Lpc2000

Arm  have just purchased Keil.

http://www.arm.com/news/10860.html

http://www.keil.com/pr/article/1085.htm

Arm has previously submitted code to gdb. Do you think
they will opensource the keil compilers, or better
still, move its code to the current armgcc?

I hope they do. If everyone working on arm cores can
produce more efficient code, this will give arm's
cores a sales boost. Intel tried the same with their
compiler set, although since they are selling their
compilers, people are just using less efficient
compilers in most cases. 


--- Alex Gibson <yahoo@...> wrote:

> Arm  have just purchased Keil.
> 
> http://www.arm.com/news/10860.html
> 
> http://www.keil.com/pr/article/1085.htm
>

I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I envision a 
scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core efficiently, you 
HAVE to buy their compiler.

Otherwise, for a company that exists solely to license Intellectual 
Property, it doesn't make sense to buy a compiler company.  Unless 
they figure they can make the compiler more competitive through 
other means.

I never see the optimistic side of anything.  But, Lily Tomlin had 
it right: "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up!".



--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Ghazan Haider <ghazanhaider@y...> 
wrote:

>
> 
> Arm has previously submitted code to gdb. Do you think
> they will opensource the keil compilers, or better
> still, move its code to the current armgcc?
> 
> I hope they do. If everyone working on arm cores can
> produce more efficient code, this will give arm's
> cores a sales boost. Intel tried the same with their
> compiler set, although since they are selling their
> compilers, people are just using less efficient
> compilers in most cases. 
> 
> 
> --- Alex Gibson <yahoo@a...> wrote:
> 
> > Arm  have just purchased Keil.
> > 
> > http://www.arm.com/news/10860.html
> > 
> > http://www.keil.com/pr/article/1085.htm
> >
>

Hi, 

> Arm has previously submitted code to gdb. Do you think they 
> will opensource the keil compilers, or better still, move its 
> code to the current armgcc?

You gotta be smokin' crack if you even think this would happen.  ARM
funds GCC development via CodeSourcery
http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm/ which is enough to have
an almost-free toolset for their customers.

> I hope they do. If everyone working on arm cores can produce 
> more efficient code, this will give arm's cores a sales 
> boost.

ARM needs a thriving 3P network to continue the momentum.  Also, don't
underestimate exactly how much ARM makes from software tool sales--just
look at their accounts.  From ARM's perspective, new licensees are good
business, but there's no way they'll turn off the tap by open sourcing
something they paid $4.6M for and butchering their healthy tools
sales--it'd be like cutting their own throat using a knife they paid
for.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors

Hi, 

> I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I 
> envision a scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core 
> efficiently, you HAVE to buy their compiler.

That's nonsense--why else do 3Ps exist if not to compete with ARM's
compiler?  I reckon IAR and Green Hills, and probably others, would
vehemently defend their position as worthy competitors to ARM's tools.
I choose those two simply because their prices are comparable with ARM's
pricing model.

> Otherwise, for a company that exists solely to license 
> Intellectual Property, it doesn't make sense to buy a 
> compiler company.  Unless they figure they can make the 
> compiler more competitive through other means.

I do not believe that ARM purchased Keil to get the Keil ARM compiler.
Far from it.  My reading of the situation is that ARM needed something
more than they have now and went out shopping for it.  Keil provided an
opportunity to get some simulation technology together with an IDE and
debugger, and the 8051 and C166 came for free and can be cast out in
some fashion in the future.  You have to realise that ARM worked with
Metrowerks to get CodeWarrior integration.  I'm no great fan of
CodeWarrior, I find it confusing at best, so I expect ARM's indirect
customers told them they needed to refresh their tools.

> I never see the optimistic side of anything.  But, Lily 
> Tomlin had it right: "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up!".

Optimism, pessimism, or cynicism has nothing to do with why ARM
purchased Keil.

If I were a Keil customer for C166 and 8051, I'd be looking at my
options to move to another toolset because I think that these will
wither away in the long term.

Well, that's my reading of the situation.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
>
> Hi, 
> 
> > I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I 
> > envision a scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core 
> > efficiently, you HAVE to buy their compiler.
> 
> That's nonsense--why else do 3Ps exist if not to compete with ARM's
> compiler?  I reckon IAR and Green Hills, and probably others, would
> vehemently defend their position as worthy competitors to ARM's 
tools.
> I choose those two simply because their prices are comparable with 
ARM's
> pricing model.

Because ARM makes money on the IP.  They can price the compiler in 
such a way that all of the competition dies.  There would be two 
platforms - open source GNU and ARM/Keil.  At $99.95 even I would 
buy the package!

It will be fun to watch but I don't have a business or financial 
interest in how it shakes out.  This is just a hobby; it's hard to 
take it serious.

Hi rtstofer

Are you serious?
For 99.99 I would by the Keil immeadetly.

Cheers
Michael

>From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@...>
>Reply-To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
>To: lpc2000@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [lpc2000] Re: ARM buys Keil
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:40:13 -0000
>
>--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I
> > > envision a scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core
> > > efficiently, you HAVE to buy their compiler.
> >
> > That's nonsense--why else do 3Ps exist if not to compete with ARM's
> > compiler?  I reckon IAR and Green Hills, and probably others, would
> > vehemently defend their position as worthy competitors to ARM's
>tools.
> > I choose those two simply because their prices are comparable with
>ARM's
> > pricing model.
>
>Because ARM makes money on the IP.  They can price the compiler in
>such a way that all of the competition dies.  There would be two
>platforms - open source GNU and ARM/Keil.  At $99.95 even I would
>buy the package!
>
>It will be fun to watch but I don't have a business or financial
>interest in how it shakes out.  This is just a hobby; it's hard to
>take it serious.
>
>
>
>

At 04:40 PM 10/30/2005, rtstofer wrote:

>--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I
> > > envision a scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core
> > > efficiently, you HAVE to buy their compiler.
> >
> > That's nonsense--why else do 3Ps exist if not to compete with ARM's
> > compiler?  I reckon IAR and Green Hills, and probably others, would
> > vehemently defend their position as worthy competitors to ARM's
>tools.
> > I choose those two simply because their prices are comparable with
>ARM's
> > pricing model.
>
>Because ARM makes money on the IP.  They can price the compiler in
>such a way that all of the competition dies.  There would be two
>platforms - open source GNU and ARM/Keil.  At $99.95 even I would
>buy the package!

Heee heee, have you thought through this? How does it benefit ARM to kill 
off the compiler competitions?

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com)

Richard <richard-lists@...> schrieb am Mon, 31 Oct 2005 
00:48:49 -0800:

>> Because ARM makes money on the IP.  They can price the compiler in
>> such a way that all of the competition dies.  There would be two
>> platforms - open source GNU and ARM/Keil.  At $99.95 even I would
>> buy the package!
>
> Heee heee, have you thought through this? How does it benefit ARM to kill
> off the compiler competitions?
>

I guess we'll never hear the real reason, we can only speculate:
- Getting a low-price compiler.
- Killing a major compiler supply for Infineon chips.
- Getting again a working IDE (but then, why not going for Eclipse ?)

But it is not only an compiler issue. Keil has an RTOS which is now
owned by ARM. So it is getting harder to sell an RTOS for ARM.

(In the end it would have been more reasonable for Infineon to buy Keil
as they did with Hitex before.)

-- 
42Bastian Schick

Hi, 

> > > I think it more likely to be the other way around.  I envision a 
> > > scenario where, if you want to use the ARM core efficiently, you 
> > > HAVE to buy their compiler.
> > 
> > That's nonsense--why else do 3Ps exist if not to compete with ARM's 
> > compiler?  I reckon IAR and Green Hills, and probably others, would 
> > vehemently defend their position as worthy competitors to ARM's
> tools.
> > I choose those two simply because their prices are comparable with
> ARM's
> > pricing model.
> 
> Because ARM makes money on the IP.  

Leaving Artisan aside, there are two classes of IP that ARM owns: #1 is
the ARM core and #2 is the ARM software set.  It makes good money on
both, look at the accounrs.

> They can price the 
> compiler in such a way that all of the competition dies.  

Oh yeah, kill your third parties, what an absolutely great idea!  Not
only that, pay $4.6M to kill of your software IP income.  Become a
single source supply of ARM hardware and software.  You think that's a
good thing?

> There would be two platforms - open source GNU and ARM/Keil.  
> At $99.95 even I would buy the package!

Face it, the Keil package isn't going to come down in price to that
level.

--
Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors

It has been interesting reading the emails about this Keil purchase.

As a business owner myself I view this from the standpoint of who really
wanted the deal: (a) did ARM come up with the idea of buying Keil, or (b)
was Keil looking to get bought.  I think it was most certainly the later.

I talked to some of the guys in Keil last year and they were scrambling to
catch up to the ARM revolution.  Keil was the king of the 8051 market and
that market had nearly fallen off a cliff overnight due to the rapid rise of
ARM.  Their sales and revenue had seriously dropped very fast.  Keil was
caught with their pants down, had nothing to sell for ARM, and so they
introduced a GNU quicky clone just to stay in the game.

But the money in these types of engr products is rapidly shrinking.  The old
days of selling tools for $$$$ in the 8051 market is at an end with low cost
and/or free ARM market.  Guys like Paul, Richard, etc. and the free GNU
world are driving the price points continually lower.  CATC started a nice
business selling USB detective probes for $5K, now you can buy a USB probe
for $400.  The result: CATC was going broke and sold out to LeCroy.

My guess is that the owner(s) at Keil know where the future is headed, and
their numbers and their direction were getting scary, so they are cashing
out now before their value drops any further.  I really don't think ARM had
any need or desire to buy Keil, but I think the owners at Keil had a very
big desire to find someone to buy them now before their revenue gets worse.

More demise of other embedded tools vendors is probably coming.

Chris.

Hi,

Paul wrote:

>> Because ARM makes money on the IP.  

> Leaving Artisan aside, there are two classes of IP that ARM owns: #1 is
> the ARM core and #2 is the ARM software set.  It makes good money on
> both, look at the accounrs.

Also, bear in mind the cellular 3G market.
ARM covers 100% of that, ALL 3G phones have ARM in it.....

B rgds
Kris

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Microbit" <microbit@o...> wrote:
> Also, bear in mind the cellular 3G market.
> ARM covers 100% of that, ALL 3G phones have ARM in it.....
> 
> B rgds
> Kris

Sometimes more than just one ARM.   ;-)

--Dave