EAGLE License Recommendat ion

Hi Rachael,

Yes this was also my objection, when I spoke here in this forum about standards.

Eagle v8 licensing... (look for page 10, in the middle of the page)

(first i asked for Matt, Jorge answered me. Then we talked about the standards.)

Then Jorge told me that AutoDesk can make the standard PCB 160 cm² with up to 4 layers.

But! - how can I (μ) PGA or (μ) BGA? You need more than 4 layers.
Well, this is absolutely unreal to think that "standard" is 4 levels!

-> This "standard" was a standard in the 1990s, when we started the electronic work.
The standard in 1985 I worked with, was 99 layers with PCAD (v 5) - on the MSDOS platform.
Eagle did not really exist at this time. In the 90s, Eagle entered the hobby scene.

I do not know - do you know Elektor? This was an "absolute must" in the electronics hobby in Europe.
My first Elektor was 11/1976 - the the Layouter worked by hand with Letraset, then the layout was copied onto a thermal transfer foil.
In the 90s to 2k's Elektor used ULTIBOARD, I used PCAD, PROTEL, OrCAD, or by hand as a training.
Then the 2k's PCAD was migrated to Altium, the price was astronomical. So I went to Cadsoft. (v5.12)
Elektor is now using Altium. (Why I told Elektor, because that was the beginning for most electronics engineers, they went from hobby to pro.)

Well, what is standard ?? !! - Standard is what the market needs by giving time -> today 2017 and future.

No, my opinion, standard for Eagle must have a full number of layers as minimum, and 1 or 2 m² dimension, not 160 cm².
All Others is for hobby. It is a step back when you stay in a place forever.
With 160 cm² I can not create a 19" PCB with 6U - 160x233mm.
What is standard? - 19" or mini-PCB mounted in a brake of a car?

What is standard? - a space ship?
Standard was for Eagle 160x100 with 6 layers (V6).

Now it is 160x100 with 2 layers, then "comes back" 4 layers, as mentioned above.
Well, this is an aggressive step back! The customers are cheated, pulled over the table.

Customers are confused with "news". In a year, no one knows any more.
The young engineers do not know how we, the old ones, fought at that time.
Advertising on the web is designed to be confusing.

Has super beautiful huge pictures, but extremely little meaning.

AutoDesk does not matter, it says: "we also provide the software for the authorities and large companies." (See a message from Matt with this sentence).

For us it is not matter, we are dependent and have to live on both sides to get slaps (supplier side and the customer side).

Elektor has always advertised Eagle in the magazines.

So that in the beginning 2000? ..2005 Eagle became more popular also in the industry.

The small contractors and private individuals reached that Eagle was also accepted by the PCB manufacturers.

Although Eagle has not progressed in the past 10 years, especially in the last 3 years, it is used by PCB manufacturers.

This will probably be the focus for AutoDesk.

Just how many PCB manufacturers are there? - much less than developer offices.

And these developers do not want to be ripped off.

Gerald

---

Robert Beaubien wrote on Tue, 07 February 2017 00:48

Matt,  This pricing does not allow for the hobbyist to continue

working with Eagle.  I purchased the $169 option that allowed for 6

layers and 100x160mm boards and I designed within that limitation.  All

my boards are 4 layer.  Now to get the same functionality is going to

cost me $250 the first year and god know after that.

Hi Robert, You don't need the premium subscription for 4 layer boards, they

are upping the standard limit to 4 layers which I believe will be available

in the next v8.0.1 release available any day now.

Robert Beaubien wrote on Tue, 07 February 2017 00:48

  I do this for fun and don't make any money off it.  I would have no

problem with a $250/subscription (every year) that also included benefits

like an online parts library, but even that is a stretch, and at $500+

year, I simply can't afford it.

Online parts library... what a horrible idea.... EAGLE already comes with a

large part library that you can use if you absolutely must. Really though,

everybody should just create their own clean library which they fully check

themselves as you cannot just blindly use libraries created by others

without thoroughly checking them first anyway. I wouldn't want Autodesk

wasting effort creating an online parts library which is essentially of no

real value as they should be putting their resources into useful things

like adding more high end routing features etc.

Robert Beaubien wrote on Tue, 07 February 2017 00:48

Why would you change the limitations of your enthusiast versions?

There isn't an enthusiast subscription version at the moment. Both the

subscription versions are fully commercial, it's just the freeware one

which is non-commercial.

Best Regards,

Rachael

--

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

Matt,  This pricing does not allow for the hobbyist to continue working with Eagle.  I purchased the $169 option that allowed for 6 layers and 100x160mm boards and I designed within that limitation.  All my boards are 4 layer.  Now to get the same functionality is going to cost me $250 the first year and god know after that.  I do this for fun and don't make any money off it.  I would have no problem with a $250/subscription (every year) that also included benefits like an online parts library, but even that is a stretch, and at $500+ year, I simply can't afford it. 

Why would you change the limitations of your enthusiast versions?

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:41:04 +0000, James Morrison

<james@eaglecentral.ca> wrote:

New Proposal

+1

John

John DeArmond

http://www.neon-john.com

http://www.tnduction.com

Tellico Plains, Occupied TN

See website for email address

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:55:00 -0800, Matt Berggren

<technolomaniac@gmail.com> wrote:

Firstly, from the outset we knew we've wanted to integrate EAGLE's

capabilities with MCAD, MFG, Cutting (CAM), etc to provide something far in

excess of any 'ECAD<>MCAD' solution on the market. After all, this is a

deep part of Autodesk's history and the value we bring to the table, and

the company has been centered around 3D CAD, even when done in 2D (for

example Autocad) for 25+ years. Thus, we have been looking long and hard at

what it takes to build 'whole products' and this acquisition of an

electronics solution marks just the beginning of a process that'll take us

in some wild directions. That being said, we are working on this and will

continue, hybridizing EAGLE's schematic and PCB capabilities with an MCAD +

MFG workflow that we hope will prove second-to-none.

Matt,

Has it occurred to you that there is a significant percentage of the

Eagle user base that simply doesn't want all that complexity and cost?

I suspect I'm close to typical.  I run a 4 person (variable number of

contractors too) manufacturing company that manufactures induction

heaters.  We introduced our first product, the Roy induction heater in

2009 and that's when we bought Eagle.  I've kept it up to date until

now.

I do all the design work except for some mechanical work that I hire a

contractor for.  Our needs are minimal and for that we use QCAD.  It's

closed source but it runs on Linux and its native file format is DXF.

To me there seems to be an obvious solution to this problem.  Keep

Eagle as a stand-alone product just like it was and at the same time

incorporate it into you complex and expensive product.  Backfit

stand-alone Eagle with applicable significant new features as you

develop them for the integrated product.

In this manner you can service both the small user who doesn't want

and/or can't afford the complexity of your integrated product and you

can service your traditional customer base with the integrated

product.

I know that AutoDesk has gotten so large that it doesn't have to give

a sh*t about what us small customers want.  We small companies can't

be that way.  If a customer will pay the price, I will incorporate a

special feature into even an old board, spin a few and modify the

firmware accordingly.

The design files are under source code control so I can go back and

fetch the design files with little effort.  I keep every version of

Eagle on our machines so it's simply a matter of firing it up and

making the mods.

To protect against old versions not running on an upgraded OS, I have

a large gun safe in the building's basement.  Inside are laptops

loaded with the environment it takes to run the old versions.  Thus if

Canonical makes changes to Ubuntu that break old versions, I can still

use the laptop to make the changes.

Your current scheme of renting new versions breaks this method of

operation.  Thus if you continue on your current path, I much change

packages.  KiCAD is my choice.

Understand that I don't WANT to change.  I'd like to continue in my

current familiar work environment.  But you're currently forcing my

hand.

Why don't you give my proposal consideration and then adopt it?  That

way everyone would be happy.

John

John DeArmond

http://www.neon-john.com

http://www.tnduction.com

Tellico Plains, Occupied TN

See website for email address

Matt Berggren wrote:

 

To that end, we're not gong back to the old "maintenance model" that other tools use, so we wont issue a perpetual license against a subscription like James discussed. I know this sounds like a healthy compromise to some, but it doesn't fit the model that ensures we keep improving the tools at this pace. Did we know we would meet with resistance? Of course. And we knew we'd lose some users with the change. But this has occurred across the whole of Autodesk whilst building a stable community who have adopted the new model, once we starting putting up features that made them more productive.

 

Matt,

This infuriates me.  I'm a long time Autodesk user/customer (25+ years).  I go back to the days of DOS with AutoCAD and even managed to survive AutoCAD R13.  I even chose Inventor over SolidWorks when the time for 3D came.  To say that the other users of Autodesk products have "adopted the new model" in inaccurate.  Many users (such as myself) are grandfathered into the perpetual license model.  Who knows how long that will last, but when it ends, I'm done with Autodesk!  Although, this whole mess with Eagle has me seriously considering terminating my entire relationship with AutoDesk.  In short, NO, we have not all accepted the new model.  People such as myself are hanging on and hoping that Autodesk comes to it senses.  Something that seems to be increasingly less likely.  I've had discussion after discussion with individuals with Autodesk and their Resellers.  I always hear that I am not the only one with my complaints or arguments.

Let's discuss the "old maintenance model" vs subscription.  Please explain the advantages to me and the other members of this forum.  I'll start.  Pros and Cons from the user perspective.

Pro Subscription:   Licenses cost can be 100% expensed.  OK, I can agree with that.  And for larger license holders, that could be a significant advantage.  For smaller ones, it is not as clear cut.

Con Subscription:  At some point, Autodesk can reduce development efforts without reducing revenue.  A real concern and worry for me in regards to product quality and features.

Con Subscription:  Entities outside AutoDesk or my organization, could act to terminate my ability to use the license.  This could range from hacker attacks, crypto attacks, solar flare disruption, terrorist attack, disgruntled employee, failure of AutoDesk hardware / service, failure of local internet access, etc.

Pro Maintenance:  Licenses are perpetual.  If Autodesk makes a decision I can not live with (i.e. see current license situation),  I have the ability to continue to operate with my existing license.

Pro Maintenance:  Autodesk is encouraged to continue to develop features that users want.  Yes, I view this exact opposite as you stated.

Pro Maintenance:  Maintenance Model be modified to provide the same "subscription" revenue stream.  How?  Tie all support / updates to maintenance contracts.  I have other products like this.  I'm not thrilled about them, but I can accept them. Autodesk ends up with the same continuous revenue.  We end up with a perpetual license.  Further, Autodesk continued revenue for a product is directly tied supporting the product, not just the products existence.

Many of the people on this forum are engineers.  Traditionally, we are one of the hardest groups to sell or market to.  We are won over by the use of facts and logic, not marketing BS.  The very nature of our jobs require us to anticipate points of failure and plan accordingly with any system we are dealing with.  What you are hearing from me and many of my colleagues, is that the risk / cost to benefit ratios of the new subscription model are too high.

I'm not advocating Autodesk abandoning the subscription model altogether.  My only Pro for Subscription is a very big one for some larger organizations.  And if I operated a 100+ seat AutoCAD/Eagle operation, there would be some definite attraction.  However, I would still likely require at least one perpetual license even if only for piece of mind.  But, I do see both models as being possible and living together in harmony... mostly.

--

Justyn B wrote:

 

Therefore I will be watching what you do with the exporter to Eagle v6 or v7 format carefully. I see potential in creating a workflow that automatically archives a v6/v7 file version along with all v8+ work, to be sure that we will always be able to use and modify our designs if necessary by using the the older offline Eagle with fewer features.

I agree, backwards compatibility features should be automatic. How about as the file format is XML, make sure anything that pertains to new features is contained in separate tags which v6/v7 will ignore and ensure that all the important design data remains in the existing file format so the files can ALWAYS be opened in the pervious versions of EAGLE without having to either specifically export it or continually have two versions of the file saved?

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the relatively frank reply.

To be clear I don't hold you accountable for what happened before your

time, I'm merely pointing out that looking at upgrade figures for v7 would

be quite misleading, considering the low quality of that release.

And whatever you say it seems totally clear that you could make more

revenue, not less, by focusing on subscription but also offering perpetual

at a premium (name your premium!) for those who need it. But it seems you

won't consider it, which I'm sorry to be blunt shows a worrying lack of

flexibility or respect for your loyal users.

Anyway, to be as constructive as possible...

technolomaniac wrote on Tue, 31 January 2017 00:54

With regard to that last item, here's what we've settled on thus far

for ensuring you have legacy SW and versions and data available to you:

 

1) The free version shouldn't expire and will only require a connection

the first time you open it.

2) The free version should open files of any size and layer count and

allow you to place NEW objects anywhere within the extents of the free

version.

3) The free version should allow you to output files (gerber, PDF,

NCDrill, etc) of any size or layer count, regardless of the license you

have.

4) Any paid license should automatically roll over to the free version

if/when your license lapses.  (working on this)

5) Every version of the free software will be made available for

download outside of the normal update system.

6) We will not own your data and will continue to publish an XML file +

DTD for all eagle file types.

7) We will expand the EAGLE API (coming soon-ish) to ensure users have

access to EAGLE's datamodel via Javascript, Node, etc., to ensure a pipe

out of EAGLE is easy to implement.

8) We will continue to make all legacy and new versions available for

download.

9) We will provide you a license of an earlier, Cadsoft version of

EAGLE with the purchase of subscription (this is as-is, with no support

implied...it will match your current tier...some work to make sure we get

this right just yet, but it's coming).

10). We'll look to build an exporter to the legacy version 6 format and

ensure, for the first time, backwards compatibility.

Parts of your "10-point plan" for mitigating the negative effects of this

subscription model are quite interesting.

The foundation of protecting our data and avoiding being held hostage by

subscription lock-in is the XML+DTD for the file format, this is necessary

but not sufficient at the moment since only Eagle properly supports it.

So using v7 (or v6) of Eagle, which operate entirely offline with a license

file, effectively as competition for yourself and therefore also allowing

them to act as an emergency backstop against either temporary or permanent

license failure is an intriguing approach.

Therefore I will be watching what you do with the exporter to Eagle v6 or

v7 format carefully. I see potential in creating a workflow that

automatically archives a v6/v7 file version along with all v8+ work, to be

sure that we will always be able to use and modify our designs if necessary

by using the the older offline Eagle with fewer features.

I'm afraid it probably isn't enough for me, and like others I am evaluating

alternatives (it turns out that they're much better than they used to be).

I'm also concerned that since as a demographic Linux users are probably

least likely to sign on to the subscription model their proportion of your

user base will dwindle, and with it the importance you assign to the

platform.

But I'll continue to watch how this plays out over the next few months, and

we'll see.

--

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

Hi Justyn

--

First off, I wish I'd get a direct response instead of a side-comment in a

related thread.  I've put a lot into EAGLE over the years, I think I

deserve a straight answer.

Please explain this Matt.  I made the argument that this is better for

funding as it gives you two-years of guaranteed subscriptions.  Without it

you're only guranteed one month--how is my suggestion worse?  Please

explain.

Also, please don't tell me that you can't do a perpetual license.  In

another thread Jorge explained that educational licenses are given a 3-year

license:

Quote:

-Universities that had a previous CadSoft Educational license can go to

 

http://www.autodesk.com/education/free-software/eagle and obtain their

 

free 3 year educational license. The IT Lab coordinator will need to

install EAGLE in each computer, but the individual students would need

 

to create accounts so they can use when they are in the lab.

So it is possible to do this sort of thing.  Changing that 3 year term to

99 years is the same thing as perpetual.  So you have the ability to do

it.

Now explain why you won't.  This is an issue for any professional.  If

you want EAGLE to be a hobbyist tool then subscription only might be OK.

But professionals cannot accept that.  I don't think that has really sunk

in yet.

Cheers,

James.

--

James Morrison  ~~~  Stratford Digital

http://www.stratforddigital.ca

--

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

On 03.02.2017 10:45, Hans Lederer wrote:

 

No, this model isn't right for me, and so we part now, with quite some

pain.  Not really as friends, since I did buy, use and like Eagle for 26

years in three companies and Autodesk/Matt will be the one who killed it

for me.

 

My thanks for those years and my sympathy to the remaining Cadsoft

people!  (I gather that several have left already.)

 

Same here, all the best to the old team.

Markus