fiscal 2011 , primarily because of increased business levels , an increase in revenue related to the sale and lease of our hardware products and increased revenue recognized from bookings in prior periods .maintenance revenue decreased on a standalone basis during fiscal 2012 as compared to fiscal 2011 , primarily because of the increased allocation to product revenue due to the gradual decline in the average duration of our time-based software license arrangements over the last three years .product and maintenance revenue increased during fiscal 2011 , as compared to fiscal 2010 , due to reasons noted above and also due to the increase in revenue from the denali business which we acquired in the second quarter of 2010 .we expect the aggregate of product and maintenance revenue will increase during fiscal 2013 due to increases in the revenue from our software and ip products , partially offset by an expected decrease in revenue from our hardware products .services revenue decreased during fiscal 2012 , as compared to fiscal 2011 , primarily because certain of our design services engineers have been redeployed to internal research and development projects and to assist with pre-sales activities .services revenue increased during fiscal 2011 , as compared to fiscal 2010 , primarily because of cash collections from customers on orders fulfilled in years prior to 2011 for which revenue was recognized in fiscal 2011 upon receipt of cash payment , and because of higher utilization rates for our services personnel .we expect services revenue to decrease during fiscal 2013 , as compared to fiscal 2012 , as we expect certain of our design services engineers will continue to work on internal research and development projects , primarily related or our design ip and vip activities .revenue by product group the following table shows the percentage of product and related maintenance revenue contributed by each of our five product groups , and services and other during fiscal 2012 , 2011 and 2010: .
[['', '2012', '2011', '2010'], ['functional verification hardware and ip', '30% ( 30 % )', '30% ( 30 % )', '24% ( 24 % )'], ['custom ic design', '23% ( 23 % )', '22% ( 22 % )', '26% ( 26 % )'], ['digital ic design', '23% ( 23 % )', '22% ( 22 % )', '23% ( 23 % )'], ['system interconnect design', '9% ( 9 % )', '9% ( 9 % )', '9% ( 9 % )'], ['design for manufacturing', '6% ( 6 % )', '7% ( 7 % )', '7% ( 7 % )'], ['services and other', '9% ( 9 % )', '10% ( 10 % )', '11% ( 11 % )'], ['total', '100% ( 100 % )', '100% ( 100 % )', '100% ( 100 % )']]
as described in note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements , certain of our licensing arrangements allow customers the ability to remix among software products .additionally , we have arrangements with customers that include a combination of our products , with the actual product selection and number of licensed users to be determined at a later date .for these arrangements , we estimate the allocation of the revenue to product groups based upon the expected usage of our products .the actual usage of our products by these customers may differ and , if that proves to be the case , the revenue allocation in the table above would differ .the changes in the percentage of revenue contributed by the functional verification , hardware and ip product group are generally related to changes in revenue related to our hardware products. .

Question: what is the difference in the percentage of product and related maintenance revenue contributed by the functional verification hardware and ip product group in 2010 versus 2012?
Answer: 6%