Talk:Synopsys

Major players

Three big in EDA industry, Synopsys, Cadence and Mentor, right? Magma will be the fourth big one though it's relatively small now. --philewar 13:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the EDA market has always been in an oligopoly situation. Magma might be one of the top players in future, but I think that currently they are about one fourth of Mentor's size. jni 12:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I get the term "oligopoly" as a sad joke. The problem is that the whole EDA market (around $4B as of 2004 and no chance of significant growth of demand) simply cannot "feed" more big guns. Not to say that it is "brain-intensive". To write a good EDA tool takes much more guts than an internet cookie-cutter portal or yet another bean counter. In particular, the only real chance for Magma to grow is to "steal" a cut from the big troika, which will vigorously object, of course. Mikkalai 17:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After the recent post-merger slide of Synopsys from an impressive market cap of 4.6B, the players stand as follows (10/08/2004)

CDN 3.53B (past year slid from $19/share to $14/share)

SNPS 2.45B (past year slid from $36/share to $15/share)

MENT 0.81B (past year slid from $18/share to $12/share)

LAVA 0.47B (past year slid from $28/share to $14/share)

For comparison, some other industries

MSFT 306.B microsoft

BA 42.5B boeing

WMT 224B Wal-mart

UMC 11B United microelectronics

SUNW 14B Sun micro

INTC 133B Intel

You look more yourself. Revenue/profit comparisons are even more pitiful. So the "bigs" in EDA are dwarfs in USA. Mikkalai 17:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

EDA industry recap, November 2021. Some of these companies do things besides EDA, such as non-EDA CAD or physical devices. Rainbow-five (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ANSS 33B Ansys

CDNS 49B Cadence

KEYS 35B Keysight

SIEGY 138B Siemens (purchased Mentor)

SNPS 52B Synopsys

XLNX 55B Xilinx

Avanti acquisition

The form of acquisition is merger. SEC fililng. June 6, 2002:

Item 5. Other Events.

On June 6, 2002, Synopsys, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Synopsys"), completed its acquisition of Avant! Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Avant!"), through the merger (the "Merger") of Avant! with and into Maple Forest Acquisition L.L.C. ("Maple Forest"), a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Synopsys, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 3, 2001, as amended, by and among Synopsys, Maple Forest and Avant! (the "Merger Agreement").
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, former Avant! stockholders have the right to receive 0.371 of a Synopsys common share for each former Avant! common share (plus cash in lieu of fractional shares). As of June 6, 2002, former Avant! stockholders have the right to receive approximately 14.5 million shares of Synopsys. In addition, holders of former Avant! stock options are collectively entitled to receive up to approximately 2.3 million additional Synopsys common shares upon the exercise of such stock options from time to time in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.
Further information about the Merger, including the full text of the Merger Agreement, is available in Synopsys' proxy statement/prospectus dated May 2, 2002.
Synopsys stockholders approved the issuance of the Synopsys common shares in the Merger at the annual meeting of Synopsys stockholders held on June 4, 2002.
A copy of the press release announcing the completion of the Merger is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 March 2005

Oregon

What's the Oregon connection for this article? It's not mentioned in the text and I'd like to put it in the proper category. Katr67 21:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A significant portion of their engineering is at an office in the Silicon Forest. —EncMstr 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not quite Category:Companies based in Oregon is it? Do we need a Silicon Forest category? Katr67 16:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The company is based elsewhere, and has sales offices all over the world, including here. A silicon forest category? I dunno. Should there be a Manicurists in Oregon category? According to a Reason article (circa 2002—couldn't find it online), nail stylists and manicurists have an economic impact many times greater than high technology. —EncMstr 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that their office in Oregon is quite small compared to the one in CA or india for instance... Saying that "their engineering is at an office in the Silicon Forest" isn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.4.1.41 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I have friends who spend more on their nails than on technology, but I digress...Yeah the proliferation of categories is troublesome, but looking at the Silicon Forest article, it appears that a related category could be heavily populated. Would such a thing be useful? I dunno. In any case, my concern is that this is in WPOR without an Oregon mention and without an Oregon cat. I see you're on top of adding the location info per the talk about that Intelitanic chip or whatever it is. These guys are in Hillsboro, correct? I can add the article to that cat. Katr67 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the category probably is useful. Synopsys is on Cornelius Pass road, so it should be within Hillsboro (though I'm unclear about its boundaries) but close to Beaverton. —EncMstr 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is in Hillsboro behind the WinCo along the MAX tracks, Beaverton does not begin until 185th at the earliest. Aboutmovies 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF

Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the information on ARC be restored or put in a new article?

In this edit, a bunch of information on companies bought by Synopsys, including ARC International, was removed.

That section was created by this edit, which moved the contents of ARC International to Synopsys and made the page a disambiguation page with an item for "Synopsys ARC, the developer of the ARC embedded processor series", pointing to that section.

There are places that refer to the section on ARC International, such as the aforementioned ARC International disambiguation page, the Synopsys ARC redirect, and ARC (processor).

Either those links should just link directly to Synopsys, without trying to point to the "ARC International" section, or that section should either be restored or put into a page of its own about ARC International/Synopsys ARC. Guy Harris (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Mergers and acquisitions subpage

From article history:

• curprev 13:17, 5 February 2020‎ Wikiwhatyouwant20 talk contribs‎ 28,957 bytes +19,387‎ →‎Divisions: merged information back into page after sub page creation was rejected.
• curprev 10:31, 4 February 2020‎ 108.7.219.241 talk‎ 9,570 bytes +7‎ →‎History
• curprev 08:11, 3 February 2020‎ 149.117.53.28 talk‎ 9,563 bytes -16,672‎ →‎Divisions: Removed acqusitions and rewrote it to be in paragraph form.

I do not see any discussion where the subpage creation was rejected. I agree that retaining acquisitions info, but splitting it into a separate subpage is a good idea:

• Strategic acquisitions is a common and important procedure in growth of many hitech companies: it bis cheaper to buy a new technology than develop it from scratch. In "lowtech" companies mergers are mostly about struggle for market, while in hitech it is struggle for knowledge. Therefore without knowing the history of acquisitions it is impossible to understand how the company came to do what it is doing and to whom to attribute its glory (or failure :-).
• On the other hand, a pure list, even with brief blurbs, unnecessarily clutters the encyclopedic style of the article, therefore better to keep it in a separate subpage, and the impact of major strategic mergers and acquisitions must be written up in the "History" Section, basing on reliable sources which discuss this history in a general way (and expanding, if necessary, with important general detail from sources for specific events; non-general detail (exact dates, specific products, etc., must be deferred to the "list" subarticle)).

This is a common approach of article splitting, per the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style.

Therefore, unless there are serious objections, I am enacting this split in a week (a reasonable waiting time for all involved editors to say a word.) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Pardon me but why are you concerned about this at all? There is barely enough information here for one article, all of which looks like WP:RESUME or WP:NEWS, let alone two articles. There's definitely no basis for splitting. It basically says a company exists and supposedly did some stuff. What among it is even WP:N notable and why shouldn't it have a template:notability? All I know is it bought Jez's company of former Nintendo related fame and did apparently nothing with it. Furthermore, we respond to unencyclopedic clutter as you call it, and as anyone would agree, by deleting it, not by splitting it. Let me know your interest in this so I can have an idea. Thanks a lot. — Smuckola(talk) 23:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because it is ranked #1 company in the EDA industry, and there is a HUGE amount of independent info about it. It is that wikipedians prefer to write about pornstars anf dootball players, rather than hitech underlying all these computers, iphones and tablets. And there is nothing wrong to reep the article structure clean. Keeping an article as a clean stub rather than a long mess gives larger chance for a decent editor to notiuce thta the article deaserves expanstion. Of course, it is WP:RESUME because that's what companies do and what is most important about them: products. As for WP:NEWS, that's exactly I am suggesting to kill. The article may be expanded like university articles: campuses, employees, divisions, wnat's not. Heck, it was $4Billion company before this year global crisis, with 13,000 employees and twice as much contractors. Sadly, the article size is less than that for Pizza Hut. By the way, I suggest you to slap the latter one with ADVERT and RESUME. If it is not an advert, then I guess I do not know what an advert is. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

unencyclopedic clutter.. by deleting it - wrong idea - It is clutter that is unencyclopedic, not information. I explained why this information is important and it must be retained; even formally, these sections are targets of numerous redirects. Not to say, deleting information referenced well from independent sources is unwikipedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

All I know is it bought Jez's company of former Nintendo related fame and did apparently nothing with it. - Well, this was not among strategic acquisitions and probably only yuo know about it because, as I see from your contributions you are a game buff. Therefore I have no intention to include it into the acquisitions list. Please believe in reasonable expertise and AGF of fellow wikipedians. I hear you, but you hear me too. I am not messing with Nintento in major way, so I suggest you to take it easy on electronic design automation. P.S. I have no relation to Synopsys whatsoever; I am a software eng in a small EDA company and so it happens, we in this industry surely know the major players well. It is just I have no much interest in writing about this industry: daytime work in it pisses me off enough already :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Ironically, I understood your sentiment better when today I stumbled upon II-VI Incorporated. I have no idea on optical communication industry, so liberally slapped "notability/advert" tags on it and its acquisitions, and see if this will stir a hornet's net. :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Careful. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Srleffler (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Do not throw accusations without evidence, colleague. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Srleffler didn't say anything remotely accusatory, and was just helpfully correct. I think Staszek Lem is just being expressive though ;) "Keeping an article as a clean stub rather than a long mess gives larger chance for a decent editor to notiuce thta the article deaserves expanstion. Of course, it is  WP:RESUME because that's what companies do and what is most important about them: products." No, sorry, this is not how anything works. If that made any sense, then WP:RESUME or WP:NOTNEWS wouldn't exist. If the article was a reduced to a stub then that means there's no basis to have split it out—and yet, it *already* is not enough content to split out. We split based on the size of content, not the reasons you're contriving. We don't do things to try to provoke other imaginary editors except for template warnings or by writing competent but imperfect prose to be copy edited or expanded. If it's a mess then we clean it up, not split it. And then when we materially prove and achieve the case for splitting already, then we do that. So you're just deliberately wanting to do things out of order so as to have the ends justify the means, which they also don't do anyway. The correct order is to clean up the existing content first. You helpfully enlightened me that this subject is #1 in its field, so that needs to be proven and demonstrated. "It is just I have no much interest in writing about this industry: daytime work in it pisses me off enough already" lol I totally understand that, and there's nothing wrong with being a not-superior writer as long as one is being competent according to all the rules, if that's the issue. Writing it the best you can so that another editor can copy edit that would be the correct way to entice another editor. You're familiar and I'm so unfamiliar that I don't know at what point I'll be able to help at all. "wrong idea - It is clutter that is unencyclopedic, not information." Okay as long as it champions WP:N and not WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT. Possibly a sandbox is in order, depending on how good you are at this subject which I presently know nothing about.

BTW, you ruined my entire life forever by mentioning Pizza Hut. That abomination makes the baby Jesus cry. I probably deleted tens of thousands of bytes from that, years ago, and I JUST got out of therapy for it, and even looking at even the edit summaries makes me furiously disgusted lol. :-D No, seriously, I'm the type who likes the tech companies way behind the scenes. — Smuckola(talk) 03:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to Update Products section

Hi, I'm requesting on behalf of the Synopsys QuantumATK team if the product QuantumATK can be added to the "Products" section of this page.

Please see https://www.synopsys.com/silicon/quantumatk.html as evidence. https://news.synopsys.com/2017-09-18-Synopsys-Strengthens-Design-Technology-Co-Optimization-Solution-with-Acquisition-of-QuantumWise

Thanks, Jessica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleware Jessica (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no specific Products section. Where exactly should it be listed? Ferkijel (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Declined due to lack of reply, and lack of WP:IS and WP:RS. Ferkjl (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Updates to corporate partnerships section?

Interested in hearing feedback/thoughts on adding the following content to further build out the section on corporate partnerships:

In 2020, IBM announced a partnership between Synopsys and the IBM Research AI Hardware Center to address the challenges of developing new AI chip architectures.

Intel announced an expansion of its EDA partnership with Synopsys in 2021 to utilize Synopsys’ design tools for Intel’s foundry services.

Microsoft chose Synopsys in 2021 to help develop a technology solution for the secure design of microelectronics for a U.S. Department of Defense project.

Smmgeek (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Press releases are not reliable sources, and nor are articles that simply reprint a press release. Corporate partnerships may not actually be worth having a section on. --Srleffler (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense; appreciate the input and feedback! I agree, the section seems like it would be hard to keep accurately updated in a way that adds significant value, so I'll go ahead and remove it. Smmgeek (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Synopsys acquired DINI Group in 2019

Synopsys acquired DINI Group in 2019 - https://semiwiki.com/forum/index.php?threads/synopsys-completes-acquisition-of-dini-group.12107/

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Partnerships Section

Slightly unfair to give the PLA stuff heavy focus, given that the source itself mentions “Autodesk, Dell, Google, Honeywell, IBM, Intel, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, National Instruments, Rockwell Automation, Synopsys, Tektronix, and Texas Instruments” as having also partnered with PLA in the exact same way. 2601:19B:67F:4AF0:C1D4:FBB4:96D7:CF1 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There are exactly three mentions of Synopsys in that citation, and those are just passing mentions without adding much. I don't think there are any other independent sources that reported on CSET's findings. Certainly undue for this page, but for now I've removed it from the lede. I've also tagged a WP:NOTNEWS text "Taiwan's Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau raided the offices of a Synopsys-backed firm on suspicion of illegally poaching engineers from TSMC" that isn't relevant to Synopsys itself. Ptrnext (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The section in the lede is also supported by the two Bloomberg references in the body of the article, both of which are specifically about Synopsys.

Do you work for Synopsys?

--Srleffler (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My contributions can answer it for you. But to answer directly, no. I've mentioned in the edit summary why a case under investigation isn't mentioned in the lede, giving it undue weight. Do you see it done in other places? It exists in the History section, and can be included in the lede again once the investigation is complete. My edits to this page are only attempting to make this page neutral and balanced. Also, just to return the favor, do you work for a Synopsys competitor? Ptrnext (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No, I don't work for Synopsis or a competitor either. I do tend to keep an eye on articles about companies and organizations for any attempt to remove unflattering information. There have been repeated attempts to remove or water down that paragraph.

It seems pretty common for current events involving an article's topic to be mentioned in the lede, but I accept the argument that it may give undue weight in this case.--Srleffler (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree such whitewashing is rampant, usually not difficult to spot since it's an IP editor or a new account; thanks for keeping an eye. Ptrnext (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)