AbusivepPricing information in marketing publications

Yes, and it annoys their user base, but they are not the only ones doing it. [tho that is no excuse!]

Looking at

The headline claims : " Altera's HardCopy II Structured ASICs and MAX II CPLDs Named Ultimate Products by eeProductCenter "

Hmmm, not my choice for Ultimate Products, but let's read on....

"Both Altera® products were ranked in the top five in the logic and programmable logic category."

So "Ultimate" [1.Furthest or highest in degree or order; utmost or extreme; 2.Being the last or concluding element of a series] has suddenly spin-morphed to actually meaning - "Hey, we made the top FIVE!"

Now let's see, top five in the logic and programmable logic category ??

So that could be, as an example that fits that claim :

1. Atmel
2. Actel
3. Lattice
4. Xilinx
5. Altera

If it was any better, surely they would have said the top three, or top two ?

And further on, we see ...described MAX II CPLDs as "as the industry's lowest-cost CPLD available now," and "ideal for volume-driven, price-sensitive applications."

Reality check time - quick look at their own web site

shows the Cheapest MAX II is listed at $6.00 - lowest cost ? - hmm, there are over 43 other CPLDs from Altera that clearly have lower prices {and many over at Xilinx too... ) !?.

So what can "lowest cost CPLD" actually mean ?

-jg

ROTFL ROTFL

this time really

TOP 5 listed !!

"Jim Granville" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:42b292ea$ snipped-for-privacy@clear.net.nz...

possible yes, US has some laws too.

FIVE!"

BIG ROTFL !!!

applications."

all marketing BS

MAX2 is nice non volatile version of Xilinx XC2K

nothing in common what is considered CPLD (as Complex PLD)

its really nice, but it doesnt at all compete in the low range PLD market

the low range is 1USD and sub 1USD devices available from many vendors

Antti

The "Ultimate" report is at

And (of no surprise to anyone who thought about it) the reason Altera said "top five" is that it includes *both* the Hardcopy and Max II. The rankings are:

1. Orange tree (C to VHDL tool)
2. Lattice (downloadable synthesis software)
3. Altera (Hardcopy II)
4. Cypress (PSOC 8-bit micro with configurable blocks)
5. Altera (Max II)
6. Actel (fpga starter kit)
7. Fairchild (tiny logic chips)
8. Celoxica (tools for image and video processing)
9. Exar (PCI bus UART)
10. Philips (tiny logic chips)

Of course, such a ranking is purely subjective and most people are going to disagree about it - especially the word "ultimate". But I don't think Altera marketing was doing anything unreasonable here.

My guess is "lowest cost CPLD" means "lowest cost per macrocell". I haven't checked the prices (except to note that the smallest MaxII is both too big and too expensive to replace a Max3000 we are using), but it is standard (though misleading) practice to talk about "lower cost" when you mean "better value for money".

The text ALWAYS clearly states what the pricing timeframe and quantity are for the price.

Engineers looking to design in a new part in large quantities are typically looking for production a little ways out. I would prefer to see 1H2006 pricing, but still... they make it clear.

The pricing method is used by too many vendors so why should Xilinx say this snazzy new part is available for $XX now in small quantities when others are advertizing the "mature volume" pricing?

If you know what the "typical markup" is for early adoption of a device or for small quantities of the part as purchased by your company, you can get a ballpark to the pricing without having to call for specifics.

I'm surprised that the UWG makes illegal the practice of giving a price where the price is clearly marked with a note and that note supplies the timeframe and quantitiy. This is misleading why? We do have market realities to consider, after all.

Kolja Sulimma wrote:

It is clearly misleading to say " *are* available" for a particular price, when they are most definitely not available. Giving a 500k price for a year in the future is stretching "mature volume pricing" quite a bit, although it would not be unreasonable if the date and quantity were quoted in the text, rather than as a small-print footnote. I don't think anyone would consider the Altera Cyclone II press release to be misleading or illegal:

Pricing and Availability

The first member of the Cyclone II device family, the EP2C35 device, will be available in February 2005. Volume pricing for the EP2C35 will be $22 in 250,000 unit volumes. The web edition of Quartus II version

Now do you see the difference? I'm not claiming Altera's marketing people are perfect, and they are as happy as anyone else to omit useful information (there were no prices given in the Stratix II 180 press release!), but they are clear on what their price information actually is.

mvh.,

David

Un bel giorno Kolja Sulimma digitò:

There are legal precedent cases where the fine print has been too fine, or too far removed, from the headlines, and also where the fineprint essentially contradicts the headlines.

Lets look at a Xilinx example, [ to keep it balanced :) ]

Headlines: Spartan 3E Get 100K gates for $2 Reduce system costs... Start saving today with devices now shipping

fine print is on another page, where it finally * links to 2H2006.

Since they cannot place that price on an invoice today, it puts them on thin-ice. ie you cannot _actually_ GET 100K gates for $2, but the headline clearly states you can.

What next, prices for 2016, in euros? "Get 100K gates for 0.5e"*

• estimated price, based on forecast yields, packaging laws, and current exchange rate trends...

I'll leave it to others to follow the veracity of "Start saving today with devices now shipping" ... :)

-jg

"The large print giveth, the small print taketh away." - Tom Waits

I have no problems with large volume pricing. It is useless for most users, but it is valid. I (and the UWG) have a problem with disguising future prices as current prices. Actually the text has improved a litte. The Vortex-4 press release had the formulation "are available *now* for under...", but even without the word "now" the use of present tense is very far streched for 2006.

Kolja Sulima

John_H schrieb: