Hello,
Keil support did not reply yet - but am I correct in assuming that RL-ARM is now a part of MDK, and that each user needs to have a RL-ARM license paid for separately in order to be able to use FlashFS/TCPNet etc. (many samples in MDK 4.20 are broken, but the one that I did manage to compile failed to link complaining that my license is insufficient - that did not happen with MDK 4.14 !) ? If so, this is a HUGE expense. If my boss asks for my opinion (and I think he will) - we're going open source!
Like it or not, it is a fact of life!
It is a commonly stated reason by people "stuck" with an 8-bit processor who say they can't afford to move to a (better-suited) 32-bit processor "because the tools are too expensive"
A thing with Keil's ARM tools is that they cover everything from the smallest Cortex-M0 to the hugest ARM-9.
Maybe Keil need to consider a low-cost "lite" version for the low-end Cortex-Mx; eg, with microlib only, no floating point, etc...?
"Sources close to ARM" suggest that this thread has been noticed...
The interesting thing is the Cortex chips that can run without a single assembler line - the core takes care of setting up the environment for calling a C reset handler and standard C ISR functions.
With chip manufacturers supplying reasonable kick-start sample code, the need for the Keil simulator is decreasing while at the same time the cost of it is going up.
Most other companies that sees such an equation does what all hw product owners does, i.e. very carefully checks the price structure and sees how a product can be sold cheaper but in higher volumes to still maintain the profit. Almost all companies tries to get more customers since they are forced to sell at a lower price. Keil seems to go the other route - fewer customers but each customer charged more.
I don't think the solution is to cut the tools into huge number of sizes. That means that customers will have to look at their component choices based on their Keil support.
The main reason for profit is in the amount of support Keil has to give to each customer.
So maybe they should instead differentiate the support - sell cheaper licenses with no support except bug fixes. Each such license will be almost 100% profit, since they may be sold completely electronically - just costing some administration to register the customer, and the bandwidth for people to download the compiler and service updates.
That would mean that small companies can afford to start with Keil tools even for short series of cheaper products. And when they do get into a critical situation, they can decide if they want to upgrade to a more expensive license with support included, or if they want to pay a per-issue fee for getting help.
But the goal must be to get more people to jump on the ARM bandwagon - picking market shares from Pic, AVR, 8051, MPC430, ...
Going the other route - only selling to fortune 500 companies means there will be too few people using the tools and finding bugs. So there will be few customers paying huge fees to get low-quality stuff. PC compilers are so good because there are tens of thousands of users who tests everything in the tools and sends back good error reports. If user A can't write a good error report, then user B, C, or D will manage to write something that does help locate find and solve a problem.
Per,
I fully support your proposals.
You posted
"Almost all companies tries to get more customers since they are forced to sell at a lower price. Keil seems to go the other route - fewer customers but each customer charged more."
I not sure if it applied fully, but a term I encountered recently could characterize this situation: "the economics of (customer) extinction"...
An open letter to Keil/ARM:
"Dear Madam/Sir,
Our local distributer of the Keil/ARM tool-chain has informed us that we better upgrade our tools soon because the prices of the RL-ARM library license is going up from 3400 euro per seat to 4190 euro per seat starting 1st of April.
With all due respect, I must point out to you that this is entirely unacceptable. I have a lot of respect for your mostly excellent tools, but I believe that in this particular instance you are hurting your own core business: There is a large number of commercial and indeed, outstanding open source alternatives available with more of less comparable functionality and occasionally with better documentation. I believe that a significant number of small to medium companies will refuse to pay these prices, and will search and find more cost effectives ways to get the job done . I cannot speak for others - but I can tell you that this is most definitely the trend of my employer. You're playing with fire! Wasn't your stated goal to promote the usage of low cost 32-bit microcontrollers? Do you really believe this pricing policy coalesces with this goal?
Kind regards,
Tamir Michael"