Zibb

Mike SantariniEDN Senior Editor Mike Santarini covers digital design and the EDA, ASIC, and FPGA industries. [Editor's note: As of Feb. 2008, this blog is no longer active and is presented here for archival purposes.]



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

IC Design Articles

Blog

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Grim day for EDA—Gartner closes down EDA analysts group

Oct 19 2006 3:52PM | Permalink |Comments (16) |


The EDA industry has lost its one and only research analyst group today, as research firm Gartner has laid off its entire EDA analyst staff. I got word today from longtime now former Gartner-Dataquest chief EDA analyst Gary Smith.

Gary says there hasn't been enough support from EDA vendors in the last year for Gartner to keep its EDA analyst branch. Over the years and my entire career, Gary's crew has been a fixture, a sounding post and THE keeper of tool marketshare. It has been the only group doing it.

I'm bummed. In fact I've said on many occasions that if the EDA industry really wants to get its due respect and get more coverage from the general business press it needs more industry analysts. That way even some business journalist that doesn't know all that much about the industry could at least put together a story on the differing objective opinions of a couple of analysts. One analyst group wasn't enough, zero is a travesty.

Gary's not down though, in fact he's quite optimistic and said that he's going to try to keep the group together and hopefully have the entire operation picked up by another research company.

Now that EDA has lost Gary's group, where are we going to get marketshare? EDAC MSS just looks at total industry revenue and isn't objective—EDAC's purpose is in fact to promote the EDA industry not give a wholly honest assessment of it. If EDAC wants to make itself useful, it should step in to encourage more research firms to cover EDA perhaps fund it in some way. Without an independent research firm vendors can make wild and crazy marketshare claims and there is no independent research to keep them in check. Best of luck Gary, Daya, Laurie et al. Hope you land somewhere soon or simply do it on your own. That of course means the industry needs to step up with some funding and stop shooting itself in the foot.


Related entries in: Communities | EDA | 


Reader Comments



at 10/19/2006 7:52:08 PM, flacksterRWC said:
Kind of typical, don't you think. EDA doesn't invest in in any kind of discussion outside of it's own little community. No wonder the customers are working on their own tools again instead of buying commercial offerings. Now because they don't want to hear reality in the form of objective analysis the illusion will be complete. Pay no attention the the man behind the curtain! EDA will rule the world. Cooley is right, show me to a life boat.



at 10/20/2006 4:15:29 PM, Tom Quan said:
It's a sad day for EDA industry. Is EDA still relevant?



at 10/21/2006 3:16:31 AM, Spider said:
With all due respect, I don't find this very surprising. While Mr Smith was vocal on many issues, he was oft just plain wrong....

I am quite sure the EDA industry will survive. Business is business, and if the analysts weren't able to produce the output to pull their weight financially, well, nobody is sacred anymore.



at 10/23/2006 10:07:59 AM, Michael Santarini said:
I agree the industry will survive but it makes tracking the industry, especially the smaller players a bit more difficult, without a market analyst. One of the great things Gary's group put together was the annual EDA Landscape, which broke down the industry into tool categories and then listed the companies that play in each category. I don't know if the marketshare numbers were completely accurate or not but they were better than none at all. I don't think anyone ever took the numbers as 100 percent precise but a ballpark figure was better than nothing. There are always certain aspects of analyst presentations that folks think are not readily believable. For one, every analyst's trend foil inevitably ends in an upward swing because of course, in the end analysts need their markets to thrive not just survive to have a market to analyze and reports to sell. Another aspect that folks typically find very questionable is market analysts' forward predictions. I've always thought it would be interesting to have an analyst firm that tracks the accuracy of market analyst predictions and maybe even rate the analysts.
That of course isn't all that practical because for example there are multiple analysts that track ASICs and each says the ASIC market is a different size because they each have a different idea of what actually is an ASIC. It's a good way for them to sidestep the accuracy issue.
Financial analysts live and die by the accuracy of their predictions (and many other things). Market analysts seem to live and die by selling reports. That said in EDA there was just one analyst firm and whether accurate or not, it helped stir up discussions and pointed out trends in an industry that's struggling to get more lime light. Like I said, EDA needed more analysts--Zero analysts isn't good. But I agree the industry will survive. Not having Gary's group or another market analyst group will likely benefit the biggest vendors in the short term because most folks know the large vendors have broad portfolios and by default will first look at what they offer. Finding the other smaller players offering say a formal verification tool, will now require a bit more research for users. Gary's firm at least showed us most of the players in each tool category. Thanks for reading.




at 10/23/2006 10:08:31 PM, Michael Santarini said:
Hey Tom, what do you mean by "is EDA still relevant?"? Please explain.



at 10/24/2006 10:41:55 AM, flacksterRWC said:
So, Mike, now that iSuppli is going to be covering EDA, is that enough? Or should Gary keep shopping the team around or even start something new?



at 10/24/2006 11:15:18 AM, Michael Santarini said:
I heard this secondhand yesterday but I haven't seen the release and I haven't talked with anyone at iSupply. Is it really EDA coverage? Seems the two folks that mentioned it called it something like "design services or methodology coverage" rather than EDA Industry coverage. Is that just marketing speak for EDA Industry coverage? Someone send the release to me please: michael.santarini@reedbusiness.com

Who is the analyst? That's the biggest factor. Good analysts need to have integrity, the ability to gather, put together and properly interpret the numbers. Foremost they can't be wishy washy industry cheerleaders. They need to be brutally honest.




at 10/24/2006 1:35:52 PM, flacksterRWC said:
I haven't seen a release but Jordan Selburn was quoted as saying: the service will maintain databases of design starts, design content and design infrastructure.

The last two words indicates some coverage of tools. So your guess is as good as mine.



at 10/24/2006 3:40:39 PM, Michael Santarini said:
I'm not ignoring you flacksterRWC, I'm just waiting for Jordan to return my call...tick tock tick tock…heard any good jokes lately?...tick tock



at 10/25/2006 7:40:15 PM, Michael Santarini said:
Hi folks, Jordan got back to me today. See the new blog entry: "iSuppli's new group NOT covering EDA Industry"



at 10/26/2006 1:57:18 PM, EDA Old Timer said:
Spider captured it very well. Gary and company just didn't get it. And because they didn't have anyone else to compete against, they could say whatever they wanted which many time has been flat-out wrong. Gary has been proclaiming the virtues of ESL for 12+ years now. It still isn't here. DFM is bigger than ESL and has been around a lot less time. Because there was no one else to challenge him, he had the luxury of saying "it's coming, it's coming" year after year. It is too bad that there wasn't at least a 2nd analyst covering EDA because at least there would have been a chance of someone calling BS and get the rest of the world to realize that Gary and team were "average" at best. So that brings me to my 2nd issue with Gary and company. They lost the objectivity that market analysts need to have to be credible. It was no secret that Gary had his "favorite" companies that he liked to talk up. The idiotic, repetitive predictions are one thing, but being "more generous" when covering certain companies because of who he likes there or whether or not they buy his services is really juvenile. Does the EDA industry need analyst coverage? Absolutely. Is losing Gartner's coverage a loss for the industry? No. Why? Because so much of his data was compromised by his lack of objectivity, it was tainted goods. That is why no one was buying it anymore. Anyone who knew anything about EDA knew his data was worthless. Good bye and don't let the door hit you on the way out!



at 10/26/2006 5:28:06 PM, Tom Quan said:
Hi Mike! What I emeant by "not relevant" is that now without the only market research group left, peopl from outside EDA industry will have no knowledge of what this industry is about, how healthy it is, and whether it makes sense to invest in it. As you said, some market numbers are better than none, and without any number from an independent source for a $4B industry, we just do not look like for "real".



at 10/27/2006 6:15:47 AM, toomuchgreentea said:
I'm somewhat in agreement with EDA Old Timer. Rather than EDA becoming irrelevant, the truth maybe closer to Gartner losing its relevancy. Seriously, how many are actually paying attention to what Gartner has to say these days?



at 10/27/2006 9:57:04 AM, EDA Old Timer said:
Following up on toomuchgreentea, I don't think it was relevancy that was the downfall of Gary and team. It was the fact that they acted like a monopoly for something that was a "nice to have" not a "must have" product/service. They did what they wanted, charged what they wanted and acted like they wanted with impunity. Gary like the fact that startups paid homage to him to get him to say nice things about their products. That was NOT his job. Gary is not qualified to evaluate EDA products. He was supposed to analyze the market segments. But he put his personal agenda(s) above his duty as an objective industry analyst. The combination of too high a price point and data that was not objective was why people stopped buying their product. To quote Proverbs: "Pride goeth before a fall". Gary and team got WAY too arrogant and they got what they deserved.



at 10/27/2006 9:21:06 PM, Michael Santarini said:
EDA Old Timer, thanks for your comments



at 12/14/2006 5:29:58 PM, edawatcher said:
I think the financial analysts at this point are more on target as to the health of the EDA industry. They look at the cold, hard facts and make conclusions from there. Seems like that's what the EDA providers want for now.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites