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. That's a very different number - and I believe in many cases, the number is so low as to be hardly worth considering. 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.
It's always been a mystery to me why C compilers aren't free anyway. If youv'e spent millions producing a chip why make it hard for people to use it? Same arguement applies to the FPGA market. Some companies do give them away free of nearly free, a trend I expect will become the norm eventually. Compiler writers can easily protect their product with a dongle, no excuse now we have usb sticks. The real downside with that is when the customer recieves crappy software he can send it back and get his money back, which I guess is why they don't use them.
I would argue, actually, that the best software is usually either free or relatively high-priced. Bargains are what you want to beware of, unless they are cut-down versions of high-end products.
The PIC people are doing this with a compiler for their lowest-end chips -- they've bought a commercial one and are distributing it with MPLAB.
Quite a lot of compilers DO have free versions, with some ceiling.
If you look at the newest systems from Freescale and Zilog, they do have free compilers, (as in bundled with the low cost eval/development boards) and not just compilers, but free OnChipDebug as well.
On chip debug support already an important selection criteria.
Yes, the silly logical-error stuff can show up in the simulator, but SFR (mis)handling does not, and with the newest USB Debug pathways, speed is much better : you now effectively get a REAL_CHIP in your simulator.
The biggest problem with simulators, is you are never sure when they start giving you false information. Very hard to beat doing debug using the actual chip you are going to ship!
It also means suppliers can focus on the Debug support, and the resource that was put into the simulator, can go elsewhere.
Op Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:51:06 +0200 schreef Chris Hills :
After some more thought, I take the above back. Please read below.
I agree.
Well it is a possibility. The reasoning was as follows: {past:} ARM licenses their cores to take over more of the 8/16/32 bit market. {recently:} ARM takes over Keil to gain compiler knowledge for ARM and to control part of the compiler market for '51. {future:} An evil ARM might want to stop the '51 compilers and so persuade '51 users towards ARM.
But that makes no sense. There are much better ways of persuading '51 users to move to ARM.
--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Op Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:19:35 +0200 schreef Ian Bell :
For many applications, complexity tends to increase over time, creating a need for faster processors. 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.
Exactly.
--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Or bought someone else's. I.e. I didn't buy Keil because I got a hacked IAR.
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....
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.
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!
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
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...
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.
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).
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?
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.
This happens...
Software piracy is theft it doesn't matter what term is used for it or or how it is justified.
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.
information so
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.
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.
This happens...
Software piracy is theft it doesn't matter what term is used for it or or how it is justified.
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.
information so
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
information so
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.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.