Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 415 replies
  • Subscribers 215 subscribers
  • Views 27393 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Eagle v8 licensing...

technolomaniac

Hi All --

 

Moving this to a separate thread so it doesn't get lost in the ether.  Here's my two cents on licensing and I'd love your feedback:

 

Firstly, the Autodesk licensing model is subscription and the EAGLE paid license will require that you install the SW and then generate an account to retrieve your license entitlement.  Once you have this, you are good to go and the SW will run as expected.  If you lose your network connection, the SW has a 14-day heartbeat that will enable you to work offline for 14 days.  I know that some folks would prefer to never have to connect, but this is required to support a monthly subscription model that can be selectively enabled and disabled when you use the SW (so you only pay when you use it).  The total cost of ownership for those folks using it less than a few weeks a year will thus be substantially lower and still enables you to access the full software for less money.  <Insert revolt here>  image

 

WRT to "what happens if autodesk decides to one day just shut off the license server?" ...ok, sure, that's possible, but so is a reality TV star becoming President of the..cough...nevermind, bad example.

 

Point is, that's a pretty remote possibility (think: time travel and alien invasions) and it wouldn't benefit us *at all* to upset the users we just spent real money hoping to bring into autodesk and earn their business.  As the guy with both development and P&L for the product, I can tell you that it's counterintuitive and wouldn't benefit us at all.  We know this.  We make SW used by governments, movie studios, game developers, MEs, Civil Engineers, machinists, etc. and you can bet that shutting down a license server is not to our benefit in any of these categories.  To demonstrate this behavior in one category, without a path for user SW and data, calls into question ALL of our tools' viability under this model.  Not helpful.

 

Now...a question was raised about "but what if I drop my subscription and I want my data".  Awesome, the data is yours and lives on your machine.  And for SW that stores data in the cloud (we have some of these) we always provide a path to your data.  If this again fails with one product, it puts all of the others up for discussion.  Again, not helpful.  (Read:  strategy = doomed).

 

"So what about needing an entitlement for the freeware to open the data I created in another version (a *paid* version) and reading it?  What if I want access and I dont want the 14-day time out?"

 

So here's the deal...We can do better here.  So we will.  Here's my commitment to the group here for freeware that ensures you always have a license that you can fall back on without need of internet connection *except when you first install it* (which after all, you would have had to get it in the first place):  in version 8.1 or 8.0.1 or whathaveyou (let's call it 'a future release'), if you install the SW and authenticate once, we'll remove the timer req.  So what I'm saying another way is, the freeware will require you to login the first time to get your license, but if you log out beyond that, you're good.  You got your entitlement and you can use it freely without connection.

 

Caveat:  to install an update, you will need to login.  The update server (which issues the new version...e.g. 8.1 or 8.2. or 8.0.1, etc.) requires that you login and get the update, but beyond that, logout.  Thus if you want to go off-grid in a mountain cabin somewhere, get your license at Starbucks (blagh! I understand they have 'free' wifi, but no frappucinos!  ...that stuff is bad for you) then get your license and go on your merry way up to the snow drenched peaks.  When you hear from the other mountaineers or your local yodeler that a new version of EAGLE is available...download, login, get your license, get your 'decaf double-pump vanilla non-fat latte macchiato' and head back up the slopes.

 

Point being, we can do the freeware better.  So we will.

 

Hope this is clear.  Let us know if you have questions!

 

Best regards,

 

Matt Berggren

Director - Autodesk

@technolomaniac

hackaday.io/matt

Parents

  • posted :  Actually if I were to choose I would much prefer the old license

    model, but it is not going to happen

     

    Why would it not happen?  What would prevent it?  Autodesk is giving upon

    Eagle business already?? I'm not sure what the difficulty Autodesk has in

    reverting to the standard Eagle license.  They can still offer a

    subscription.

     

    This should probably be moved up the chain of command at Autodesk or its

    board members--if they hear that many many customers are getting more &

    more upset with Autodesk products, hindered development and not listening

    to customers, then they may be inclined to listen more attentively.

     

    There are many EDA news boards out there and the facts of how Eagle

    customers are being treated can be posted there as well.  They may want to

    consider what is happening with Eagle when evaluating it.

     

    --

    EAGLE support forums at http://www.eaglecentral.ca :: Where the EAGLE community meets.

     

  • in reply to e14candies

    On 2/22/2017 7:46 PM, Hoyt wrote:

    posted :  Actually if I were to choose I would much prefer the old license

    model, but it is not going to happen

    Why would it not happen?  What would prevent it?  Autodesk is giving upon

    Eagle business already?? I'm not sure what the difficulty Autodesk has in

    reverting to the standard Eagle license.  They can still offer a

    subscription.

     

    Hello Hoyt,

     

    I hope you're having a good day. Autodesk is not giving up on EAGLE at

    all, that's why so much work . However Autodesk has almost 3 million

    subscribers of their software, so they have demonstrated that the model

    works and that there are a lot of customers who like the model.

     

    In order for Autodesk to back off of this subscription for

    everything(Every Autodesk product has moved to subscription for new

    licenses) model a substantial portion of those 3 million subscribers

    would have to drop out.

     

    So your reasoning while sound doesn't take into account that Autodesk is

    much larger than just EAGLE and it's extremely unlikely that they would

    make an exception just for us. It's not about a technical challenge,

    it's about Autodesk wanting a uniform model across all of it's products.

     

    That's why in this and in other forums, I've been informing users not to

    expect a change in the licensing model. This isn't Farnell, Autodesk is

    a software company and they have carefully calculated what they are

    getting into by making this switch.

     

    I hope this clarifies the situation.

     

    Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

     

    Best Regards,

    Jorge Garcia

     

    --

    We have a new forum here <http://forums.autodesk.com>

     

  • in reply to autodeskguest

    Hi Jorge,

     

    "So your reasoning while sound doesn't take into account that Autodesk is

    much larger than just EAGLE and it's extremely unlikely that they would

    make an exception just for us. It's not about a technical challenge,

    it's about Autodesk wanting a uniform model across all of it's products."

     

    Thank you for confirming what I and many others on this forum suspected. The new license model is all about what's best for Autodesk, not what's best for us users. That comes across as a giant F*** You to this formerly loyal EagleCAD user. KiCAD, Altium, here I come.

     

    Brent

  • in reply to autodeskguest

    CadSoft Guest wrote:

     

    In order for Autodesk to back off of this subscription for

    everything(Every Autodesk product has moved to subscription for new

    licenses) model a substantial portion of those 3 million subscribers

    would have to drop out.

     

    Jorge,

     

    Would you please break down that 3 million subscribers?  I may be one of them but I have a Maintenance Subscription not the Desktop Subscription.  For the users on Maintenance Subscription, we still have perpetual license rights.  That is the sole reason, I'm still providing any money to AutoDesk.  It goes and I'm gone (after 25+ years as a user).  Actually we are gone because we have 2 licenses.  Alas, Maintenance Subscription are no longer sold unless you are grandfathered in to them and only on certain products.

     

    Now, if what you said is true that the vast majority of users are satisfied with the new subscription model, why is AutoDesk still offering the maintenance subscription model?

     

    I felt compelled to respond, because I'm not sure everyone is aware of the existence of Maintenance Subscription with Perpetual license rights.  And since they are both referred to as subscriptions, your 3 million probably included both.  Without knowing the breakdown, your statement is hard to evaluate.

     

    Please do not get me wrong,  I understand AutoDesk's position.  Their primary goal is NOT to make a good product.  Their goal is to provide a profitable company to their shareholders.  The 2 may overlap in some regards, but do not in all.  Someone at AutoDesk probably had an Epiphany a few years ago.  They likely could see that some of their products were becoming harder and harder to innovate and becoming fully mature or would be in the near future.  Naturally, sales will fall when that happens as the product does everything or mostly everything that is needed.  Not currently the case with Eagle.  But when a product reaches that life stage what do you do to maintain it's profitability...  Subscriptions are the answer.  You can now continue to charge indefinitely for a mature product.  This only works if you are the dominate player in the market or the other key competitors adopt the same business model.  Assuming there is a relatively constant need for a product, you now have a constant revenue stream which requires minimal continued development.  The financial bottom line can be expanded by raising the prices of the subscription and re-tasking the development resources on other product (new or less mature products, like Eagle).  It's a GREAT business model if you are on the AutoDesk side. 

     

    I honestly do not expect AutoDesk subscription policy to change in regards to Eagle or their other products.  I honestly wish and hope it would, but I've already started evaluating alternatives for all of my AutoDesk products.  Why? As I and others have stated, the new model requires us to relinquish too much control to AutoDesk.

     

    I also understand that for some companies the Desktop Subscription model is attractive from a tax / accounting standpoint (at least in the US) since the entire cost of the license can be expensed in the year of purchase vs depreciated over a period of years.  For larger organizations that can be a significant positive.  For smaller organization, there are other concerns that may out weigh that positive.  Eagle seems like an oddball to me in this regard when compared to other Autodesk products.  By that I mean, it seems that the majority of the Eagle users would fall into the small business / hobbyist group while the other AutoDesk products probably have a greater number of large corporation type users.

     

    I know that you and the other AutoDesk support personnel are probably getting tired of our complaints.  But complaining and refusing to upgrade are the only avenues for us to let someone know that we are seriously dissatisfied.  Only by all of us voicing our negative views can be hope to equal a larger AutoDesk client who might have a $100,000 dollar account versus our $1000 individual accounts. (disclaimer: those last 2 numbers pulled from thin air).

     

    By the way, is it just me or has the forum traffic far eclipsed the negative reaction from Farnell's license change?

     

    Sincerely,

    Royce

  • in reply to brentbolton

    Brent Bolton wrote:

    Thank you for confirming what I and many others on this forum suspected. The new license model is all about what's best for Autodesk, not what's best for us users. That comes across as a giant F*** You to this formerly loyal EagleCAD user. KiCAD, Altium, here I come.

    Brent

    Hi Brent,

    I don't think that is what they are saying, its more of adapting a business model that is successfully is working. A model that allows users to begin designing at reasonable price point, then the user can control their entitlement during idle times but still have full access to view and export.  There was no intention to disrespect our long time users, it was a matter of what can be done to satisfy the large flow of requested features and tools without raising the entry price.

    Best Regards,

    Ed

    EAGLE Forum

  • in reply to techsupport

    Hi Ed,

     

    I don't think you're really paying attention to what's being said here. Adopting a business model that successfully works for you but not your users is pointless. There are many other business models that would let you pour more resources into development while not shafting your user base. For instance, the unbundling model where you charge basically the same price for a version that has essentially the v7.x features, and then premiums over that for versions with more advanced features. Further, it's not really about the price. You have competitors that offer perpetual licenses at certain price points. That will force you to always charge a "reasonable" price set by the market. So I'm not worried about that. What I am worried about is my business being held hostage by Autodesk. For example, I have a many projects that I've done sitting "in the can" in case a customer comes back and wants some variant of one. Say, a few years from now there's some fantastic new CAD package that all my new customers are demanding. I switch to that and now I only need Eagle for that legacy work occasionally. But now I've got to keep paying Autodesk for their continuing improvements that I will never need. Further, the phone home to a server every 2 weeks feature gives me the willies. I don't want to have to depend on the existence of any computer other than my own when my income is riding on it working. Sorry, but your business model carries too much risk for my taste, so as I've said many times, no thanks.

     

    Brent

  • in reply to brentbolton

    Brent,

     

    100% agree.

     

    I'm in a similar situation as you.  Existing design that have to be maintained for years.  In fact, I have a couple of old OrCAD designs (10+ years old) that I still have to maintain on an infrequent basis (maybe once every year or two).  I have an ancient copy of OrCAD sitting in a Windows 2000 VM just to manage those designs.  Operating right next it is the software development package that can no longer be activated because the company is no longer around (well they are but have changed hands and no longer offer any support).  I'm only still able to use the later because I got it into a VM while I could still get it activated.  Both packages are dead for me as far as new designs are concerned, but still have value to support the existing design.  If they were under the new AutoDesk subscription model, I would have to pay access either.

     

     

    Royce

  • in reply to roycearnold

    Thanks Royce,

     

    I'm sure we not the only ones. I used to work in technical marketing for a semiconductor company. Our departments job was to ask our customers what they wanted and then do our best to make sure the company gave it to them. That company is now 100 times or more the size of Autodesk. I hope someone from their executive suite is getting this feedback. If they don't learn the lesson that you always need to put the customer first, the company is doomed to failure or perpetual mediocrity.

     

    Brent

  • in reply to brentbolton

    Brent Bolton wrote:

     

    Thanks Royce,

     

    I'm sure we not the only ones. I used to work in technical marketing for a semiconductor company. Our departments job was to ask our customers what they wanted and then do our best to make sure the company gave it to them. That company is now 100 times or more the size of Autodesk. I hope someone from their executive suite is getting this feedback. If they don't learn the lesson that you always need to put the customer first, the company is doomed to failure or perpetual mediocrity.

     

    Brent

    You will have listened to the customers to give them the product they needed. I bet you didn't let them dictate your pricing policy.

  • in reply to brentbolton

    Brent Bolton wrote:


    Thank you for confirming what I and many others on this forum suspected. The new license model is all about what's best for Autodesk, not what's best for us users. That comes across as a giant F*** You to this formerly loyal EagleCAD user. KiCAD, Altium, here I come.

     

    Brent

    Ultimately any companies main aim is to make money, so attempting to maximise the revenue is to be expected. Companies will not make money unless they have a product or service to sell. Generally speaking, software costs money to develop. Even KiCad, despite being open-source, is not developed for free. There are a number of paid developers, with CERN putting in a lot of money, but one can donate too.

     

    https://giving.web.cern.ch/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=6&gclid=CjwKEAiArbrFBRDL4Oiz97GP2nISJAAmJMFaR4C71dl9C_…

     

    (I'm a bit skeptical of donating my companies money. I think that might give me tax issues here in the UK. I guess it would have to be a personal donation).

     

    Based on that, to donate a days KiCad developer time, you need to donate 480 Swiss Francs CHF), which given the exchange rate is almost 1 USD = 1 CHF, it is $480 USD. Sure there will be some developers who are unpaid, but given all the comments about KiCad improving dramatically since CERN started putting money into it, one can probably conclude that the software improved because of the paid developers.

     

    Ultimately, if you don't like a license model, then walk away. There are plenty of options. Someone I know finds Sprint very good, and worth the $50 or so. He prefers it to KiCad.

     

    As for Rachel's comments about Autodesk having multiple servers, so even earthquakes will not cause problems checking out a license, I think there are more serious risks than earthquakes.

     

    * As I noted earlier, a Barings Bank that had been trading for over 300 years was bankrupted by one single employee. The same could happen to Autodesk.

    * Autodesk could just decide to discontinue the product.

    * All many of other reasons.

     

     

     

    Dave

  • in reply to drkirkby

    David Kirkby wrote on Thu, 23 February 2017 15:52

    • As I noted earlier, a Barings Bank that had been trading for over 300

    years was bankrupted by one single employee. The same could happen to

    Autodesk.

    • Autodesk could just decide to discontinue the product.

     

     

    One of the nice things about the EAGLE file format (since version 6 at

    least) is that it is easy to read.  I've already written a program that

    opens an EAGLE file, reads it and can parse the XML.  (I even posted a

    couple of my early experiments

    http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/m/156145/6f8dbdb16391f7c28db5b12f3dbae997/?srch=python#msg_156145.)

    If anything happens to EAGLE or Autodesk, we'll still be able to access

    our EAGLE files, if only to convert them to some other package.

    --

    EAGLE support forums at http://www.eaglecentral.ca :: Where the EAGLE community meets.

     

Reply Children
  • in reply to autodeskguest

    CadSoft Guest wrote:


    One of the nice things about the EAGLE file format (since version 6 at

    least) is that it is easy to read. I've already written a program that

    opens an EAGLE file, reads it and can parse the XML. (I even posted a

    couple of my early experiments

    http://www.eaglecentral.ca/index.php/m/156145/6f8dbdb16391f7c28db5b12f3dbae997/?srch=python#msg_156145.)

    If anything happens to EAGLE or Autodesk, we'll still be able to access

    our EAGLE files, if only to convert them to some other package.

    --

    EAGLE support forums at http://www.eaglecentral.ca :: Where the EAGLE community meets.

     

    Yes, that's a valid point. I see there are a number of Eagle to $other_PCB_package around, but all seem to have some issues, and not do a perfect translation.

     

    I've met this problem many times with other software. Mathematica had some significant changes in version 6, and had a converter to convert files from versions 5 or lower to version 6. In practice it was only partially successful. It would be nice if OpenOffice was 100% compatible with Word files, but in practice it is not.

     

    Dave