EAGLE License Recommendat ion

Hi James, et. Al --

I've sent a number of variations of this email over the last few days, so

let me share it and solicit people's feedback.  This is some of what

we're doing to make this model a bit more user-friendly and I want to be

clear, there is an eagerness to get this right, whilst still ensuring we

hit our objectives.  Constructive comments are welcome.

Firstly, thank you for your email and insights; it's clear that you've

thought deeply about this and I appreciate your honest, unfiltered

feedback. I've watched and responded on the various forums where I felt it

might help but the response means we can't hit every post, unfortunately.

The subscription debate is a tough one for sure, and one we didn't take

lightly, I can assure you. We toiled for some time along with the support

team and the development group to decide just when to make the move. To be

sure, it doesn't sit well right now with some folks, however let me try and

give you some context for "why?" we made the decision and what capabilities

the tools already provides (or we're working on) to ensure you have lasting

SW to work with yourdata...

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.

That being said, all of our tools are subscription and with me having been

a relatively new addition to Autodesk (I ran product at Supplyframe which

owns Hackaday and 15 years w/Altium before that), this was a decision that

was made before my time... Still, I support it. (Not just being a lemming,

I support this 100%.) The argument / debate is largely about making tools

available if/when you need them and providing a continuous stream of

updates / value that's achievable when you consistent revenue stream to

fund R&D. It's a curious model for ECAD, to be sure, however it doesn't

come without us taking a huge hit in those first few years!  (We lose

substantial annual revenue as we move customers over, as you might

imagine.) 

Now to be sure, subscription has the potential for revenue 'upside', but I

want to be 100% clear: even if I doubled EAGLE's revenue tomorrow, I

wouldn't move the Autodesk needle even ½ of 1%. At a ~$17B market cap,

EAGLE's revenue is not why we acquired it and we are not the evil overlords

come down to squeeze every last cent out of EAGLE's most loyal users (it

was my decision to make, and I wasn't focused on the incremental revenue).

What motivated the acquisition were really two things: 1) the core

capabilities on which we could build what we're endeavoring to build and 2)

the community. Now of course the latter (at least on public forums)

probably appears frustrated at the moment  I assure you, it stresses me out

too (nobody is losing more sleep than me over the change!)  but truth be

told, the vast majority of EAGLE users we not inclined to upgrade to the

latest and greatest version. Why? Perhaps because they never felt they were

getting enough value, version to version, for this to make sense?

Regardless of the reason, the bulk of EAGLE users are on v5 or v6...Not v7.

Whether we like it or not, I have to operate on the facts.

So with all of that in mind, we want a license model which aligns to the

larger Autodesk so we can integrate EAGLE (in a hard way...not a "passing

files back and forth" way) into Autodesk's larger platform, which is both

subscription and thriving.  So the question was: when to rip off the band

aid? And what could we do to make it hurt a little less.

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.

I know that's a mouthful but I wanted to be sure and stress that we're

trying really hard to make this work in a way that works for the user. My

background is as an engineer and I live in this community in a real way

(not as some passive marketing ***), thus I'm hoping that having built

consumer products, I'm covering many of the bases with this strategy.  (And

believe me it hurts when my friends call me out and tell me I'm squeezing

them or locking away their data or that I just dont "get" it.)  Still, I'm

sure there'll be gaps. Some are unavoidable, some perhaps just oversights

on our part.

What I'd love is if you all could, in a constructive way, look thru that

list and let me know whether you think there's more than you already knew

today (which means I needed to get onto the forums and discuss this in

greater detail) and also, what you think about some of these items as a way

forward (although perhaps suboptimal...are they meaningful?).

I really DO value your feedback and I can assure you, I'm working my tail

off to make sure we demonstrate value to users like yourself and others who

have shown such an obvious passion for the product. It's not easy to be

parsimonious and also explain the "whole" view, so this is an email I may I

have sent in various forms to different people and it's all changed a

little each time as I go thru it, just to ensure I make the salient points.

I didn't want to send a half-hearted reply widely for fear I end up under

the microscope with every troll in Trollville pushing their agenda with my

words.   But this is where we're at and I can tell you, that we will

continue with subscription as we move forward, though we are making

attempts to be concessionary and meet the community half way.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Matt

--

I solve problems.

--

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

technolomaniac wrote on Tue, 31 January 2017 00:54

What motivated the acquisition were really two things: 1) the core

capabilities on which we could build what we're endeavoring to build and

2) the community. Now of course the latter (at least on public forums)

probably appears frustrated at the moment  I assure you, it stresses me

out too (nobody is losing more sleep than me over the change!)  but truth

be told, the vast majority of EAGLE users we not inclined to upgrade to

the latest and greatest version. Why? Perhaps because they never felt

they were getting enough value, version to version, for this to make

sense?  Regardless of the reason, the bulk of EAGLE users are on v5 or

v6...Not v7.  Whether we like it or not, I have to operate on the facts.

Matt,

This argument that not enough users had upgraded to v7 is hugely

frustrating to hear.

Version 7 offered incredibly poor incentive to upgrade for existing users.

I mean seriously, so little. And I say this as someone who did upgrade and

has been using it!

Given that most designs don't realistically allow use of the full

autorouter and that the hierarchical design feature was far too basic and

restrictive to offer much (again, as someone who determinedly uses this

feature!) why exactly would people upgrade to v7?

You've spoken about the exciting features you're planning to add to Eagle

moving forward - if they're truly worthwhile, people will upgrade for them

regardless of whether or not they're on subscription.

technolomaniac wrote on Tue, 31 January 2017 00:54

we are not the evil overlords come down to squeeze every last cent out

of EAGLE's most loyal users (it was my decision to make, and I wasn't

focused on the incremental revenue).

This is very interesting to hear, since I assumed that it was a decision

forced on you by Autodesk. Clearly not.

Matt, I'd really like to hear a response to James Morrsion's proposal that

a perpetual license be available in some form in addition to subscription.

I mean, I'm trying to give you money here, and you're making it impossible.

It's crazy.

--

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

technolomaniac wrote on Tue, 31 January 2017 00:54

What motivated the acquisition were really two things: 1) the core

capabilities on which we could build what we're endeavoring to build and

2) the community. Now of course the latter (at least on public forums)

probably appears frustrated at the moment  I assure you, it stresses me

out too (nobody is losing more sleep than me over the change!)  but truth

be told, the vast majority of EAGLE users we not inclined to upgrade to

the latest and greatest version. Why? Perhaps because they never felt

they were getting enough value, version to version, for this to make

sense?  Regardless of the reason, the bulk of EAGLE users are on v5 or

v6...Not v7.  Whether we like it or not, I have to operate on the facts.

Matt,

This argument that not enough users had upgraded to v7 is hugely

frustrating to hear.

Version 7 offered incredibly poor incentive to upgrade for existing users.

I mean seriously, so little. And I say this as someone who did upgrade and

has been using it!

Given that most designs don't realistically allow use of the full

autorouter and that the hierarchical design feature was far too basic and

restrictive to offer much (again, as someone who determinedly uses this

feature!) why exactly would people upgrade to v7?

You've spoken about the exciting features you're planning to add to Eagle

moving forward - if they're truly worthwhile, people will upgrade for them

regardless of whether or not they're on subscription.

technolomaniac wrote on Tue, 31 January 2017 00:54

we are not the evil overlords come down to squeeze every last cent out

of EAGLE's most loyal users (it was my decision to make, and I wasn't

focused on the incremental revenue).

This is very interesting to hear, since I assumed that it was a decision

forced on you by Autodesk. Clearly not.

Matt, I'd really like to hear a response to James Morrsion's proposal that

a perpetual license be available in some form in addition to subscription.

I mean, I'm trying to give you money here, and you're making it impossible.

It's crazy.

--

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

Hi Justyn --

Thanks for the post.  As I noted in another reply, I cant really take ownership of what happened before our time, however since the acq we've released 2 'point' releases and a new version, so we are trending in the right direction (in 6 months while learning a new code base, build tools, workflow, integrating back end business processes, etc...all the same group involved at every level).  We'd added ECAD<>MCAD support (for free...ie not a paid add-on), better export to mfg, routing improvements (interactive and auto), design reuse with Design Blocks, wiring improvements, etc. So we are moving fast, at the price of a good night's sleep, to be sure.  But it's all happening.  In fact, the only complaints we've heard so far are wrt to licensing. 

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. 

We may have moved to subs faster than anyone (even I) anticipated - and we may have opened an old wound with the Flexera licensing that EAGLE had in the past - but this again is something we'd agreed to push when it made the most sense (with the major release version).  It's not the end of EAGLE, just the end of a licensing model that is steadily going away. 

If you dont feel comfortable moving at this time, we totally get it.  Wait a while, see what we do, tell us what you want to see most in terms of features and functionality and then make your decision based on whether we've delivered what we say we're going to deliver.  If the model isn't right for you at that time, then we'd hope to part as friends and you feel like EAGLE was a great stop along the way. 

Best regards,

Matt

Am 03.02.2017 um 03:25 schrieb Matt Berggren:

we're not gong back to the old "maintenance model"

+so we wont issue a perpetual license

And we knew we'd lose some users with the change.

It's not the end of EAGLE, just the end of a licensing model

If the model isn't right for you at that time, then we'd hope to part

as friends and you feel like EAGLE was a great stop along the way.

Well, these statements should clarify Autodesk's position and we all can

stop this obviously fruitless licensing discussion and start evaluating

the alternatives.

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.)

Farewell — Hans

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

--