I just know that during the time-frame of this guy, Cadence Orcad and the layout was a mess and was unusable in my opinion. I'm not sure of the organization, but the products seem to be very heterogeneous and not playing well. Almost a kludge. I abandoned using them about 2 years ago, so things may have improved.
@Ron Wilson: your latter point about extracting value from a wider segment of the design chain is exactly what Ansys has been using as a game plan though it came from the other end of the spectrum (its tools were mostly used in backend & packaging before the acquisition of Ansoft). It is time the big EDA started to diversify and play in other segments of the value chain.
It almost seems as if there is an internal struggle between the Cadence that wants to keep building increasingly complex tools for a shrinking and unrewarding market and the Cadence that wants to extract value from a wider segment of the design chain. Is the outcome as simple as saying that if the first group beats the second, the shareholders lose?
This is a surprise indeed... I thought Bruggeman was a good fit in the role he was serving... also their internal announcement that "product marketing would move into the corresponding R&D organizations within Cadence..." may turn out to be beneficial in the long run. Is this just a precursor to more coming from Cadence?
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.