Jim,

This is true. FPGA business is not usually as tough as the commodity
business model you describe, but hey, if you did the design with both
vendors, then you can bang them together until the lowest price falls out.

I used to do that all the time when I was in the telecom business. Did
not like it, but I did it. Only because the phone companies bang the
vendors together until the lowest price falls out.

Austin

jim granville wrote:
>> Patrick MacGregor wrote:
>>
>>> Last year X announced a cool design win using their parts in a new
>>> Gibson
>>> guitar line. Neat stuff.
>>>
>>> Couple days ago I see that A has a press release saying they stole the
>>> business with NIOS + Cyclone.
>>>
>>> Today I see X saying S3 is the clear winner and Gibson is using it
>>> exclusively.
>>>
>>> Anyone know what is really going on?
>>>
>>> Just curious. The Gibson product is kinda cool regardless of who's
>>> part is
>>> in it.
>
> Austin Lesea wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> We are just as puzzled as you.
>>
>> We also saw Altera's press release with Gibson, yet Gibson awarded us
>> the "supplier of the year award" at CES in Las Vegas just moments
>> ago.....
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040108/sfth127_1.html
>
>
> Of course, these two do not have to be mutually exclusive...
>
>>
>> Could be they are going to use the "hard-to-copy" program in an
>> attempt to reduce costs, or it could be that a new manager or new
>> consultant has decided that they must "take control" and "make
>> decisions."
>>
>> All very puzzling.
>
>
> Not really. One of the better ways to get improved supply and price
> is to have both brands ready to deploy, so you can
> 'wave the opposition under the rep's nose'.
> It also does no harm, if you really do intend to move to ASIC,
> and if there are questions about availability of either vendor's
> devices, this also makes sound sense.
> Where is the puzzle here ?
>
> -jg
>