New Software

[Kevin Aylward]

Stephan Rose wrote:

snip

No chance. It will take way longer than 1 man year. Trust me on this.
The SS gui is 100k lines of code, and no, its not bloated.

Longer for the end goal, yes.

ROTFLMAO.

But to have a sellable product to start
out with, 1 year is quite possible.

Yeah, one with not so good features, bugs etc..as most products are. So,
what's new?

As far as the lines of code are concerned, great for you...I'm not
gonna get into a code line contest here.....

That was not the intent. Only that it is a lot of work, more than I
think you realise.

snip

But there are already too many companies in the low end market. They
*all* had the same idea. Why do you think that you can succeed where
these, supposedly fail?. Are you an personally an expert pcb layout
and schematic user in conjunction with your software abilities? Do
you know, personally, exactly *all* of the details that are required
for a good pcb product e.g gerber formats, routing algorithms etc...
If not, no chance. One has to make mistakes. Its the only way we get
things correct.

If everyone though "jeez..nobody else was able to do this..so I can't
either." you know where we would be? we'd still be sitting in caves,
banging on rocks hoping we'll get a spark for a fire....

Again, not the point. No one is claiming that you aren't capable of
doing the job, in principle. We all have to learn sometime. Its the time
and effort involved in learning that is at issue, not ability.

No I don't know *ALL* the details. I probably don't even know *half*
the details.

I doubt even that. CAD is very specialised. Most learn the techniques
whilst in another CAD company. If you haven't, you have to reinvent all
the wheels, personally.

But I'm willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to
create a product, willing to bring it out..willing to listen to
feedback, implement the feedback..and improve.

Oh dear... and this is different from any other developer?. You seem to
be living in a dream world. *Every* feature added takes time. You can't
put in what every one wants, so how do know what to you choose? e.g.
many users are not experts, so they ask for things that are not very
useful but take up much time.

I suspect that you are a youngster, wet behind the ears.

I'm simply trying to be
good, and trying to improve on things I personally saw that could
use improvement, and currently trying to gather on ideas that other
people think could use improvement and see if any of it can be
included.

This means that you don't *already* know what makes a good cad
product, so how to you think that you are going to overcome this
learning curve? What do you think all the other companies do? You
reckon that they never ask their customers what they would like?

The same way I overcome every other learning curve. I climb it...

Its not your technical competence and ability to learn new things that
is being questioned.

I am obviously not getting through to you. With all due respect, you
have the audacity to think that you will come up with a good product,
yet it appears that you are not currently an expert in the use of such
products or sufficiently acquainted with the design details of such a
product, therefore you have nothing new to offer, but enthusiasm.

Tell me, why do you think the companies that have a poor product, have a
poor product? Do you think that all the software writers are idiots?
That these people are simply clueless from a technical point of view?

You need to realise that bad products are not usually due to technical
incompetence. The depth of technical skill required is not large, but
the breadth is. *Application* knowledge is key. If you are not bringing
any additional and better knowledge to the party, you cant to do better
than any of the others. You cant bring any better knowledge, because you
currently don't have it. The other companies *already* have way more
knowledge than you, and they, according to you, are failing, so to
suggest that you can is stretching credibility.

The next major issue is marketing the damm thing...

snip yet again...

You get what you pay for, more or less. What I will tell you, is that
when I increased my product sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got
more sales. Think some more on this.

And I am pushing to charge as much as possible..while still trying to
maintain a little edge price and feature wise.

As do we all. Again, I sense a naive youngster.

definitely too long..

I wrote SS for personal satisfaction. Its something I personally
wanted to do. 4 years of coding was a nice little hobby. However,
for a professional company to undertake, "yet another me too
product", is pretty much daft, imo.

And that's your opinion, you're very much entitled to it.

Indeed, and one based on experience.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Leon Heller]

Stephan Rose wrote:

Well seeing a lot of complaints here on this NG about various design
products out there, and also trial testing many commercial packages
ourselves and cursing within minutes....(still using 12yr old tango
from dos, how sad is that?)

We've decided to simply..make our own. Me being the guy who's writing
the software.

Have you tried Pulsonix? It does most of what you are aiming for and
isn't all that expensive.

Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
Email: aqzf13@dsl.pipex.com
My low-cost Philips LPC210x ARM development system:
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller/lpc2104.html

 

[Paul Camilleri]

I agree with Kevin. But I wonder about Stephan's 'boss' lurking in the
background.

The 'salary' has been mentioned along with 'cost' and the fact that the
'go-ahead' has apparently been given (to me accounting for the absorbtion of
the impact of the initial (total?) loss - on the balance sheet).

I therefore assume a reasonably profitable business is behind all this.
Could it be that Kevin's valid observations have already been addressed but
the company 'front man' does not know about it?

In all honesty, the inexperience indicated here (whilst other aspects are
applaudible if genuine) could just as easily be attributed to any eager PR
man. Just my opinion, but I have been called a sceptic in the past...

Paul Camilleri

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
newssnUb.39$DG5.29@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Stephan Rose wrote:
snip

No chance. It will take way longer than 1 man year. Trust me on this.
The SS gui is 100k lines of code, and no, its not bloated.

Longer for the end goal, yes.

ROTFLMAO.

But to have a sellable product to start
out with, 1 year is quite possible.


Yeah, one with not so good features, bugs etc..as most products are. So,
what's new?

As far as the lines of code are concerned, great for you...I'm not
gonna get into a code line contest here.....

That was not the intent. Only that it is a lot of work, more than I
think you realise.


snip

But there are already too many companies in the low end market. They
*all* had the same idea. Why do you think that you can succeed where
these, supposedly fail?. Are you an personally an expert pcb layout
and schematic user in conjunction with your software abilities? Do
you know, personally, exactly *all* of the details that are required
for a good pcb product e.g gerber formats, routing algorithms etc...
If not, no chance. One has to make mistakes. Its the only way we get
things correct.

If everyone though "jeez..nobody else was able to do this..so I can't
either." you know where we would be? we'd still be sitting in caves,
banging on rocks hoping we'll get a spark for a fire....

Again, not the point. No one is claiming that you aren't capable of
doing the job, in principle. We all have to learn sometime. Its the time
and effort involved in learning that is at issue, not ability.


No I don't know *ALL* the details. I probably don't even know *half*
the details.

I doubt even that. CAD is very specialised. Most learn the techniques
whilst in another CAD company. If you haven't, you have to reinvent all
the wheels, personally.

But I'm willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to
create a product, willing to bring it out..willing to listen to
feedback, implement the feedback..and improve.

Oh dear... and this is different from any other developer?. You seem to
be living in a dream world. *Every* feature added takes time. You can't
put in what every one wants, so how do know what to you choose? e.g.
many users are not experts, so they ask for things that are not very
useful but take up much time.

I suspect that you are a youngster, wet behind the ears.


I'm simply trying to be
good, and trying to improve on things I personally saw that could
use improvement, and currently trying to gather on ideas that other
people think could use improvement and see if any of it can be
included.

This means that you don't *already* know what makes a good cad
product, so how to you think that you are going to overcome this
learning curve? What do you think all the other companies do? You
reckon that they never ask their customers what they would like?

The same way I overcome every other learning curve. I climb it...

Its not your technical competence and ability to learn new things that
is being questioned.

I am obviously not getting through to you. With all due respect, you
have the audacity to think that you will come up with a good product,
yet it appears that you are not currently an expert in the use of such
products or sufficiently acquainted with the design details of such a
product, therefore you have nothing new to offer, but enthusiasm.

Tell me, why do you think the companies that have a poor product, have a
poor product? Do you think that all the software writers are idiots?
That these people are simply clueless from a technical point of view?

You need to realise that bad products are not usually due to technical
incompetence. The depth of technical skill required is not large, but
the breadth is. *Application* knowledge is key. If you are not bringing
any additional and better knowledge to the party, you cant to do better
than any of the others. You cant bring any better knowledge, because you
currently don't have it. The other companies *already* have way more
knowledge than you, and they, according to you, are failing, so to
suggest that you can is stretching credibility.

The next major issue is marketing the damm thing...


snip yet again...

You get what you pay for, more or less. What I will tell you, is that
when I increased my product sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got
more sales. Think some more on this.

And I am pushing to charge as much as possible..while still trying to
maintain a little edge price and feature wise.

As do we all. Again, I sense a naive youngster.


definitely too long..

I wrote SS for personal satisfaction. Its something I personally
wanted to do. 4 years of coding was a nice little hobby. However,
for a professional company to undertake, "yet another me too
product", is pretty much daft, imo.

And that's your opinion, you're very much entitled to it.

Indeed, and one based on experience.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Bottom line:

You believe I can't do it
I believe I can do it

Lets leave it at that cuz everything else will just end up in
escallating into I don't know what

I suppose..time will tell who's right.

One fact remains however.

If I try this, I might fail, this is true. I may also succeed however.
If I don't do anything..I will fail.

So we'll find out

Stephan

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:49:23 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Stephan Rose wrote:
snip

No chance. It will take way longer than 1 man year. Trust me on this.
The SS gui is 100k lines of code, and no, its not bloated.

Longer for the end goal, yes.

ROTFLMAO.

But to have a sellable product to start
out with, 1 year is quite possible.


Yeah, one with not so good features, bugs etc..as most products are. So,
what's new?

As far as the lines of code are concerned, great for you...I'm not
gonna get into a code line contest here.....

That was not the intent. Only that it is a lot of work, more than I
think you realise.


snip

But there are already too many companies in the low end market. They
*all* had the same idea. Why do you think that you can succeed where
these, supposedly fail?. Are you an personally an expert pcb layout
and schematic user in conjunction with your software abilities? Do
you know, personally, exactly *all* of the details that are required
for a good pcb product e.g gerber formats, routing algorithms etc...
If not, no chance. One has to make mistakes. Its the only way we get
things correct.

If everyone though "jeez..nobody else was able to do this..so I can't
either." you know where we would be? we'd still be sitting in caves,
banging on rocks hoping we'll get a spark for a fire....

Again, not the point. No one is claiming that you aren't capable of
doing the job, in principle. We all have to learn sometime. Its the time
and effort involved in learning that is at issue, not ability.


No I don't know *ALL* the details. I probably don't even know *half*
the details.

I doubt even that. CAD is very specialised. Most learn the techniques
whilst in another CAD company. If you haven't, you have to reinvent all
the wheels, personally.

But I'm willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to
create a product, willing to bring it out..willing to listen to
feedback, implement the feedback..and improve.

Oh dear... and this is different from any other developer?. You seem to
be living in a dream world. *Every* feature added takes time. You can't
put in what every one wants, so how do know what to you choose? e.g.
many users are not experts, so they ask for things that are not very
useful but take up much time.

I suspect that you are a youngster, wet behind the ears.


I'm simply trying to be
good, and trying to improve on things I personally saw that could
use improvement, and currently trying to gather on ideas that other
people think could use improvement and see if any of it can be
included.

This means that you don't *already* know what makes a good cad
product, so how to you think that you are going to overcome this
learning curve? What do you think all the other companies do? You
reckon that they never ask their customers what they would like?

The same way I overcome every other learning curve. I climb it...

Its not your technical competence and ability to learn new things that
is being questioned.

I am obviously not getting through to you. With all due respect, you
have the audacity to think that you will come up with a good product,
yet it appears that you are not currently an expert in the use of such
products or sufficiently acquainted with the design details of such a
product, therefore you have nothing new to offer, but enthusiasm.

Tell me, why do you think the companies that have a poor product, have a
poor product? Do you think that all the software writers are idiots?
That these people are simply clueless from a technical point of view?

You need to realise that bad products are not usually due to technical
incompetence. The depth of technical skill required is not large, but
the breadth is. *Application* knowledge is key. If you are not bringing
any additional and better knowledge to the party, you cant to do better
than any of the others. You cant bring any better knowledge, because you
currently don't have it. The other companies *already* have way more
knowledge than you, and they, according to you, are failing, so to
suggest that you can is stretching credibility.

The next major issue is marketing the damm thing...


snip yet again...

You get what you pay for, more or less. What I will tell you, is that
when I increased my product sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got
more sales. Think some more on this.

And I am pushing to charge as much as possible..while still trying to
maintain a little edge price and feature wise.

As do we all. Again, I sense a naive youngster.


definitely too long..

I wrote SS for personal satisfaction. Its something I personally
wanted to do. 4 years of coding was a nice little hobby. However,
for a professional company to undertake, "yet another me too
product", is pretty much daft, imo.

And that's your opinion, you're very much entitled to it.

Indeed, and one based on experience.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Stuart Brorson]

Stephan Rose <ker-spam-mos@kermos-no-spam-reversed.net> wrote:
: Bottom line:

: You believe I can't do it
: I believe I can do it

: Lets leave it at that cuz everything else will just end up in
: escallating into I don't know what

: I suppose..time will tell who's right.

: One fact remains however.

: If I try this, I might fail, this is true. I may also succeed however.
: If I don't do anything..I will fail.

: So we'll find out

: Stephan

Stephan,

I wish you luck, and hope you make it! Remember:

* Port to Linux simulaneously, not as an afterthought. If it's
broken or crippled under Linux, you will miss a big market.

* All ASCII file formats! Don't hide the internals. I often write
scripts which do things like validate netlists & attach attributes. I
hate it when the internal files are obscured 'cause I can't then do
this. (Actually, I don't hate it -- I just don't use that software!)

* Incorporate SPICE into the schematic capture GUI a la MicroSim.

* Since you will integrate schematic capture & PCB layout, please
incorporate Mentor's feature where you touch a component or net in the
layout program & the corresponding component or net in schematic
capture lights up. Making this work the other way around would be
helpful too. This is very useful during board debug.

Stuart

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:27:15 -0000, Stuart Brorson <sdb@cloud9.net>
wrote:

Stephan Rose <ker-spam-mos@kermos-no-spam-reversed.net> wrote:
: Bottom line:

: You believe I can't do it
: I believe I can do it

: Lets leave it at that cuz everything else will just end up in
: escallating into I don't know what

: I suppose..time will tell who's right.

: One fact remains however.

: If I try this, I might fail, this is true. I may also succeed however.
: If I don't do anything..I will fail.

: So we'll find out

: Stephan

Stephan,

I wish you luck, and hope you make it! Remember:

* Port to Linux simulaneously, not as an afterthought. If it's
broken or crippled under Linux, you will miss a big market.

Short of the rendering core...not a problem, and the rendering core is
easily ported.

* All ASCII file formats! Don't hide the internals. I often write
scripts which do things like validate netlists & attach attributes. I
hate it when the internal files are obscured 'cause I can't then do
this. (Actually, I don't hate it -- I just don't use that software!)

That was already planned.

* Incorporate SPICE into the schematic capture GUI a la MicroSim.

Planned....though probably won't make it to the first release.

* Since you will integrate schematic capture & PCB layout, please
incorporate Mentor's feature where you touch a component or net in the
layout program & the corresponding component or net in schematic
capture lights up. Making this work the other way around would be
helpful too. This is very useful during board debug.

Now that's the kind of input I'm looking for. Very nice idea....can
do. Maybe I'll even extend it down as far as pads & pins.

Thanks!

Stephan

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Stephan Rose wrote:

So we'll find out

Stephan

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:49:23 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


As do we all. Again, I sense a naive youngster.


definitely too long..

I wrote SS for personal satisfaction. Its something I personally
wanted to do. 4 years of coding was a nice little hobby. However,
for a professional company to undertake, "yet another me too
product", is pretty much daft, imo.

And that's your opinion, you're very much entitled to it.

Indeed, and one based on experience.

Bottom line:

You believe I can't do it
I believe I can do it

Again, you simply miss all the points. Its not about your inherent
technical competence. Its about the realities of producing a product,
than getting it sold.

Yes, you might well be able to make a decent product, in time, *after*
you have made the same or similar mistakes that we all made to get to
where we are today.

Lets leave it at that cuz everything else will just end up in
escallating into I don't know what

I suppose..time will tell who's right.

Indeed.

Look, I agree, not everyone with 20 years experience does, some have one
years of experience 20 times, but you are simply daft to ignore *all*
experience. all your doing is huffing and puffing. "I'll show them".
wise up and smell the roses.

One fact remains however.

If I try this, I might fail, this is true. I may also succeed however.
If I don't do anything..I will fail.

That's not the point. Its not about failure, its about whether or not
you'll achieve the required goals, first time, and in the required time.
Pretty much anyone can achieve perfection given infinite time and
infinite money.

The reality is that around 90% of new products fail. Your initial post
indicates that you have no where near the knowledge to succeeded in a
market *already* saturated. You don't have an edge. What's sad, is that
you are too naive and blinkered to understand these realities.

Your simply picking the *wrong* product to try and "show them all
wrong", and "I can do anything". You taking it personally and its
colouring your judgment, rather than as a realistic and independent
evaluation of the market place and what it really takes to get a product
out that you have no prior direct experience in, and which is a "me too"
product.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:49:47 -0800, Charles Edmondson
edmondson.ns@ns.ieee.org.invalid> wrote:


Stephan Rose wrote:

[snip]

Thanks I'm going to have some initial screenshots of the SCM
Component designer up later this month...I'll post some links to that.




Stuart


Stephan,
Take a look at Microwave Office from AWR. You will see a lot of what
you are thinking of doing, except they initially targeted the RF market
for their products. Real Cool Stuff!

Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems


Speaking of which... how's Mohi enjoying his position at AWR?

...Jim Thompson
Seems fairly happy! Especially the short drive, since he now has the

same drive I have here! Also, he was always an RF expert, so he gets to
use that part of his skills better!

Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

 

[Charles DH Williams]

In article <4c8Ub.144$_D.14@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

What I will tell you, is that
when I increased my product sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got
more sales.

Okay, assuming nothing but the price changed, I wouldn't have
expected that. I'd have guessed at a drop in number of sales,
but a modest raise in total revenue.

What's what's your explanation for the effect?

Charles.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Kevin, Charles;

What I will tell you, is that when I increased my product
sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got more sales.

Okay, assuming nothing but the price changed, I wouldn't have
expected that. I'd have guessed at a drop in number of sales,
but a modest raise in total revenue.

What's what's your explanation for the effect?

People assume things are worth more if you charge more money for
them. It looks more respectable if you charge more. If I didn't
think it would ultimately otherwise hurt company credibility, I would
promote selling LTspice in addition to allowing it to be downloaded
for free to communicate to people that it's worth more than such-and-
such pay-for products. (FYI, I've suggested prices from $15K to $75K
and there's certainly a bunch of fancy unique analysis features to it
to justify that to some users). But doing so would hurt once people
realized it was all a manipulative ploy to promote it an elaborate
form of sales collateral. Whereas it's been touted that nobody makes
money by overestimating the intelligence of the population, you have
to respect the intellect of the engineers designing in IC's. Anyway,
it's probably no longer interesting to try to make LTspice more popular
with pricing games since it's already popular enough.

Good luck to the OP. Kevin has given you advice worth your reading
and worth more than you paid for it. But don't get wrapping up
right or wrong -- think about your business model and how is your
project is going to work for you.

--Mike

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mike Engelhardt wrote:

Kevin, Charles;

What I will tell you, is that when I increased my product
sale price from $50 to $200, I truly got more sales.

Okay, assuming nothing but the price changed, I wouldn't have
expected that. I'd have guessed at a drop in number of sales,
but a modest raise in total revenue.

What's what's your explanation for the effect?

People assume things are worth more if you charge more money for
them. It looks more respectable if you charge more.

Exactly. Have you ever had a conversation with those Golden ears dudes,
the ones that pay $5000, per channel, for a tube hi-if amp? Or the ones
that pay $200 for an oxygen free mains power cord?. Its only the price
that "convinces" them that they hear a difference.

If I didn't
think it would ultimately otherwise hurt company credibility, I would
promote selling LTspice in addition to allowing it to be downloaded
for free to communicate to people that it's worth more than such-and-
such pay-for products. (FYI, I've suggested prices from $15K to $75K
and there's certainly a bunch of fancy unique analysis features to it
to justify that to some users).

I would agree that to a certain number of *professional* i.c designers,
i.e. those doing large analogue circuits, especially switching ones, the
LTSpice *engine* might well be worth paying $50k for, as it would
appear to be several times faster than existing engines. Certainly,
where a two day run is shorted to 1/2 a day it would be a significant
benefit. The issue is that it is diminishing returns for more typical
designs. Indeed many if us analogue designers quite like the run taking
a little while, it gives us more opportunity to go to the coffee
machine, chat away to our mates in the next cubicle partition, have a
read of the paper, etc.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.