AbusivepPricing information in marketing publications

Xilinx is doing it again.

http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=s3e_overview
"Spartan-3E FPGA devices with 100K system gates are available for under
US$2.00*"
Later in the text we learn that the pricing is for 2H2006. The current
price is higher.

There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
- The devices will be be available for under US$2.
- The devices are not available for under US$2.
- The devices are available for <insert real price>

The formulation chosen by Xilinx marketing definetly is illegal in
Germany under UWG. (Last time these text were distributed in Germany by
distributors). And it probably is illegal in the US.

I do not understand why a big company with a good product again and
againg ressorts to  unfair and illegal marketing that is designed to
confuse customers?
This really is bad style.

Kolja Sulimma
(Otherwise a happy Xilinx user)

Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> Xilinx is doing it again.
> 
> http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=s3e_overview
> "Spartan-3E FPGA devices with 100K system gates are available for under
> US$2.00*"
> Later in the text we learn that the pricing is for 2H2006. The current
> price is higher.
> 
> There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
> - The devices will be be available for under US$2.
> - The devices are not available for under US$2.
> - The devices are available for <insert real price>
> 
> The formulation chosen by Xilinx marketing definetly is illegal in
> Germany under UWG. (Last time these text were distributed in Germany by
> distributors). And it probably is illegal in the US.
> 
> I do not understand why a big company with a good product again and
> againg ressorts to  unfair and illegal marketing that is designed to
> confuse customers?
> This really is bad style.

  Yes, and it annoys their user base, but they are not the only ones 
doing it. [tho that is no excuse!]

  Looking at
http://www.altera.com/corporate/news_room/releases/products/nr-ultimate-products.html

The headline claims :
" Altera's HardCopy II Structured ASICs and MAX II CPLDs Named Ultimate 
Products by eeProductCenter "

Hmmm, not my choice for Ultimate Products, but let's read on....

"Both Altera&#4294967295; products were ranked in the top five in the logic and 
programmable logic category."

So "Ultimate"  [1.Furthest or highest in degree or order; utmost or 
extreme; 2.Being the last or concluding element of a series]
has suddenly spin-morphed to actually meaning - "Hey, we made the top FIVE!"

Now let's see, top five in the logic and programmable logic category ??

So that could be, as an example that fits that claim :
1. Atmel
2. Actel
3. Lattice
4. Xilinx
5. Altera

If it was any better, surely they would have said the top three, or top 
two ?

And further on, we see
...described MAX II CPLDs as "as the industry's lowest-cost CPLD 
available now," and "ideal for volume-driven, price-sensitive applications."

Reality check time - quick look at their own web site
http://www.buyaltera.com/scripts/partsearch.dll/showfilter?lookup=1,30,3074

shows the Cheapest MAX II is listed at $6.00 - lowest cost ? - hmm, 
there are over 43 other CPLDs from Altera that clearly have
lower prices {and many over at Xilinx too... ) !?.

So what can "lowest cost CPLD" actually mean ?

-jg

ROTFL
ROTFL

this time really

TOP 5 listed !!

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:42b292ea$1@clear.net.nz...
> Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> > Xilinx is doing it again.
> >
> > http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=s3e_overview
> > "Spartan-3E FPGA devices with 100K system gates are available for under
> > US$2.00*"
> > Later in the text we learn that the pricing is for 2H2006. The current
> > price is higher.
> >
> > There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
> > - The devices will be be available for under US$2.
> > - The devices are not available for under US$2.
> > - The devices are available for <insert real price>
> >
> > The formulation chosen by Xilinx marketing definetly is illegal in
> > Germany under UWG. (Last time these text were distributed in Germany by
> > distributors). And it probably is illegal in the US.
> >

possible yes, US has some laws too.

> > I do not understand why a big company with a good product again and
> > againg ressorts to  unfair and illegal marketing that is designed to
> > confuse customers?
> > This really is bad style.
>
>   Yes, and it annoys their user base, but they are not the only ones
> doing it. [tho that is no excuse!]
>
>   Looking at
>
http://www.altera.com/corporate/news_room/releases/products/nr-ultimate-products.html
>
> The headline claims :
> " Altera's HardCopy II Structured ASICs and MAX II CPLDs Named Ultimate
> Products by eeProductCenter "
>
> Hmmm, not my choice for Ultimate Products, but let's read on....
>
> "Both Altera&#4294967295; products were ranked in the top five in the logic and
> programmable logic category."
>
> So "Ultimate"  [1.Furthest or highest in degree or order; utmost or
> extreme; 2.Being the last or concluding element of a series]
> has suddenly spin-morphed to actually meaning - "Hey, we made the top
FIVE!"
>
> Now let's see, top five in the logic and programmable logic category ??
>
> So that could be, as an example that fits that claim :
> 1. Atmel
> 2. Actel
> 3. Lattice
> 4. Xilinx
> 5. Altera

BIG ROTFL !!!

> If it was any better, surely they would have said the top three, or top
> two ?
>
> And further on, we see
> ...described MAX II CPLDs as "as the industry's lowest-cost CPLD
> available now," and "ideal for volume-driven, price-sensitive
applications."
>
> Reality check time - quick look at their own web site
>
http://www.buyaltera.com/scripts/partsearch.dll/showfilter?lookup=1,30,3074
>
> shows the Cheapest MAX II is listed at $6.00 - lowest cost ? - hmm,
> there are over 43 other CPLDs from Altera that clearly have
> lower prices {and many over at Xilinx too... ) !?.
>
> So what can "lowest cost CPLD" actually mean ?
>
> -jg
>

all marketing BS

MAX2 is nice non volatile version of Xilinx XC2K

nothing in common what is considered CPLD (as Complex PLD)

its really nice, but it doesnt at all compete in the low range PLD market

the low range is 1USD and sub 1USD devices available from many vendors

Antti

Antti Lukats wrote:
> ROTFL
> ROTFL
> 
> this time really
> 
> TOP 5 listed !!
> 
> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:42b292ea$1@clear.net.nz...
> 

<snip>

>>
>>  Looking at
>>
> 
> http://www.altera.com/corporate/news_room/releases/products/nr-ultimate-products.html
> 
>>The headline claims :
>>" Altera's HardCopy II Structured ASICs and MAX II CPLDs Named Ultimate
>>Products by eeProductCenter "
>>
>>Hmmm, not my choice for Ultimate Products, but let's read on....
>>
>>"Both Altera&#4294967295; products were ranked in the top five in the logic and
>>programmable logic category."
>>
>>So "Ultimate"  [1.Furthest or highest in degree or order; utmost or
>>extreme; 2.Being the last or concluding element of a series]
>>has suddenly spin-morphed to actually meaning - "Hey, we made the top
> 
> FIVE!"
> 
>>Now let's see, top five in the logic and programmable logic category ??
>>
>>So that could be, as an example that fits that claim :
>>1. Atmel
>>2. Actel
>>3. Lattice
>>4. Xilinx
>>5. Altera
> 
> 
> BIG ROTFL !!!
> 
> 
>>If it was any better, surely they would have said the top three, or top
>>two ?
>>

The "Ultimate" report is at 
http://www.eeproductcenter.com/ultimate/default.html .

And (of no surprise to anyone who thought about it) the reason Altera 
said "top five" is that it includes *both* the Hardcopy and Max II.  The 
rankings are:

1. Orange tree (C to VHDL tool)
2. Lattice (downloadable synthesis software)
3. Altera (Hardcopy II)
4. Cypress (PSOC 8-bit micro with configurable blocks)
5. Altera (Max II)
6. Actel (fpga starter kit)
7. Fairchild (tiny logic chips)
8. Celoxica (tools for image and video processing)
9. Exar (PCI bus UART)
10. Philips (tiny logic chips)

Of course, such a ranking is purely subjective and most people are going 
to disagree about it - especially the word "ultimate".  But I don't 
think Altera marketing was doing anything unreasonable here.

>>And further on, we see
>>...described MAX II CPLDs as "as the industry's lowest-cost CPLD
>>available now," and "ideal for volume-driven, price-sensitive
> 
> applications."
> 
>>Reality check time - quick look at their own web site
>>
> 
> http://www.buyaltera.com/scripts/partsearch.dll/showfilter?lookup=1,30,3074
> 
>>shows the Cheapest MAX II is listed at $6.00 - lowest cost ? - hmm,
>>there are over 43 other CPLDs from Altera that clearly have
>>lower prices {and many over at Xilinx too... ) !?.
>>
>>So what can "lowest cost CPLD" actually mean ?
>>
>>-jg
>>
> 

My guess is "lowest cost CPLD" means "lowest cost per macrocell".  I 
haven't checked the prices (except to note that the smallest MaxII is 
both too big and too expensive to replace a Max3000 we are using), but 
it is standard (though misleading) practice to talk about "lower cost" 
when you mean "better value for money".

> 
> all marketing BS
> 
> MAX2 is nice non volatile version of Xilinx XC2K
> 
> nothing in common what is considered CPLD (as Complex PLD)
> 
> its really nice, but it doesnt at all compete in the low range PLD market
> 
> the low range is 1USD and sub 1USD devices available from many vendors
> 
> Antti
> 
> 

The text ALWAYS clearly states what the pricing timeframe and quantity 
are for the price.

Engineers looking to design in a new part in large quantities are 
typically looking for production a little ways out.  I would prefer to 
see 1H2006 pricing, but still... they make it clear.

The pricing method is used by too many vendors so why should Xilinx say 
this snazzy new part is available for $XX now in small quantities when 
others are advertizing the "mature volume" pricing?

If you know what the "typical markup" is for early adoption of a device 
or for small quantities of the part as purchased by your company, you 
can get a ballpark to the pricing without having to call for specifics.

I'm surprised that the UWG makes illegal the practice of giving a price 
where the price is clearly marked with a note and that note supplies the 
timeframe and quantitiy.  This is misleading why?  We do have market 
realities to consider, after all.


Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> Xilinx is doing it again.
> 
> http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=s3e_overview
> "Spartan-3E FPGA devices with 100K system gates are available for under
> US$2.00*"
> Later in the text we learn that the pricing is for 2H2006. The current
> price is higher.
> 
> There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
> - The devices will be be available for under US$2.
> - The devices are not available for under US$2.
> - The devices are available for <insert real price>
> 
> The formulation chosen by Xilinx marketing definetly is illegal in
> Germany under UWG. (Last time these text were distributed in Germany by
> distributors). And it probably is illegal in the US.
> 
> I do not understand why a big company with a good product again and
> againg ressorts to  unfair and illegal marketing that is designed to
> confuse customers?
> This really is bad style.
> 
> Kolja Sulimma
> (Otherwise a happy Xilinx user)

John_H wrote:
> The text ALWAYS clearly states what the pricing timeframe and quantity 
> are for the price.
> 
> Engineers looking to design in a new part in large quantities are 
> typically looking for production a little ways out.  I would prefer to 
> see 1H2006 pricing, but still... they make it clear.
> 
> The pricing method is used by too many vendors so why should Xilinx say 
> this snazzy new part is available for $XX now in small quantities when 
> others are advertizing the "mature volume" pricing?
> 
> If you know what the "typical markup" is for early adoption of a device 
> or for small quantities of the part as purchased by your company, you 
> can get a ballpark to the pricing without having to call for specifics.
> 
> I'm surprised that the UWG makes illegal the practice of giving a price 
> where the price is clearly marked with a note and that note supplies the 
> timeframe and quantitiy.  This is misleading why?  We do have market 
> realities to consider, after all.
> 

It is clearly misleading to say " *are* available" for a particular 
price, when they are most definitely not available.  Giving a 500k price 
for a year in the future is stretching "mature volume pricing" quite a 
bit, although it would not be unreasonable if the date and quantity were 
quoted in the text, rather than as a small-print footnote.  I don't 
think anyone would consider the Altera Cyclone II press release to be 
misleading or illegal:

<quote from Altera press release>
Pricing and Availability

The first member of the Cyclone II device family, the EP2C35 device, 
will be available in February 2005. Volume pricing for the EP2C35 will 
be $22 in 250,000 unit volumes. The web edition of Quartus II version 
4.1 software supports the entire Cyclone II family and can be downloaded 
for free on www.altera.com/q2webedition.
</quote>

Now do you see the difference?  I'm not claiming Altera's marketing 
people are perfect, and they are as happy as anyone else to omit useful 
information (there were no prices given in the Stratix II 180 press 
release!), but they are clear on what their price information actually is.

mvh.,

David



> 
> Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> 
>> Xilinx is doing it again.
>>
>> http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_prodcat_product.jsp?title=s3e_overview
>> "Spartan-3E FPGA devices with 100K system gates are available for under
>> US$2.00*"
>> Later in the text we learn that the pricing is for 2H2006. The current
>> price is higher.
>>
>> There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
>> - The devices will be be available for under US$2.
>> - The devices are not available for under US$2.
>> - The devices are available for <insert real price>
>>
>> The formulation chosen by Xilinx marketing definetly is illegal in
>> Germany under UWG. (Last time these text were distributed in Germany by
>> distributors). And it probably is illegal in the US.
>>
>> I do not understand why a big company with a good product again and
>> againg ressorts to  unfair and illegal marketing that is designed to
>> confuse customers?
>> This really is bad style.
>>
>> Kolja Sulimma
>> (Otherwise a happy Xilinx user)

Un bel giorno Kolja Sulimma digit�:

> There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
> - The devices will be be available for under US$2.
> - The devices are not available for under US$2.
> - The devices are available for <insert real price>

4- The devices are not available at all.

-- 
asd

David Brown wrote:
> John_H wrote:
> 
>> The text ALWAYS clearly states what the pricing timeframe and quantity 
>> are for the price.
>>
>> Engineers looking to design in a new part in large quantities are 
>> typically looking for production a little ways out.  I would prefer to 
>> see 1H2006 pricing, but still... they make it clear.
>>
>> The pricing method is used by too many vendors so why should Xilinx 
>> say this snazzy new part is available for $XX now in small quantities 
>> when others are advertizing the "mature volume" pricing?
>>
>> If you know what the "typical markup" is for early adoption of a 
>> device or for small quantities of the part as purchased by your 
>> company, you can get a ballpark to the pricing without having to call 
>> for specifics.
>>
>> I'm surprised that the UWG makes illegal the practice of giving a 
>> price where the price is clearly marked with a note and that note 
>> supplies the timeframe and quantitiy.  This is misleading why?  We do 
>> have market realities to consider, after all.
>>
> 
> It is clearly misleading to say " *are* available" for a particular 
> price, when they are most definitely not available.  Giving a 500k price 
> for a year in the future is stretching "mature volume pricing" quite a 
> bit, although it would not be unreasonable if the date and quantity were 
> quoted in the text, rather than as a small-print footnote.  I don't 
> think anyone would consider the Altera Cyclone II press release to be 
> misleading or illegal:
<snip>

There are legal precedent cases where the fine print has been too fine, 
or too far removed, from the headlines, and also where the fineprint 
essentially contradicts the headlines.

Lets look at a Xilinx example, [ to keep it balanced :) ]

Headlines: Spartan 3E
Get 100K gates for $2
Reduce system costs...
Start saving today with devices now shipping

fine print is on another page, where it finally * links to 2H2006.

Since they cannot place that price on an invoice today, it puts them
on thin-ice. ie you cannot _actually_ GET 100K gates for $2, but the 
headline clearly states you can.

What next, prices for 2016, in euros? "Get 100K gates for 0.5e"*

* estimated price, based on forecast yields, packaging laws,
and current exchange rate trends...

I'll leave it to others to follow the veracity of
"Start saving today with devices now shipping" ... :)

-jg

> There are legal precedent cases where the fine print has been too fine, 
> or too far removed, from the headlines, and also where the fineprint 
> essentially contradicts the headlines.

"The large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
     - Tom Waits

I have no problems with large volume pricing. It is useless for most
users, but it is valid.
I (and the UWG) have a problem with disguising future prices as current
prices.
Actually the text has improved a litte. The Vortex-4 press release had
the formulation "are available *now* for under...", but even without the
word "now" the use of present tense is very far streched for 2006.

Kolja Sulima

John_H schrieb:
> The text ALWAYS clearly states what the pricing timeframe and quantity
> are for the price.
> 
> Engineers looking to design in a new part in large quantities are
> typically looking for production a little ways out.  I would prefer to
> see 1H2006 pricing, but still... they make it clear.
> 
> The pricing method is used by too many vendors so why should Xilinx say
> this snazzy new part is available for $XX now in small quantities when
> others are advertizing the "mature volume" pricing?
> 
> If you know what the "typical markup" is for early adoption of a device
> or for small quantities of the part as purchased by your company, you
> can get a ballpark to the pricing without having to call for specifics.
> 
> I'm surprised that the UWG makes illegal the practice of giving a price
> where the price is clearly marked with a note and that note supplies the
> timeframe and quantitiy.  This is misleading why? 
> We do have market
> realities to consider, after all.
>Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> >There are three correct formulations possible for these facts:
> >- The devices will be available for under US$2.