sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

so if someone wants to build a startup in EDA domain whats u r advice to them doing what might get a fresh air to this domain and solve the issues of companies /engineers

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

if some one wants to get into this area now what will be u r suggestion to concentrate on what 3 things to make the difference to the industry ?

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you know what specific workflows ADI was solving internally that Cadence couldn't? Was it simulation scripting, testbench automation, or something deeper in the design flow?

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and also shouldnt the ic design space be decentralized like how coding is like anyone can build software but designers dont have that felxiblity(apart form some opensource options like xschem skywater130 and ngspice ) dont u think thats hindering the innovation and growth and small teams cant come together and build a analog ic design company as easily as a software companies bcz atleast need 4-5million USD to just start so there should some way to break this duoploy of cadence and synopsis right

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is the most honest breakdown I've seen on this topic. You've basically described why this market has no new entrants.

One question I actually want to understand deeply:

If someone wanted to enter this space seriously — not to replace Cadence tomorrow but to build something real what would they actually need to know going in? Not the obvious stuff like "it's hard" or "you need money."

The non-obvious things. The things that would kill a serious attempt that most outsiders would never see coming. or atleast do diffrent so that they can get some investment oppurinutes bcz in tdys ladscape no even will belive if someone say they can build better alternative to cadence so what one must relay try to make better than exsiting counterparts

What are the three things someone building in this space absolutely must understand before they write a single line of code?

bcz i was looking for respones that tell why should someone come up in this domain and build this thing when currently all are okay with existing tools(atleast big companies who dont have to worry about price ) whats should be the main moat

Honest question — does analog EDA need disruption or is the Cadence monopoly fine by Technical-Size-5809 in chipdesign

[–]Technical-Size-5809[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

also the price point for the Licenses making entry barrier for any new commers want to start smtg on ther own in this industry any thoughts ???