J
John Larkin
Guest
http://www.eedesign.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=60405676
John
John
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:40:37 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:
design ;-)
Bwahahahahaha!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:
I didn't know you couldn't just write some code and get an analog
design ;-)
Bwahahahahaha!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
480)460-2350 | || E-mail Address at Website Fax
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:28:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Neither did a bunch of VCs with more money ($44e6) than brains.
Interesting that digital design has progressed from gates to macros to
RTL to HDLs to SystemC to UML, but analog is still art.
John
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Neither did a bunch of VCs with more money ($44e6) than brains.
Interesting that digital design has progressed from gates to macros to
RTL to HDLs to SystemC to UML, but analog is still art.
John
J
Joerg
Guest
Hello John,
of money on that but at the end of the day what really counts is decades
of experience.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
It reminds me of software to simulate EMI behavior. One can spend oodles
of money on that but at the end of the day what really counts is decades
of experience.
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
T
Terry Given
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
Cheers
Terry
Probably because counting to one isnt that hard
Cheers
Terry
R
Rene Tschaggelar
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
company of the season", and you feel indestructible.
Reality creeps in, oh, the market is different, oh, we need to
change this and that, oh, the money is gone...
Happens too often.
I recently spoke to someone having experienced that.
"We weren't told ...", "we didn't expect ..."
So apparently some coaching should be included in the prices.
Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
Yes, a PhD, a good idea to start with, then a price such "startup
company of the season", and you feel indestructible.
Reality creeps in, oh, the market is different, oh, we need to
change this and that, oh, the money is gone...
Happens too often.
I recently spoke to someone having experienced that.
"We weren't told ...", "we didn't expect ..."
So apparently some coaching should be included in the prices.
Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:20:37 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org>
wrote:
Depends on how much time you've got to get there and on how finely
divided the distance is.
--
John Fields
wrote:
---Neither did a bunch of VCs with more money ($44e6) than brains.
Interesting that digital design has progressed from gates to macros to
RTL to HDLs to SystemC to UML, but analog is still art.
John
Probably because counting to one isnt that hard
Depends on how much time you've got to get there and on how finely
divided the distance is.
--
John Fields
T
Terry Given
Guest
John Fields wrote:
easy. OTOH if your noise floor sets the "resolution" to be much less
than one (-120dB anyone?) then the job is a bit trickier.
Cheers
Terry
Exactly. Starting at zero, and counting in steps of one, its prettyOn Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:20:37 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:
Neither did a bunch of VCs with more money ($44e6) than brains.
Interesting that digital design has progressed from gates to macros to
RTL to HDLs to SystemC to UML, but analog is still art.
John
Probably because counting to one isnt that hard
---
Depends on how much time you've got to get there and on how finely
divided the distance is.
easy. OTOH if your noise floor sets the "resolution" to be much less
than one (-120dB anyone?) then the job is a bit trickier.
Cheers
Terry
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Zero reading comprehension once again. The technology is proven and it
outperformed SPICE in spades for what it did, but the
customer base is too small, the functionality too limited, and
investment must have been
sizable :"Barcelona's customers include Analog Devices, Matsushita,
STMicroelectronics and Toshiba."
http://www.cadence.com/partners/connections/member.aspx?member=member_BarcelonaDesignInc
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
So your billion dollar customers deploy your hundred-thousand dollar
system because it's supposed to save them millions and they find it
lacking but, graciously, don't bother to ask for a refund. Instead,
they write you off. So now down in the noise even though you can
still call them customers, even if what you sold them didn't work for
them.
The company seems to me to be akin to Mazda, which initially came out
and touted Felix Wankel's rotary engine (which was supposed to be the
be-all and end-all of internal combustion engines) but, when sales
proved to be lackluster, quickly downshifted and started making
reciprocating engine cars, just like everyone else.
Lucky for Mazda (unless luck had nothing to do with it and they
successfully planned for a Waterloo) they managed to capture enough of
a share of the auto business to stay in business.
Barcelona, it seems, didn't successfully plan for failure with a
failure strategy, and even though they flailed around trying to keep
their heads above water when their ship sunk, they bit the dust.
Oh well...
--
John Fields
wrote:
---
So your billion dollar customers deploy your hundred-thousand dollar
system because it's supposed to save them millions and they find it
lacking but, graciously, don't bother to ask for a refund. Instead,
they write you off. So now down in the noise even though you can
still call them customers, even if what you sold them didn't work for
them.
The company seems to me to be akin to Mazda, which initially came out
and touted Felix Wankel's rotary engine (which was supposed to be the
be-all and end-all of internal combustion engines) but, when sales
proved to be lackluster, quickly downshifted and started making
reciprocating engine cars, just like everyone else.
Lucky for Mazda (unless luck had nothing to do with it and they
successfully planned for a Waterloo) they managed to capture enough of
a share of the auto business to stay in business.
Barcelona, it seems, didn't successfully plan for failure with a
failure strategy, and even though they flailed around trying to keep
their heads above water when their ship sunk, they bit the dust.
Oh well...
--
John Fields
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
John Fields wrote:
IP and I'm certain this will be licensed to companies like Cadence and
others, let them market it to an existing market share- which is maybe
what they should have done from the start. Maybe they would never have
received the start-up VC-ization without big shot plans for becoming a
big shot enterprise with fantabulously high return on initial
investment. This may not be the bad luck story it appears to be on the
surface
Barcelona may be gone as an independent EDA but someone still owns the
IP and I'm certain this will be licensed to companies like Cadence and
others, let them market it to an existing market share- which is maybe
what they should have done from the start. Maybe they would never have
received the start-up VC-ization without big shot plans for becoming a
big shot enterprise with fantabulously high return on initial
investment. This may not be the bad luck story it appears to be on the
surface
S
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:13:03 -0600, the renowned John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
and in Mandarin) made their first vehicle in 1931 (the "Mazdago"
three-wheeled truck), and their first car in 1960. Their first rotary
wasn't introduced until 1967. Their 2005 RX-8 has a rotary in it.
A common trait with Japanese manufacturers of the day- they tried to
identify a trend and buy into it lock, stock and barrel. It was easy
enough when they were playing catchup and had other (structural)
advantages. It got a lot harder when they caught up with (and in some
cases surpassed) everyone else-- the risk factors equalized.
The Wankel turned out to have a short life, be expensive to repair and
have poor fuel efficiency. Acceptable for a sports car, but not for a
family puddle-jumper.
I notice they didn't mention anything about their sales, just their
venture capital funding. It would be interesting to see their business
plan. There are lots of good product concepts and good technologies
that are very difficult to make a profit from, let alone justify
USD4.40E07 in risk capital. Maybe they'll open-source it. ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
According to their history page, Mazda (three syllables in Japanese
and in Mandarin) made their first vehicle in 1931 (the "Mazdago"
three-wheeled truck), and their first car in 1960. Their first rotary
wasn't introduced until 1967. Their 2005 RX-8 has a rotary in it.
A common trait with Japanese manufacturers of the day- they tried to
identify a trend and buy into it lock, stock and barrel. It was easy
enough when they were playing catchup and had other (structural)
advantages. It got a lot harder when they caught up with (and in some
cases surpassed) everyone else-- the risk factors equalized.
The Wankel turned out to have a short life, be expensive to repair and
have poor fuel efficiency. Acceptable for a sports car, but not for a
family puddle-jumper.
Sounds like failure paid fairly well. Somebody else's money.
http://www.eedesign.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22102562
I notice they didn't mention anything about their sales, just their
venture capital funding. It would be interesting to see their business
plan. There are lots of good product concepts and good technologies
that are very difficult to make a profit from, let alone justify
USD4.40E07 in risk capital. Maybe they'll open-source it. ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:26:37 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
Perhaps not but, with the failure of the company, any IP which is
viable and negotiable after the inevitable rounds of NDA's will
certainly belong to the CV's.
And what are they going to do with it? Sell it?
LOL, they won't even understand how it works, all they'll know about
it is what they've been told.
--
John Fields
wrote:
---John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:
http://www.eedesign.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=60405676
Zero reading comprehension once again. The technology is proven and it
outperformed SPICE in spades for what it did, but the
customer base is too small, the functionality too limited, and
investment must have been
sizable :"Barcelona's customers include Analog Devices, Matsushita,
STMicroelectronics and Toshiba."
http://www.cadence.com/partners/connections/member.aspx?member=member_BarcelonaDesignInc
---
So your billion dollar customers deploy your hundred-thousand dollar
system because it's supposed to save them millions and they find it
lacking but, graciously, don't bother to ask for a refund. Instead,
they write you off. So now down in the noise even though you can
still call them customers, even if what you sold them didn't work for
them.
The company seems to me to be akin to Mazda, which initially came out
and touted Felix Wankel's rotary engine (which was supposed to be the
be-all and end-all of internal combustion engines) but, when sales
proved to be lackluster, quickly downshifted and started making
reciprocating engine cars, just like everyone else.
Lucky for Mazda (unless luck had nothing to do with it and they
successfully planned for a Waterloo) they managed to capture enough of
a share of the auto business to stay in business.
Barcelona, it seems, didn't successfully plan for failure with a
failure strategy, and even though they flailed around trying to keep
their heads above water when their ship sunk, they bit the dust.
Oh well...
Barcelona may be gone as an independent EDA but someone still owns the
IP and I'm certain this will be licensed to companies like Cadence and
others, let them market it to an existing market share- which is maybe
what they should have done from the start. Maybe they would never have
received the start-up VC-ization without big shot plans for becoming a
big shot enterprise with fantabulously high return on initial
investment. This may not be the bad luck story it appears to be on the
surface
Perhaps not but, with the failure of the company, any IP which is
viable and negotiable after the inevitable rounds of NDA's will
certainly belong to the CV's.
And what are they going to do with it? Sell it?
LOL, they won't even understand how it works, all they'll know about
it is what they've been told.
--
John Fields
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Rene Tschaggelar wrote:
sounds more like someone trying to incur favoritism than a business
plan. They *deserved* to go out of business. And if the product
attributes were not strong enough to dictate reasonable terms of sale
and trial, then they shouldn't have even started the thing in the first
place.
A 6-month *free* trial on a high priced item from a start-up? That
sounds more like someone trying to incur favoritism than a business
plan. They *deserved* to go out of business. And if the product
attributes were not strong enough to dictate reasonable terms of sale
and trial, then they shouldn't have even started the thing in the first
place.
N
Nico Coesel
Guest
Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote:
Besides, analog synthesis sounds like a next to non-existent market to
me.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Some coaching? I think some marketing. Technology doesn't sell itself.
Besides, analog synthesis sounds like a next to non-existent market to
me.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:28:57 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
I was talking to Mark Kahrs yesterday about the art-vs-science aspects
of analog design, and I mentioned the Barcelona thing. Turns out he
knows the technology and some of the people involved. He said this was
a classic case of have-a-hammer-so-everything-looks-like-a-nail. They
had something (can't remember the pronunciation) like a pithynomial or
something, a special class of polynomials that they figured was
efficient for solution-space searching and optimization, where the
goodness factor of any point in n-space was a Spice simulation result.
Clearly such searching is computationally demanding, so they decided
to throw hundreds of processors at a given problem. It wasn't nearly
enough.
This reminds me of the Taguchi technique, where circuits were
mathematically optimized but as a result generally didn't work. I'll
try to get more scoop; sounds interesting.
Gad, but I love analog design.
John
wrote:
Right. Sounds wonderful.
I was talking to Mark Kahrs yesterday about the art-vs-science aspects
of analog design, and I mentioned the Barcelona thing. Turns out he
knows the technology and some of the people involved. He said this was
a classic case of have-a-hammer-so-everything-looks-like-a-nail. They
had something (can't remember the pronunciation) like a pithynomial or
something, a special class of polynomials that they figured was
efficient for solution-space searching and optimization, where the
goodness factor of any point in n-space was a Spice simulation result.
Clearly such searching is computationally demanding, so they decided
to throw hundreds of processors at a given problem. It wasn't nearly
enough.
This reminds me of the Taguchi technique, where circuits were
mathematically optimized but as a result generally didn't work. I'll
try to get more scoop; sounds interesting.
Gad, but I love analog design.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:13:01 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
themselves, like develop their own electronics and write software from
scratch, because they think the money supply is unlimited and that
they're the smartest people in the world anyhow. One disaster I was
around, the folks decided they needed two scanning electron
microscopes to align their sample (cheap optical microscopes would
have worked fine) and then decided that, as a little side project,
they would just build their own. Ditto electronics: I designed (for
free) some pretty good, certainly workable stuff to get their
instrument going, but their engineers wanted to do it "better", so
megabucks later they're about where they were before.
John
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
I've seen a tendency for funded startups to try to do everything
themselves, like develop their own electronics and write software from
scratch, because they think the money supply is unlimited and that
they're the smartest people in the world anyhow. One disaster I was
around, the folks decided they needed two scanning electron
microscopes to align their sample (cheap optical microscopes would
have worked fine) and then decided that, as a little side project,
they would just build their own. Ditto electronics: I designed (for
free) some pretty good, certainly workable stuff to get their
instrument going, but their engineers wanted to do it "better", so
megabucks later they're about where they were before.
John
J
John Woodgate
Guest
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <44hm21h6jf15ahbd1bd4djj7nupf2qhdjg@
4ax.com> about 'I guess we're safe for a while longer...', on Sun, 6
Mar 2005:
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <44hm21h6jf15ahbd1bd4djj7nupf2qhdjg@
4ax.com>
about 'I guess we're safe for a while longer...', on Sun, 6Mar 2005:
Plethynomial?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:49:29 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
more. Business failures are always fascinating.
John
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
That sounds about right, but it doesn't google. I'll try to find outI read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <44hm21h6jf15ahbd1bd4djj7nupf2qhdjg@
4ax.com>
Mar 2005:
They had
something (can't remember the pronunciation) like a pithynomial or
something, a special class of polynomials that they figured was
efficient for solution-space searching and optimization, where the
goodness factor of any point in n-space was a Spice simulation result.
Plethynomial?
more. Business failures are always fascinating.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:49:29 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
"Posynomial." Lots of google hits. Seems to be the rage.
John
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <44hm21h6jf15ahbd1bd4djj7nupf2qhdjg@
4ax.com>
Mar 2005:
They had
something (can't remember the pronunciation) like a pithynomial or
something, a special class of polynomials that they figured was
efficient for solution-space searching and optimization, where the
goodness factor of any point in n-space was a Spice simulation result.
Plethynomial?
"Posynomial." Lots of google hits. Seems to be the rage.
John