Newby Getting started with FPGA

Xilinx want to sell chips. Getting cheap devkits available helps this, whether they make them themselves or fund third parties to do it makes little difference - I can't see how this is any way underhand.. In practice, third parties can often do a better job as they are typically smaller companies more in touch with the needs of lower-end users, and are more geared up to manufacturing than chip making companies. Any third party making devkits independendtly of the manufacturer knows that there is always a risk of the manufacturer undercutting them when they decide to do a sales push/promotion etc. Any company whos survival depends on selling devkits for a single chip manufacturer's product is on shaky ground unless they have a very good relationship with the manufacturer.

Reply to
Mike Harrison
Loading thread data ...

If you made a product using Xilinx chips, then you would not object to others competing with you on the same terms. That is, they have similar economic constraints. Fair play.

If Xilinx then went and subsidised one of your competitors product line, how would you feel?

It would rankle my English sense of fair play. And probably destroy my business.

Agreed.

I just find it annoying that the company that makes FPGA dev boards the way I want them might be put out of business by Xilinx giving an unfair advantage to the makers of a board that is inferior from my POV (it has more bits, but I don't need or want them and they tie up pins I want to use).

American chip makers complained like hell when the far east sold their DRAM overproduction for economically unfeasible prices. It certainly was unfair, and there are laws to protect people from unfair trading practices. Otherwise any country could build up stockpiles of cheap chips and flood the market to drown their competitors then hike up the cost later.

If so then that's not encouraging anyone to start making anything based on Xilinx chips.

I'm against subsidies in general. If Xilinx wants to subsidise manufacturers using their chips, they should do so equally, in proportion to the number used. The fairest way to do that is to reduce the cost of their chips. Then all their consumers have a level playing field.

Reply to
Kryten

Look at where Digilentinc came from, education market. Basically boards that a student can afford to buy themselves.

Its lot easier for lecturers/tutors if the board has a basic set of fixed peripherals. Less likely to get fpgas blown up as well.

More advanced / capable students can design and build their own addons.

I'd expect Digilentinc / Xilinx are selling a lot more than Tony Birch.

Also for the future expose as many students as possible, so they become fimiliar with your products. AFAIK here in Australia most universities use Xilinx products.

How long before Altera comes out with a similar competing kit with their newer parts rather than their existing student kits based on old products?

Alex

Reply to
Alex Gibson

I'm wondering if xilinx will keep supplying modelsim with webpack for 7.1 now they have gone back to having a builtin simulator ?

>
Reply to
Alex Gibson

According to their spec, the built in simulator is not included with Webpack.

Hendra

Reply to
Hendra

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.