Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers

(snip)

Why not? That surely is the optimum business model. Let's face it, their core business is selling silicon. If giving away the tools (which cost them incrementally nothing per copy) gains/retains buyers and user base, they are in front. At the moment users are migrating away from Microchip in numbers, contributed to by the tools situation.

Because they charge $500 for C18, and the Hi-Tech compiler is supposedly a better product (why else would they have bought it?)

I can't see the cost of tools being a significant factor for major customers. Even if they charge nothing for the software, the time it takes for an engineer to get up to speed on the platform will equate to a few grand in salary.

OTOH, I wouldn't expect that Microchip earns a significant proportion of their revenue from tools. I'm wondering if they do it to maintain some modest barriers to entry, to give their more valuable customers some advantage over the mom-&-pop outfits.

Sure, but cost of tools is a serious issue for hobbyists and small companies. Experience acquired as a result of hobby projects could later influence some big purchasing decisions.

he PIC

their core

are in

s,

Evidence?

Leon

Not to existing and short term new customers. But gaining new customers in the long term is important too.

Exactly. By giving away good tools, they will attract young hobbyists and students who don't have a lot of money. Years later, some of these people will inevitably end up in jobs in large companies.

Imagine a situation where the new employee tells his boss: "I can do it. If we use an Atmel chip, I'll have it done by Friday, but if we use a Microchip chip, I'll need a few weeks to learn.".

--
RoRo

If a $1000 tool cost is enough to swing a user between one or another processor supplier that user isn't buying enough processors for either supplier to care.

Even for commercial companies, the monetary cost of getting started with a new device is important. New architectures are often introduced in small projects, for prototypes, or as part of training periods for new employees. While it's true that the biggest true cost is normally in time (and salaries), the cost of development tools has a big psychological influence, disproportional to the final costs. When considering a choice between different architectures for a project, if one has free tools and the other has tools costing a few thousand, you can be sure that the free tool device will be tested first "because it costs nothing to try it out".

Then there are the other benefits of having zero cost tools. Typically you can download them and start working immediately - there are no purchase orders to deal with, no waiting for dongles in the post, no contracts to sign. You can install them on multiple computers or at home offices without worrying about licenses. You never have to make decisions like "it would be useful to have this running on the laptop as well - but is it worth x thousand dollars?".

I don't mean to say that all tools should be free - just that microcontroller manufacturers would do well to make good free tools easily available, even within professional markets. They (or third parties) can profit from charging for /better/ tools - but only providing bad tools for free is, IMHO, a silly strategy.

And if that company's next product needs $100,000,000 worth of processors, who are they going to give the first choice to supply the silicon?

--
You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

It is an obvious conclusion that is not supported by our marketing studies.

Microchip's customer support has been a effective part of their business promotion.

Tool cost is small part (~2 man days cost) of overall project cost. Accompanying tools support (about 40% of our support calls are application more than tool related) makes tools very low cost overall.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

The chip companies that provide a core of free tools for casual use and small projects that leave the door open for other tools generally do well. Third parties bring new ideas and approaches to problem solving. Application area's evolve and third party have the advantage of developing application support for several targets.

Chip companies that try to dominate the tools used for their products for free or otherwise fail over time to have competitive tools. Chip companies often buy tool companies and find that within a few years the tool support no longer is competitive.

Wounding tools especially code generation is a waste of time and resources for a tool company. Costs sales, is demoralizing for the tool company.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

The lowest cost silicon that can be delivered that meets the application functional requirements. The code will be ported as part of production engineering.

We regularly see prototypes done on silicon with far more capabilities than production parts.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

That isn't always a bad thing. It allows changes to the design without a complete redesign. Would you try to save a penny per chip by dealing with a company that you don't trust?

--
You can\'t have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Really, you're ignoring a 500-pound gorilla. The reason there is such a wide performance gap between "unoptimized" and "payware" is because the PIC ISAs are horrendous (at least up to PIC18, I have no real experience with PIC24 and dsPIC). Ceteris paribus there is no good reason to choose a PIC over an AVR or MSP430.

Buying a $1000 tool at my (multibillion dollar, millions-of-units EAU) employer involves a capital appropriations request process that can take six months and needs to go up and down the management chain, across a minimum of three countries (US, Switzerland and Mexico - possibly also India), through accounting, up and down and round the mulberry bush, worse than any Vogon bureaucracy you can imagine. Time is money. If I can download vendor A's tool free, or wait six months and endure agonizing paperwork to get authorization to buy vendor B's tool, I'm damn unlikely to go route B.

(Sometimes vendor B will give us free licenses to use while the CAR is in progress, but not always, and it's still painful).

Hear, hear!

"Walter Banks" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@bytecraft.com...

Nevertheless I know at least one small company that moved from PIC to Atmel because of the good, free GNU compiler.

petrus bitbyter

| | Evidence? | | Leon |

Only a little bit: Myself. I've done some small PIC projects lately using PICs that can (best) be programmed in assembler. Microchips tools for this are good. Good enough for me that is. The last larger project that required a C-compiler I used HI-tech. But the next larger project I'll go Atmel. I know, nobody will care or even notice. But what if some thousends of others will do the same?

petrus bitbyter

I normally design using PICs, I've been using them since at least

1990. I've had the Byte Craft compiler and now use the Hi-Tech compilers and the cost has not been an issue until recently.

One of my customers wants to take over updating the code for his products. The free complier is no good because the PIC size has been chosen for the pro compiler. He is not keen to buy the compilers for the volume he uses. Currently I'm disabling the compiler my end so he can activate a copy at his end and then he disables so I can reactivate to use it here.

Atmel with free software is looking good for new designs.

I think that it is a good thing as well. Get the technology right then do a clean implementation. The chip companies don't have a significant advantage by being used in high volume prototypes

w..