EAGLE License Recommendat ion

Let's take a little stroll down memory lane shall we?

https://www.element14.com/community/message/166900/l/eagle-version-75-released#166900

There were several sound arguments made, several times, about half implemented features, the lack of resources and introducing a nice nag screen which should have been an absolute no-go in many people's opinions. not only in this little thread... just chose this one to show you what i think is flawed reasoning from your side.

you did what you wanted anyway and really... the only answers were, "well, we did it this way. it's the best we could and we think we're right"

i'm reading the same here. i read well defined arguments, presented in a very nice and clear matter. and the nice answer you have to that is generally "we're going this way anyway"

It may be a fact that many users didn't upgrade to version 7, you may blindly use that fact to shove a subscription down peoples throat which is more expensive than you claimed it to be.

You could also ask yourself: Where did we go wrong in version 7 that people don't use it? i also find it very hard to believe you don't know the reasoning you use is not entirely true.

does this discussion have a point? I just honestly said: "I believe not because they'll (you) do what they (you) want anyway". True, the packaging of that message is not nice, but the message itself is perfectly clear.

We can have a long discussion about the subject "did eagle go down the drain?". For me... it did. Ad- nag- or crippleware is just morally not done. Especially if you claim to be low on resources and next set a developer to create adware and have the guts to present this as a feature.

There are several best practices. itil, bisl, lean, whichever you choose...

one thing they all agree on is the following point: it's all about customer perception. that perception wasn't great, it sure didn't get any better.

if that's trolling, then fine. you may call me a troll. it does not change my belief that you have effectively killed eagle, nor that you'll do as you please anyway.

When someone has posts lacking detail beyond the snarky "we hate you" bent, is that trolling?  Yup.  But it's incited a more meaningful, actionable reply so let's upack this a bit more and I promise it ends on a high note...

Autodesk isn't Premier Farnell.  We didn't have a hand in anything done prior to the acquisition (7.5, 7.0, 6.1, whathaveyou...) and our intent post acq is a good one.  We are improving routing, improving reuse, improving hierarchy, adding true ECAD<>MCAD support, better file handling, revision management, library tools, etc.  This is coming with subscription.  If you need these tools, you are welcome to subscribe. 

Perpetual licensing is not our business model moving forward and version 8 aligns with that model, perhaps a little sooner than any of us expected.  But we weren't coy here.  We said it may come and it did.  The cost is consistent with the previous license price and in many cases, the TCO is in fact lower.  I wont debate this point and if the value of EAGLE's capabilities we're adding doesn't eclipse the need to subscribe, then perhaps we've failed (i.e. we didnt deliver) or perhaps the product isn't what's best for you.  Believe me, I get that.

WRT to nag-ware, ad-ware, etc; we removed that ad ware post acq.  We also added a free export to MCAD (not an additional service), a better interface to mfg, the first major pass at design reuse, improvements in routing, better visualization of missed connections in schematic, renamed a wire a line (like it should have been for 26 years), cleaned up a number of selection issues including modal versus non-modal behavior, etc.  This is all something you'd find in the tool (free or paid) were you to open it.  In fact, much was added in 7.7.

So in fact, we are making good on our promises and the notion of EAGLE as a cash-cow is a mischaracterization that anyone without knowledge of the business could be forgiven for making. 

I would likewise argue that it isn't about "customer perception" at all as you've stated.  It's about customer success in using your tool.  If you build a better tool, able to do more, which makes them more effective and ensures they get to see their kid's little league game on the weekends or gets them home in time for dinner with their spouse, then you win.  If I build a tool only to serve perception, that's a slippery slope toward vaporware. 

We need to build features that make design better, more efficient and less error prone.  This is why we said "Routing!" when we first started working on the tool.  Obstacle avoidance, better rules, better trace handling, push and shove (driven by those rules), are all in the cards.  When will we deliver on those?  As soon as we humanly can.   The ECAD<>MCAD tools are improving as well.  This is a path toward total integration.  (As I said, we didn't call the product Fusion for nothing so if I'm leaking anything by sharing this, then I guess we didn't do a great job of hiding this in the first place!) 

If you dont need any of this, then I appreciate that you may not be our target customer.  And that's ok.  They can't all be zingers!  And there's no captive audiences here.  But if it's cool to you to see EAGLE mature to compete on the same footing as the big boys, but perhaps leaner, cleaner & less expensive; then let's discuss priorities around this and make sure we get to the right finish line(s) first.

We are putting our money where our mouth is and we welcome you to try it out and come along for the ride.  I'd be super happy if in 6 months you said: "look at that!  I never knew it'd be able to do that!".   For us, that's the only measure of a win.  That and making it affordable.  And we have started down the path toward both.  Of course, you're forgiven if you feel like we're asking you to bet on something which isn't fully baked.  We get that.  Trust me, I get that.  But it'll happen.  And when it does...it'll be glorious and you'll be proud to have a license. 

Best regards,

Matt

p.s. and truly, thanks for a proper reply with some meat on it.  I need something more to reply to or I too, like any other human, show my humanity.

Hi Mark

Thanks for the honest email and I can appreciate you want to hold off.  This is ok.  We are ok with this.  I will say that the 50% off promo for upgrades (the EAGLE50 promo code) will expire 6 mos from launch.  However I would expect a lot of progress by then to reassure you that we're not just blowing smoke.  FWIW, if you bought in december, you should contact the sales team at Autodesk on the eagle site and ask for a refund and rebill.  We can issue you a license of 7.7 but ensure you have the upgrade, so you can move across whenever you want.  That way you get the best of both worlds and you're not feeling like you paid twice for one item so close together.

Hope that helps.

Best regards,

Matt

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.

--