already offering their products on the cloud. EDA companies will need to be careful that they are not creating a solution looking for a problem.

If EDA vendors want to successfully offer their tools and services on the cloud, they will need to provide an advantage that increases their customers’ business success. A technical and/or business advantage that goes way beyond outsourcing compute cycles.

Ed: Tom, thanks for your take on the EDA cloud.
………………………………..

Tom Kozas is President and principal consultant of Cadmazing Solutions www.cadmazing.com and has worked for years in engineering and marketing at EDA startups – such as Monterey – and established companies – such as Hughes Aircraft, Cadence, Compass. Cadmazing provides IC CAD development & implementation services for analog, digital, and mixed-signal system-on-a-chip (SoC) technology and full-custom designs. Tom’s email is: tomk@Cadmazing.com.

Gianfagna on EDA and IP merging, annexing of embedded software

Monday, July 12th, 2010

mikeg2The pre-DAC acquisitions of Denali and Virage drastically realign the core of the EDA industry. When IP first came on the scene here in the US, (I think 3Soft was the first IP company I saw), many people figured that IP would become another form of delivery for chip designs – and that they would come from the semiconductor companies.

The EDA executives’ explicit remarks about how IP is key to their continued growth could turn EDA into an industry of IP haves and IP have nots.

How does this EDA realignment affect customers? We asked Atrenta vice president of marketing and industry voice Mike Gianfagna, ” What does the EDA industry realignment mean for customers?”

Here’s what he said:

Realignment can mean two things that are related, but a bit different.

One form of realignment we’re seeing is the IP market merging into the EDA market. This is definitely good for IP customers. Effective IP reuse requires a blend of quality, highly validated IP and a good reuse methodology. The methodology need is for both authoring IP to be reusable and implementing the reuse itself. EDA is a good place to bring all this together. Most larger EDA companies understand what it takes to deliver high quality, validated designs. They also understand what a reuse methodology should include. A lot of the smaller IP shops don’t have this perspective.

Another realignment is the “annexation” of embedded software into EDA. Synopsys is validating this trend with their buying spree, and Cadence is validating the trend with their EDA360 proposal and some buying, too. This is also good for the customer. If software development teams can help to drive the silicon creation process, we are going to see some new killer apps emerge as a result.
…………………………..
What do you think about the combination of IP and EDA? Let us know in the “comments” section.

– end –

Mike Gianfagna on EDA360

Monday, June 7th, 2010

mike-gianfagna534c2x3x3003Mike Gianfagna, well known and long time EDA executive, has quite a bit to say about the EDA360 manifesto that’s electrified the EDA world. As vice president of marketing at Atrenta, Inc, Mike has been an astute, articulate participant in the EDA value discussion. I was able to grab a few minutes with Mike to ask how EDA360 helped define the 2010 and beyond definition of EDA value and how it might alter the industry’s direction.

ED: EDA360 has caused quite a buzz. Why?

MIKE: Simply put, it’s one of the first times a major EDA vendor has focused on growing the industry and not just winning the next deal.

ED: It’s curious that EDA people have embraced it so vigorously. After all, it’s not a “how to” but more of a “here’s the vision, the dream.”  What’s the impact of EDA360 on the EDA industry? The EDA user community? The EDA media?

MIKE: Let’s face it, the EDA industry has been stuck at roughly the same size for a long time. This lack of growth, in my opinion, has a lot to do with the predatory practices most suppliers pursue. That is, “I win the current budget and you lose.” Growing the business takes a broader view, and a good dose of vision to see beyond today’s budget and determine how EDA can serve new customers tomorrow. EDA360 articulates such a vision.

I’d like to think all this will have a positive impact on our industry overall. As for the EDA media, I am honestly not sure who that is anymore, so it’s hard to comment.

ED: This is a Cadence-generated document. How effective can it be if there’s a significant “other” camp?

MIKE: This point is what I find most interesting (and refreshing) about the concepts of EDA360. It’s not a Cadence document per se. It’s a blueprint of where EDA can go to find new customers and add new value. The piece articulates this in terms of current industry trends. It aims to exploit adjacencies in order to grow the market. And it clearly states that everybody needs to start thinking differently if it’s going to work.

ED: Rightfully, some people could view EDA360 as a Cadence effort to regain some of its industry momentum and influence that it has NOT had for years. Why should the rest of EDA buy into a company initiative?

MIKE: As I mentioned, I don’t see this as a company initiative. I see it as a call to action for our industry. We can all keep chasing the same budget, or find new customers and new budgets. A “dog food dish” image is spinning around in my head right now, but I’ll leave that discussion to the class historians among us.

ED: How will EDA360 affect the big 6: Atrenta, Cadence, Magma, Mentor, Springsoft and Synopsys?

MIKE: Wow, thanks for the flattering reference. It’s not every day that Atrenta gets mentioned in the same sentence with Cadence, Synopsys and Mentor. The reference is correct, however. Atrenta is now at a size, and a popularity level  that gives us the opportunity to make a real difference, if you believe the DeepChip readership.

How can we make a difference? First of all, a consistent focus on serving the new and emerging user base referenced in the EDA360 vision will help. That is, the software development community that requires advanced silicon to get its job done. The changes implied by EDA360 will take time – all design paradigm shifts do and they usually take longer than you like.

If a group of forward-looking companies can work together toward the vision, the time required to get there can be reduced. And that spells opportunity for everyone.

ED: How will EDA360 affect the medium sized EDA companies?

MIKE: I think the effect here will be similar, except many mid-size EDA companies may necessarily be slower to respond. Pursuing new markets and new customers takes discretionary resources, and many mid-size companies don’t have a lot of that.

ED: How will EDA360 affect the slew of small and startup EDA companies?

MIKE: For the current crop of startups, I don’t believe the effects will be that noticeable. Some will figure out how to re-invent themselves in new, emerging markets but most will continue on the path they are currently on.

The interesting part for venture-funded startups is what happens next. Will the venture community start writing checks for new business models that address the application software developer’s needs? If this happens, we’ll have another proof point that EDA360 is more than a nicely done White Paper.

– end –

RICHARD GOERING: one year later

Monday, February 1st, 2010

(As we all know, Richard Goering is a longtime EDA editor who went to work for Cadence in March 2009, where he writes the Industry Insights blog and works on various writing projects. I recently had a chance to talk with Richard about his year on the corporate side of editorial writing and the state of EDA editorial: where it’s going and what it’ll look like, if it continue to exist. It will, but…BTW,  something’s different about Richard’s photo…)

richard_goering1a1

ED: It’s been about a year since you moved from editorial over to Cadence. What differences, if any, do you see?

RICHARD: First, there’s a difference between blogging and news reporting. A blog is shorter and more personal, and is written in a different style. After many years of conventional news reporting, blogging has taken some adjustment.

Also, writing a corporate-sponsored blog is different from writing for an independent publication that covers news from all vendors. With the Cadence Industry Insights blog , I’m writing about most of the same issues I would have covered for EE Times, but where appropriate I’ll include a Cadence perspective or product mention. I don’t generally write about developments from other companies, unless some sort of Cadence partnership is involved. I should note, however, that since I’m focusing on issues rather than products, I don’t often write blogs about new Cadence products.

ED: So it’s been a change to come over to the dark side…not that there’s much of a “light side” any more, huh? What did you perceive as the dark side and what does it look like now, to you?

RICHARD: I don’t really think of it in terms of a “dark side” and a “light side.” Independent publishers are not doing charity work – they’re in business to make money like everyone else, even if they don’t succeed!

For me, working for a major EDA company has certainly been an educational experience. I now have a much better idea of how EDA companies function. Before EDA companies were mysterious monolithic entities that spit out press releases and products. Now I see the “people” side of the industry – lots of creative and diverse people who have many different ideas, and somehow come together with a consistent message.

ED: You’ve covered EDA for over 20 years. Clearly the publication world has changed, is collapsing as we speak. What lies ahead for EDA publications and coverage?

RICHARD: A lot less coverage, as we’ve seen already. Still, publications like EE Times, EDN, Chip Design Magazine and Electronic Design do have some EDA coverage. But a lot of the coverage going forward will come from blogs, forums, and various social media outlets.

ED: Where EE Times is concerned, it seems that there has to be some connection with a chip design issue for there to be EDA coverage. Otherwise, it goes to EDA Design Line. I think that’s fine, but it sure says something about how that once-mighty publication has changed, huh? Well, don’t let me put words into your mouth. How is the change in EE Times emblematic of what’s happened to EDA editorial?

RICHARD: It’s not just EDA editorial – EE Times has a lot less editorial, period. There is still some EDA reporting once in a while, but there seems to be more of a semiconductor focus. That probably makes sense given the lack of EDA advertising and the greatly-reduced editorial resources.

ED: What role will the new era bloggers (indie, corporate, editorial, PR) play? How will those roles evolve?

RICHARD: Blogging provides a new information channel that’s hopefully written in an engaging style, by someone with expertise in a given area. Given that some EDA bloggers are chip designers or consultants, it can be a “peer to peer” communications channel. It can also be a two-way channel if a conversation develops.

Independent bloggers, I suppose, are those who are not paid by a company to blog, although many do have employers. While every blogger has her or his own biases and points of view – a point of view, after all, is what blogging is all about – independent bloggers have the potential to be on neutral ground with respect to EDA vendors.

Corporate bloggers will reflect the positioning of their companies, but they can also provide a good deal of useful, in-depth information that you won’t find elsewhere. With Industry Insights, I have been able to write some “inside look” kinds of blogs that it would have been difficult to write from the outside. For example, I wrote a series of blogs about what it takes to port EDA software to multicore platforms, drawing upon Cadence’s experiences in this area.

Due to the lack of editors, there are very few EDA editorial blogs. Those that exist are picking up some of the coverage that’s missing from the electronics trade press. An example is Ron Wilson’s Practical Chip Design. I haven’t seen much in the way of blogs from PR people, although yours is an exception.

ED: OK, since you bring it up, what role do EDA PR bloggers have in EDA blogging?

RICHARD: I think PR bloggers would do best to focus on issues like social media, PR, and advertising, as opposed to technology. With all the changes in the media, there’s plenty to write about.

ED: But blogging seems more opinionated than EDA editorial, which you covered for so long and so rigorously. I mean, clients were intimidated by the perceived “wrath of Goering” and would oftentimes minimize their hype when being interviewed by you. Thus, we got a comprehensive and objective overview of the technology area from you, even when you covered new products. Will we see objective reporting disappear?

RICHARD: No. As I noted, there is still some EDA reporting in the traditional media, and some bloggers do objective evaluations of major new products and announcements. But the days when every EDA announcement would receive coverage are long gone.

ED: So what role will traditional press play?

RICHARD: I think there will be some continuing coverage of really big announcements or developments. But there will be a lot less product coverage and new company coverage than there used to be. Unfortunately, there are a lot of press release rewrites in the press these days. That doesn’t provide much useful information for the readers.

ED: How possible is it that an EDA press disappear? Why?

RICHARD: Very simple – lack of advertising. It’s part of the meltdown we’re seeing across the publishing world. Also, EDA stories don’t get tens of thousands of readers. There’s a very small, specialized audience, although they have big wallets.

ED: What’s there to keep EDA honest if there’s no longer an “industry press?”

RICHARD: There is an industry press – there’s just less of it. There are also a growing number of bloggers watching EDA developments. But more and more it will be up to the users to help keep EDA vendors on the right track. With the ability to start a blog or comment on blogs, join on-line forums, speak at user group conferences, and participate in Twitter groups like #EDA, EDA users now have a voice – and they will hopefully use it for the betterment of the industry.

ED: What’s your sense of pay for play in editorial? Good, bad or necessary?

RICHARD: I’m not going to say it’s bad, but if a company pays to have an article written, I think that should be made clear to the reader.

ED: Well, EDA’s benefited from your historic participation in the industry. Witness your DAC award a few years back. It’s been, what, over 20 years, starting at Computer Design? I’m not sure anyone can see an EDA industry without Richard Goering in place. Thanks for taking the time to catch up.

RICHARD: And thank you for the opportunity! After interviewing your clients for years, it’s an interesting turn of events to have you interview me.

– end –

CST Webinar Series



Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes EDACafe - Electronic Design Automation GISCafe - Geographical Information Services  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy