upvote
Exactly, do they want people to buy their FPGAs or not? Charging per-seat licenses for developers and heavily restricting the free version mean people will buy from other vendors or just not use an FPGA at all.
reply
FPGAs are mostly used for small series and custom hardware. If you add the software price to the FPGA unit price, it becomes more expensive if you buy, lets say, 1000 FPGAs to ship in your product. Even though you might only license the software once.

It is a trade off, and I have no idea about the state and quality of Vivado. Back in the day I was tinkering with FPGAs, the Xilinx software stack was horrible.

reply
Still is. I think got a tiny little bit better, but sucks.
reply
Which is a pro-argument for the licensing change - maybe if they can make it a revenue stream, quality can improve. Back at Uni when we tinkered with FPGA in a lab course I was excited about the topic of reconfigurable computing, but I got mostly repelled by the bad state and quality of the dev tools and I (and some other students) did decide not to persue that field further. They lost some potential clients that year early on.
reply
>The software suite should come for free.

Ideally yes, SW should be free, but we don't live in an ideal world. This isn't Apple or Google who can give you SW for free since they take a 30% cut on everything on the Appstore besides the profit margins on the HW they sell you.

The typical customers of FPGAs are large HW companies with money to spend on SW, not tinkerers in their garage who might some day build a billion dollar company. And if you do become a billion dollar garage company, you will still buy their FPGAs because they're some of the best and the SW costs will be a rounding error plus a tax write-off. You think Anduril doesn't use Xilinx FPGAs because Palmer LUckey didn't get SW for free 15 years ago?

So there's zero incentive to give away SW, that's costly to develop, for free.

reply
> So there's zero incentive to give away SW, that's costly to develop, for free.

I don't think that's necessarily a hard rule, here. Nvidia won over the HPC segment by offering CUDA and PTX as a free value-add to their hardware, and ended up becoming a multi-trillion dollar company that ate AMD's datacenter market for lunch.

Giving away software to commoditize your compliment might be a good idea, for AMD.

reply
>Nvidia won over the HPC segment by offering CUDA and PTX as a free value-add to their hardware

Yeah but people would buy Nvidia chips mainly for gaming, not (just) for CUDA, so basically the massive gaming clientele would finance expensive projects that don't yet make any money like CUDA. Meanwhile nobnody buys FPGAs for playing at home en-masse. There's no equivalent consumer market like gamers for the FPGA vendors, their sales are almost exclusively B-2-B.

FPGAs isn't something most people, even the hardcore tinkerers ned at home. Consumers into hardware tinkering are more than fine with what you can do with Raspberry PIs, ESP32s, STM32 boards.

reply
Not to mention, the software is horrendous to use
reply
Bloated and slow, but almost everything is automatable via TCL. A lot of the other profssional SW can only boast about being bloated and slow.

Once you learn how to get automation to work for you, it's not that bad.

reply
Well, at least they don't really try hard to protect their software, unlike some other brands.
reply