Author Topic: Rumor has it... (Read 21756 times)

EEVblog · « **on:** February 08, 2018, 11:54:15 pm »

Rumor has it that several former Altium coders will now be working on Eagle.

ataradov · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2018, 12:05:34 am »

The end result is rarely due to coders, it is more due to managers. Coders help of course, but transforming Eagle into Altium may be easier if you just start from scratch.

DerekG · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2018, 01:04:20 am »

Quote from: ataradov on February 09, 2018, 12:05:34 am

The end result is rarely due to coders, it is more due to managers.

Quite right. Management need to instruct the coders to advance the code such that it implements the features that the sales division are requesting (hopefully after talking with their existing user base).

It may end up yet that Autodesk's purchase of CadSoft was the best thing that could have happened to EAGLE CAD.

Let's hope so!

bandgap · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2018, 02:36:46 pm »

Quote from: ataradov on February 09, 2018, 12:05:34 am

The end result is rarely due to coders, it is more due to managers. Coders help of course, but transforming Eagle into Altium may be easier if you just start from scratch.

Agreed. And I doubt the Altium coders will be able to revert the direction toward the cloud that Eagle seems to be going in (and I'm not just talking about the subscription model.)

NivagSwerdna · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2018, 04:10:11 pm »

https://diptrace.com/buy/offer/

tszaboo · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2018, 04:37:09 pm »

I dont think there was anything wrong with the code. It is the UI and the strange, backwards design choices that make it a bad software.
I mean, even if they would implement all the missing features it wouldn't be competitive.

mars01 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2018, 05:03:01 pm »

Quote from: ataradov on February 09, 2018, 12:05:34 am

The end result is rarely due to coders, it is more due to managers. Coders help of course, but transforming Eagle into Altium may be easier if you just start from scratch.

True enough, but ...
Autodesk already has one of the former Altium managers, Matt Berggren. Now they may have employed some programmers that are familiar with the algorithms found in Altium Designer. A good combo for Eagle.
Those programmers may not be allowed to use the code from Altium, but you know how engineering is done now-a-day: take something from here, an idea from there and you get your own product.

I guess Eagle is now getting an upgrade: a new pair of faster wings.

james_s · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2018, 06:43:34 pm »

IMHO it doesn't matter either way. The rental-only model along with their bold faced lies leading up to the switch makes Eagle irrelevant, it's a non-starter. Every person I know who was using it has either frozen on the version they had or moved on to something else.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2018, 10:41:46 pm »

On the contrary, Altium had been an engineering-led company for 25+ years. And the close relationship between developers and front-line staff / customers is what made the transition from Protel (weird, Tasmanian company / SW with a strange UI and unconventional pricing model, workflow, data / file format, etc) to Altium / Altium Designer possible.

We became the leader, eventually supplanting the deeply entrenched "orcad/pads" stack, despite almost every headwind you might imagine. In fact, I dont ever recall the company having Product Managers until after that period and long after Nick Martin (founder and CEO) 'left'.

The great thing about this industry is that it's small, led by a handful of amazing technologists and of course that gaggle of business dudes (I fall into that last bucket as much as I'd love to be in the first!).

As Dave's pointed out, there are ex Altium dudes working at Autodesk. Altium's new VP of Marketing is an ex Autodesk guy. Question is: what happens when EAGLE's UI / UX is tidied up and we add better rules / routing (sketch, bus, better diff pair, etc), better MCAD integration, better library management, release management, etc. We know how to do it but we also have the freedom to do it the way many of us wanted to all along (and with the experience of building these things sometimes 3, 4, 5 different ways, each time getting better as we went). We dont need to be Altium Designer. We need to be EAGLE and we need to rethink *everything*. Even if we reach the same conclusions.

Sure, subscription is a headwind for some (for us just as much as it might be for you) but thinking about cadsoft / EAGLE, consider the parallels: i.e. strange SW from some far off place in Bavaria, with a different dialect (#respect to my Tasmanian friends, but you dudes are hard to understand sometimes!), weird unconventional UI, strange workflow, unconventional approach to just about every feature...Reminds me a lot of where Protel was in 99/00. And I for one (and Im not the only one) have first hand experience making that transition from the underdog to the incumbent. The development team is likewise charged up and ready for the challenge.

FTR, I have enormous respect for my friends still at Altium, still think Altium Designer is the "tool to beat" and I'm proud of everything we achieved over there. However, at the same time, I look forward to growing EAGLE's market position at a price point that *nobody* is ready to contend with. We aren't doing this to drive incremental growth. We're doing this to see EAGLE and KiCAD take over the world. (Yep, you heard me right.)

rx8pilot · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2018, 10:53:32 pm »

Quote from: james_s on February 09, 2018, 06:43:34 pm

Every person I know who was using it has either frozen on the version they had or moved on to something else.

I tried to switch - but could not afford the learning curve of a new piece of software. At the moment, I have back-to-back projects that will continue for about 6 months with no room for learning new ECAD. That is the ONLY reason I am still on Eagle. I hate it so much - even with the most recent improvements - it is a dog in too many ways. Kind of like a massive wound that has been patched with a thousand band-aids. As soon as I have a reasonable gap in my schedule - I will be on the hunt for another option. One that does not take me back to 1995 every time I use it. Surprised I didn't have to FAX an order form and snail mail a money order to buy it.

Not sure it Altium coders can make a difference - as stated it is up to management. At least they will have the option (hopefully) to re-do the entire graphics engine, re-do the routing engine, re-do the process of defining and management of new parts. Add space mouse support.

It really needs a near total do-over. It's not even worth my time to list my gripes, the list would be a mile long.

lundmar · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2018, 10:54:55 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 11, 2018, 10:41:46 pm

We're doing this to see EAGLE and KiCAD take over the world. (Yep, you heard me right.)

+1 for KiCad

EEVblog · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2018, 11:40:08 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 11, 2018, 10:41:46 pm

On the contrary, Altium had been an engineering-led company for 25+ years. And the close relationship between developers and front-line staff / customers is what made the transition from Protel (weird, Tasmanian company / SW with a strange UI and unconventional pricing model, workflow, data / file format, etc) to Altium / Altium Designer possible.

Altium ultimately became a "vision driven" company. It was Nick Martin's FPGA vision, or it was the highway. Altium mostly floundered for more than a decade under that "vision", and the engineering customers hated it. They didn't switch because there was nothing better at the price point, and it's hard to switch your everyday use CAD package in a professional environment.

nctnico · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2018, 12:02:40 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 11, 2018, 10:41:46 pm

Sure, subscription is a headwind for some

For me it is a non-starter and there are very good reasons:
- Long term support of products (which may be longer than the software is available or worth paying for).
- If a company goes through a rough time and can't pay the bills then disabling key pieces of software is like taking away the legs from a table.
- Availability of the software manufacturer. What if Eagle goes belly up or is no longer maintained? Who keeps the licensing servers running? Cadsoft/Eagle has been taken over a couple of times already in the past couple of years.

KE5FX · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2018, 12:49:21 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 11, 2018, 10:41:46 pm

Question is: what happens when EAGLE's UI / UX is tidied up and we add better rules / routing (sketch, bus, better diff pair, etc), better MCAD integration, better library management, release management, etc.

Answer is: you still don't get to seize access to my IP and rent it back to me.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:12:40 am »

That's simply not correct. And last I looked, I'm the only one here that's actually fed his family on a quota selling Altium Designer (which means I spent my days and nights in front of customers discussing what was new and why it would help them!)

The truth is that ALL the while the FPGA tools were being developed, so was 3D PCB, the Vault, Subversion / VCS integration, outjobs / release management, the data management tools, simetrix / simplus support, better routing tools, pin / part swapping, etc. To say that if you didnt support the FPGA workflow at Altium you were shown the door is untrue and a vast oversimplification of what was being developed over almost 10 years. I know, I lived it and was very close to the center of that development effort.

Most of the development team was NOT focused on FPGA. So please dont rewrite history. This is not accurate and unfair to the guys that built all of the other capabilities that made it easy to displace PADS / OrCAD / Allegro / DX / Expedition. Again, I fed my family on those features and knew first hand where we started at the beginning of the sales process, what customers responded to, and felt perhaps more directly than anyone here the effects of where we ended up at the end of the competitive bake-off. -MB

technolomaniac · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:17:48 am »

Your IP is not under fire. You can keep saying this but it's false. Any tool you own / use is not your IP (even KiCAD). Your IP is what you create with it. And nobody has taken that away from you, whether subscription or perpetual. Period.

james_s · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:20:29 am »

What happens to that IP if the tools needed to do anything productive with it are locked out? If I don't pay to update my software I don't get any updates, I can still fire it up 20 or more years later and use it if I need to manipulate some old project. With rental software that is not the case, no matter how you spin it.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:40:15 am »

EAGLE continues to open ANY file, of any complexity, in the free license. You can even generate outputs from that data (Gerber, drill, etc), regardless of license. Now if that's developed in something without an open file format? Good luck reading that file data (MFC stream writer makes binary files fun to try and reverse engineer...best of luck getting your data out). And when that SW you have stops running on a modern operating system (saw this with Tango, Master Designer, the old OrCAD SDT format, etc)? You're out of luck. And dont bother to try and reverse enigineer desktop file formats without the SW. Cant be done.

Truth is, EAGLE data is about as safe as anyone could hope because it's human readable and because we provide the ability to load any file regardless of license type; even continue to produce outputs from it.

ataradov · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:42:13 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:40:15 am

EAGLE continues to open ANY file, of any complexity, in the free license.

But not edit. So if I have some IC that is no longer available in DIP 10 years later, and I want to replace it by SOIC equivalent, I'm out of luck.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:47:47 am »

Are you still using the same SW 10 years later on a later operating system? That raises questions about whether the SW will generate the same outputs from the data sources given the change in OS / OS-specific libraries. Are you archiving the OS as well? And what about the HW? Are you maintaining the legacy machine as well? If not, you put all of that data at risk with any change at any level. Having worked as an engineer I never recall us keeping our legacy machines around to support 20 year old files. We always imported legacy files into the new OS / new SW, updated them, validated they were the same and re-released to ensure we had a current, canonical copy of the data. Otherwise we put ourselves at risk of one day not having access to the information *for good*.

ataradov · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:50:40 am »

I save all distros for all software I ever used. And the OS thing was never a problem.

But we get your point, you are powerless to change anything, so you need to defend whatever position you have.

Buying software with no strings attached is better for consumers. That's why corporations don't like it. Makes them actually work, so you buy the next version, inserted of just charging monthly fees.

Or just give an option. Why not let me pay you $500-1000 and get the software. Let others pay $15/month, if they want to.

KE5FX · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:56:17 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:47:47 am

Are you still using the same SW 10 years later on a later operating system? That raises questions about whether the SW will generate the same outputs from the data sources given the change in OS / OS-specific libraries. Are you archiving the OS as well? And what about the HW? Are you maintaining the legacy machine as well? If not, you put all of that data at risk with any change at any level. Having worked as an engineer I never recall us keeping our legacy machines around to support 20 year old files. We always imported legacy files into the new OS / new SW, updated them, validated they were the same and re-released to ensure we had a current, canonical copy of the data. Otherwise we put ourselves at risk of one day not having access to the information *for good*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine

But you knew that.

ikrase · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2018, 02:43:01 am »

Yeah, pretty much.

I intend to use Diptrace going forward.

Personally, I just want the GNU GPL to eat the lunch if SolidWorks/Dassault, AutoCAD, MS Office and everybody else. Sadly, something in the open source mindset seems to revolt against making software actually practical to use.

Cerebus · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2018, 02:50:44 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:47:47 am

Are you still using the same SW 10 years later on a later operating system? That raises questions about whether the SW will generate the same outputs from the data sources given the change in OS / OS-specific libraries. Are you archiving the OS as well? And what about the HW? Are you maintaining the legacy machine as well? If not, you put all of that data at risk with any change at any level. Having worked as an engineer I never recall us keeping our legacy machines around to support 20 year old files. We always imported legacy files into the new OS / new SW, updated them, validated they were the same and re-released to ensure we had a current, canonical copy of the data. Otherwise we put ourselves at risk of one day not having access to the information *for good*.

About as classic an example of a straw man argument as I ever saw.

I quote: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.".

I wish that people who want to defend their favourite vendor's choice to go 'subscription only' (i.e. this is not an Eagle/Autocad only argument) would just be honest and admit that 'subscription only' is a 'my way or the highway' offering and stop trying to pretend that it's anything other than an exercise in guaranteeing a revenue stream. Of course, if enough customers opt for 'highway' there is no revenue stream.

Nobody who advances the argument of "I want a copy of the software, on my machine, that continues to work whatever" will be persuaded by anything other than getting what they want. Whatever the level of rhetoric or sophistry employed, they will only settle for getting what they want. Spending time arguing with them is a fool's errand. (I, by the way, would be one of those customers, had I not already junked Eagle years ago.)

Over the years I've heard many variations of "the customer is king", "you only get rich by giving customers what they want", etc.etc. Those might be 'old saws', but they contain more than a small element of truth. Wilfully ignoring, even gainsaying, what customers want instead of giving it to them is a fruitless endeavour.

As to the argument forwarded - as someone else has said "virtual machine". It's almost trivial nowadays to containerize an application, its operating system and all the libraries and ancillary software needed to run it into a single bundle that can be archived and redeployed later in minutes, or possibly even seconds. Anybody who is not doing so, and archiving such an environment along with their CAD files is missing a stroke that will save them much pain and frustration if they need to pull something out and rework it in three years time.

DerekG · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2018, 02:57:15 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:12:40 am

I know, I lived it and was very close to the center of that development effort.

Gee, I would run as fast as I could if I was in anyway involved with the development of Altium Designer.

In 1996, Protel 2.8 could not scroll to the left when using the mouse without also pressing the left cursor key on the keyboard.

A later version of Altium did away with the full screen view.

10 years later in 2006, the sales people at Altium assured me both these problems were "fixed", so I upgraded.

Well ............... the scroll to the left problem was still there & the "full screen mode" no longer removed the scroll bars at the edge of the screen .............. so it was really just a "mini or pseudo" full screen mode.

If Australia had the Fair Trading Act that is has today, I would have been entitled to a refund.

.................. and I also remember talking with Nick Martin in around 1993 (at a Protel training course in Adelaide) when I was working with Protel's bottom end product "EasyTrax" for a demo copy of Protel AutoTrax so that I could see if the step up was worthwhile for my (very) small company. He laughed at me & said to take his word that the step up would be very worthwhile (no AutoTrax demo package was available).

My ............. how things have changed.

In 2014 I moved over to DipTrace as my preferred tool. A group of about 6 of us have slowly been working with the Ukraine coders to get the better features of Altium incorporated into later DipTrace releases. These past 2 years has seen vast improvements in the functionality of DipTrace as a result.

So, for me, I would never employ anyone who worked at Altium (except Dave), either in their sales department or in their coding department. I have found that they are either untruthful or poor with their coding skills.

amspire · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2018, 03:26:59 am »

Does Eagle have a reliable Altium importer? If it doesn't, it may be a good reason to want some ex-Altium programmers.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2018, 04:29:44 am »

Quote from: amspire on February 12, 2018, 03:26:59 am

Does Eagle have a reliable Altium importer? If it doesn't, it may be a good reason to want some ex-Altium programmers.

No, but Altium and Circuit Studio have excellent Eagle importers.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2018, 04:31:12 am »

In fact I dont disagree that subscription is a means to create a predictable revenue stream. It is also not a new concept. You just paid it as maintenance or you paid for the upgrade when you decided it was time to move up. The difference here is that there is no upfront cost and the upgrade decision is set aside because we're always developing the tools (on the hook to do real work) and you're always able to get the latest. Pay the 10K up front and then maintenance if you like, but this is a better deal.

WRT to virtual machines and maintaining legacy files and such, I am well aware of the concept (recall EAGLE runs on Windows, Linux and Mac and to test all 3 operating systems and distros is not an easy exercise). That said, I would never subject my customer's or my company's files to the prospect that "well, we'll just keep this virtual machine running and that will mean we have access to our data and we're able to edit it." That's at best irresponsible and at worst negligent.

Anytime I think something needs to be around for a while, I would expect to bring it forward and update it to work in the latest version of whatever SW is our company standard, anytime it requires an edit (otherwise I maintain technical debt and risk lock out). Fine if all I'm doing is sending legacy Gerber files from Doc. Control to a mfg but I will not create new "product of record" (even versions) in old software. That's a recipe for disaster and makes our ability to maintain it all the more difficult. This is the same with source code as it is for HW designs. And it is dangerous.

Call it a straw man argument but the point I was making was that there is far less of this going on than people like to admit, when caught up in the subscription debate behind the veil of an online forum. All I would only ask that you really think about this, in an honest way, rather than saying "when I need to open a 20 year old file and change a DIP package to an SOIC I use a 20 year old piece of SW on a virtual machine which wasnt a concept 20 years ago..." Sorry man, I'm calling "BS" on this. And if you do this, I would implore you - from someone who has been around this industry for longer than that - please dont do this. I have seen more designs fail this way and fail hard in mfg when someone thought "oh, we'll just open this up with "legacy SW xyz on Windows 3.1 and it should work just fine". I guess if you're the only engineer and this is a hobby. But in 20+ years supporting customers, I've seen more than my share of major customers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making mistakes like this...It's generally blamed on the "new guy" but it happens at every level. (Protip: repour your polygons...please)

And to the point that OS plays a part in the ability of SW to run as does the company from whom you bought that SW's willingness to support you if/when they decide to, and your ability to import legacy data and your ability to read the file format in a normal, human readable way; I stand by my statements. EAGLE makes this pretty darn easy and I'd ask you to ask yourself (if you're not using an open source alternative)...try reading the file format and then answer the question: who owns your data? The whole concept of a Vault seems to say "dont come in here...this is off limits". Now I wouldnt be offended if you stopped reading this and printed out every design you ever built to PDF just in case. And backed up your gerbers. We "used" to do this and mature companies have this concept in a strong way...it's called document control.

I also stand by subscription because here is the unassailable truth -- EAGLE has grown as a result of subscription, thereby enabling more people to use the software at a lower cost of entry. And this growth is reflected both in the developed world (where many of you appear to be posting from) but perhaps more importantly, in developing economies where people have less up front capital to work with. We have also made the premium license available to students & schools (for free), increased the capabilities of the Standard edition and made zero effort to either lock-in your data OR reduce or limit features in the free hobbyist version.

But alas, I've made this argument here, many times before. Still, for everyone else's benefit, please find a company that makes so much available to students and teachers and startups for free...Try it. Find another company brave enough to sell the sort of mechanical tools we do for $300 / yr. Or an ECAD license with support and updates and reall development by industry veterans for $100 / yr.

Because it isnt Altium and it isnt Solidworks and it isnt Mentor and it isnt Cadence. Oh well. I fear at least some of you on this board were lost on that one point that, well, I dont believe is a point. Which is my point. But I admit, it makes for great internet fodder.

Best regards,

Matt

james_s · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:08:25 am »

All these comparisons that try to spin subscription as some kind of benefit to the customer always compare the cost to someone upgrading to every new version that comes out, which is something almost nobody does. It would be nice if companies would at least admit the obvious truth, that as maturing software gives people less and less compelling reason to upgrade frequently, subscription is a method of extracting more money from the customer by effectively forcing them to keep upgrading continuously. In exchange for that, the user gets the nuisance of constant updates that constantly change things around and introduce new bugs. There is virtually no benefit to the customer, it is only a cash cow. If anything there is even less motivation to actually improve the product, you don't have to entice anyone to go out and plunk down money for a whole new version, you only need to make just enough improvements to keep people from dumping it and going through the effort of learning an alternate product.

I frequently use software packages for 10 years or more without upgrading, I totally get that isn't providing much money to companies making these products but that isn't my problem, I'm not a charity. I'm just glad that free open source software is finally reaching the point where I can use it for almost everything.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:38:38 am »

As for the subscription..... I have mixed feelings. I needed the updates for Solidworks and Mastercam but since I have been off maintenance too long - I nearly have to buy them again. Total cost about $18,000 plus about $3,000/year in maintenance.

Or, I could transition to Fusion 360 which is both subscription AND cloud-based data along with Eagle which was $600/year. It took a LOT to convince me to bail out of Solidworks where I have 20 years of experience and Mastercam 10 years of experience. Fusion 360 is really nice - very capable. Eagle still sucks donkey balls on a good day, but they have begun integration with Fusion 360 (bi-directional sync). This feature is a HUGE thing for me since I design mechanics and electronics for very tightly integrated projects.

As much as I did not want the subscription and cloud stuff - the economics are very good in my world. I may be willing to deal with the stupid horrible nature of Eagle just for the sync capability with Fusion.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:52:51 am »

Thanks for trying it and glad you like Fusion! I promise we are working hard on making the user experience better! And I would welcome the chance to riff with you on what you like / hate to make sure we know the issues and fix what's most important to you. UI/UX and the items I mentioned in my earlier post are all planned for this year. Best regards, Matt

rx8pilot · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2018, 06:37:23 am »

Thanks Matt, I would be happy to run through my list of most important issues.

Most of it is very practical.

Short and misplld from my mobile......

AlanS · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2018, 07:40:19 am »

Look guys - I'm not even a gifted amateur - but at my price point Eagle was it. Until the takeover not much happened - but things seem to be changing for the better. Whilst I don't like subscription models generally, for me it makes sense to go up and down the subscription fee range as I need the service. I don't do this every day - or every quarter.

The free product serviced my early attempts - but I had to go up to the next level because when I went to a more complicated circuit some 120 odd components were displayed increasing distances south of my placement area - making it hard for me to get an adequate overview.

Integration with Fusion is going to be wonderful and there seems to be an aggression or focus to get real progress both in the development and support teams.

To date my experience with the support guys has been outstanding.

By the way, I made my first PCBs on an A0 drafting board using Letraset, doughnuts and lots of curves. Eagle is easier.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2018, 07:55:14 am »

Awesome. DM me and we can get a thread going the forums to discuss. I am super keen to learn from your experience and the experience of others using the tools. We have a lot to do but I want to prioritize things appropriately. best regards, matt

ikrase · « **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2018, 08:52:38 am »

I tolerate Fusion 360 because of their free license for entities making less than 100K.

Unfortunately, FreeCad seems to still be a mess.

Subscription models are no solution -what if the company fails, or discontinues the product as seems to be becoming more common?

Then you're in the same position only you can't use a ancient VM archive.

Subscriptions are also terrible for people who could budget the fixed cost of a long term license.

From my point of view, these companies should count their blessing s that they are not forced to re-release discontinued versions under the GNU GPL. This rent-extraction is just not ethical without providing real value in either updates or support -and even then one might prefer to pay for support al la carte.

EEVblog · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2018, 09:33:33 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:12:40 am

Most of the development team was NOT focused on FPGA.

Correct, but that was the "vision" of the tool, the hardware group (that I was in), and the future of the company.
The future was programmable logic, it was "modular" based design, then it was the IoT etc.
How many people are using those Altium features now?

Why do you think the board gave Nick the boot?
It wasn't because the company was doing great, the company and share price was in the toilet.

Go back and read the forums at the time, hardly anyone wanted the FPGA stuff, or the modular stuff, or the IoT, they just wanted to design their damn boards. To PCB designers it seemed as though all Altium cared about was this stuff.

Quote

So please dont rewrite history.

I'm not, it's a fact.
Are you going to deny the (in)famous "Turning the world of electronics design upside down" campaign when they made the PCB design tool optional extra? All the basic package came with was FPGA and schematic. Altium was the laughing stock of the industry.
Are you going to deny that the company deliberately bundled the FPGA stuff with the basic PCB tool, even though hardly anyone used the FPGA tool?
Are you going to deny the final ridiculous move to China to be part of the IoT future?
Are you going to deny the company making the ridiculous acquisition of Morfik for 15% of the company stock? (that was ultimately Nick's downfall, unknown to him)
All this was part of the "vision".
Go read the forums over the years and you'll see what hard core users thought.
But granted, the "vision" also included everything integrated int the one tool. Genuinely useful stuff like 3D and MCAD integration etc.

Quote

This is not accurate and unfair to the guys that built all of the other capabilities that made it easy to displace PADS / OrCAD / Allegro / DX / Expedition.

No offence intended to the programmers involved in any of it, even the FPGA stuff, the FPGA stuff was actually very neat.
Of course Altium continued to slowly develop some other good core focused stuff, but that's beside the point.
Go read the yearly company reports and shareholder presentations and you'll see the clear focus.
It all failed, totally.
FPGA failed.
Hardware failed.
IoT failed.
Modular design? Basically failed as intended, although you can argue that some useful stuff came from it that some people use.

Quote

Again, I fed my family on those features and knew first hand where we started at the beginning of the sales process, what customers responded to, and felt perhaps more directly than anyone here the effects of where we ended up at the end of the competitive bake-off. -MB

Tell us how many customers actually used the FPGA tools in real world design?

EEVblog · « **Reply #36 on:** February 12, 2018, 09:36:30 am »

Quote from: DerekG on February 12, 2018, 02:57:15 am

So, for me, I would never employ anyone who worked at Altium (except Dave), either in their sales department or in their coding department. I have found that they are either untruthful or poor with their coding skills.

Every single coder I knew at Altium was top notch.
Often it's not up to the individual coder in how things work out unfortunately.

rachaelp · « **Reply #37 on:** February 12, 2018, 09:43:47 am »

Quote from: ikrase on February 12, 2018, 08:52:38 am

This rent-extraction is just not ethical without providing real value in either updates or support

Have you looked at how many updates and how many features have been added by Autodesk since they released v8?

https://www.element14.com/community/community/cadsoft_eagle/blog/2018/01/23/eagle-year-end-review-2017

For me this starts getting interesting around 8.3.0 with the introduction of the Fusion360 integration, then 8.4.0 gives us SPICE integration and Live DRC, 8.5.0 brings Push & Shove routing...

In addition to the items listed in the link above, 8.6.0 brought a new CAM processor with better outputs which support the latest Gerber standards and generate much more efficient Gerber files (no more long export times with lots of complex polygon fills) and also a manufacturing flyoff which gives a great preview of how the PCB will look (only 2D at the moment), lots of useful stats about the board and the ability to export images/DXF files.

Have you ever tried getting technical support for EAGLE?

The support team are excellent and are always very responsive, and since v8 any bugs which are reported are usually found and fixed very quickly. I've not had such a positive support experience with any other software supplier (especially ECAD vendors) ever.

Best Regards,

Rachael

EEVblog · « **Reply #38 on:** February 12, 2018, 09:55:13 am »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:12:40 am

To say that if you didnt support the FPGA workflow at Altium you were shown the door is untrue

That's not what I was saying.
I'm saying that if you didn't support the companies (i.e. Nick Martin's) "vision" or marketing or product focus you were given a dressing down.
I know, because I was hired to, and I quote my job description "give my professional engineering opinion" on the tool. I did, and got hammered for it, as did others I know, I lived it too. I learned pretty quick you had to tow the line and not question the direction of the company. Most people who had issues with the company and/or product direction were usually too afraid to say anything outside of the lunch room or privacy of their own cubicle. I saw the look on people's faces when they came back from a dressing down from the CEO because they spoke up.

Altium is by no means unique in the industry when it comes to this, in fact it's very common. Nothing to see here folks, move along now...

MarkL · « **Reply #39 on:** February 12, 2018, 02:11:47 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 04:31:12 am

In fact I dont disagree that subscription is a means to create a predictable revenue stream. It is also not a new concept. You just paid it as maintenance or you paid for the upgrade when you decided it was time to move up. The difference here is that there is no upfront cost and the upgrade decision is set aside because we're always developing the tools (on the hook to do real work) and you're always able to get the latest. Pay the 10K up front and then maintenance if you like, but this is a better deal.

I do like. Maybe more like $5k given the current state of eagle. I'm willing to pay a premium. But the hitch is you don't get to turn it off when I decide to stop paying maintenance.

The "decision is set aside" doesn't mean a burden has been relieved. It just means the choice is different. The decision is now it's your way or the highway.

I find Autodesk's view that they know THE best financial and business model for everyone to be very arrogant.

daqq · « **Reply #40 on:** February 12, 2018, 03:18:27 pm »

Quote

I also stand by subscription because here is the unassailable truth -- EAGLE has grown as a result of subscription, thereby enabling more people to use the software at a lower cost of entry.

So, instead of paying X $ once I get to pay several times X $ over the course of many years? Awesome!

Quote

Find another company brave enough to sell the sort of mechanical tools we do for $300 / yr. Or an ECAD license with support and updates and reall development by industry veterans for $100 / yr.

My main problem with this is not the concept of a subscription. Sure, there are people who are OK with it, and people who'd rather use MS Pain(t) for their PCBs. It's not my cup of tea, but some people might be OK with it.

The main dick move here is changing the model. Had Eagle just started out as a subscription service I would not have routed a fair amount of PCBs using it and taught it to kids on a robotics course and advised people to use it on forums and.... I just would not have invested time into it, I would just have avoided it altogether. There are people who'd be OK with the new model, good for them, the people who'd not be OK with that would simply ignore it and NOT INVEST THEIR TIME INTO LEARNING IT AND USING IT.

Now however I have a serious investment of time (the time spent learning and the projects in which I have used it) for a software that I can't see a future that works for me. Thanks Autodesk!

nctnico · « **Reply #41 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:19:54 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:47:47 am

Are you still using the same SW 10 years later on a later operating system? That raises questions about whether the SW will generate the same outputs from the data sources given the change in OS / OS-specific libraries. Are you archiving the OS as well? And what about the HW?

Key word: virtual machines. VMs are also easy to backup so you can keep a legacy system alive until there are no more (emulated) x86 processors available. And yes, the legacy software will still generate the same output. No worries.
Upgrading old files to new versions is stupid because it requires lots of checking, introduces chances of errors and most importantly of all: it costs money which isn't necessarily recovered.

Quote from: james_s on February 12, 2018, 05:08:25 am

I frequently use software packages for 10 years or more without upgrading, I totally get that isn't providing much money to companies making these products but that isn't my problem, I'm not a charity.

Same here!

rx8pilot · « **Reply #42 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:25:33 pm »

Your Eagle files are still in tact if you stop paying for the subscription. They can be read into other pieces of software.

In terms of cost, the subscription fee is far cheaper than any of the big boy tools. Eagle is also a lot less software..... for now. They are clearly putting considerable effort into development trying to escape the DIY/hobbyist genre.

Fusion is a solid, professional tool that easily competes with Solidworks, Mastercam, 3rd party rendering, 3rd party version control, and more..... but for a fraction of the long term cost. Now that we see a glimpse of integration of Eagle with Fusion 360 - its moving up. At the moment with my legacy software, rendering is a separate piece of software.... import/export/fees. Data management for the giant pile of files.... your on your own. Simulation in Solidworks? That costs a lot more money.

Fusion can read all of my legacy Solidworks data and bring it in as a solid. I lose history, but Fusion can still easily modify the models. Not nearly as bad as I expected.

The learning curve is steep and for the next few months I will be overlapping Solidworks and Fusion 360.

Short and misplld from my mobile......

Quarlo Klobrigney · « **Reply #43 on:** February 12, 2018, 08:18:23 pm »

I'm trying to migrate from an XP to 7 machine (kicking & screaming) I have many 7 machines but some tools only worked in XP. Now that they have "matured" I can get into the modern age completely. My problem is this, nobody answers the phone in Florida. Nobody. The "expert" via chat at Autodesk Pakistan say they cannot find my info after 20 minutes of back and forth babble. The license server no longer works for the secret codes given by email to authorize Eagle v7.
Fubar and screw Autodesk for anything especially THE CLOUD. I'm done with their bullshit.
Anybody have ideas about the v7 license

on the 7 machine. Tried everything...

james_s · « **Reply #44 on:** February 12, 2018, 08:27:04 pm »

Quote from: EEVblog on February 12, 2018, 09:36:30 am

Every single coder I knew at Altium was top notch.
Often it's not up to the individual coder in how things work out unfortunately.

I've been involved with a number of companies/products with dubious reputations, and in nearly every case the individual contributors (engineers, coders, etc) were mostly excellent. You can have the best team on the planet and the product can still be crap if that's the direction management chooses to take it. At just about any medium to large size company, the product is a reflection of the management behind it. Incompetent engineers can make a bad product worse but a bad product does not indicate incompetence of the engineers. It's very common for a team to not have the resources they need to do it right, or for constant re-orgs to shuffle people around so that a great deal of time is spending ramping up or re-learning what somebody else had been doing.

rachaelp · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2018, 09:21:35 pm »

Quote from: Quarlo Klobrigney on February 12, 2018, 08:18:23 pm

My problem is this, nobody answers the phone in Florida. Nobody. The "expert" via chat at Autodesk Pakistan say they cannot find my info after 20 minutes of back and forth babble. The license server no longer works for the secret codes given by email to authorize Eagle v7.
Fubar and screw Autodesk for anything especially THE CLOUD. I'm done with their bullshit.
Anybody have ideas about the v7 license on the 7 machine. Tried everything...

Whenever I install my old v7 license it works fine. There is a license key file which you need plus a 10 character activation code to go with it. If you've lost either of these you'll need to get them sent again. If you post up on the official Autodesk EAGLE forum asking for help getting your license sorted out one of the support people will no doubt contact you directly. Jorge and Ed are very responsive and should get you sorted out.

The Autodesk EAGLE forum can be found here: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/bd-p/3500

Best Regards,

Rachael

KE5FX · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2018, 11:16:13 pm »

Quote from: daqq on February 12, 2018, 03:18:27 pm

The main dick move here is changing the model.

IMHO, the dick move was lying about changing the model. In itself, changing the model was just icing on the cake.

Once trust is gone, it's hard to restore. Everyone who feels tempted to buy into all of the hot air and promises coming from Autodesk representatives would do well to remember how this started.

DerekG · « **Reply #47 on:** February 13, 2018, 12:49:20 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 12, 2018, 05:25:33 pm

Your Eagle files are still in tact if you stop paying for the subscription. They can be read into other pieces of software.

The good news is that DipTrace has import filters for both EAGLE schematics & EAGLE PCBs.

The special offer (including links) for Eagle users is discussed in the thread below:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/diptrace/diptrace-special-offer-for-eagle-users/

ADDED:

The Altium Circuit Studio special offer for Eagle users is discussed in the thread below:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/circuit-studio/half-price-circuit-studio/

And a direct link to the offer is:

http://www.altium.com/eagle-switch/circuitstudio/#page1

technolomaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** February 13, 2018, 01:35:03 am »

Nobody lied dude. Read the post. Jeez.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #49 on:** February 13, 2018, 01:49:13 am »

Quote from: KE5FX on February 12, 2018, 11:16:13 pm

IMHO, the dick move was lying about changing the model. In itself, changing the model was just icing on the cake.

Once trust is gone, it's hard to restore. Everyone who feels tempted to buy into all of the hot air and promises coming from Autodesk representatives would do well to remember how this started.

Did I miss the lie? What was the lie?

ataradov · « **Reply #50 on:** February 13, 2018, 01:54:48 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 13, 2018, 01:49:13 am

Did I miss the lie? What was the lie?

Q&A after the acquisition (now carefully scrubbed):

Quote

“Will I be required to pay ‘maintenance’?”
Answer: “Simply put, no. ”

I guess from marketing point of view maintenance is not a subscription. But that's also why people hate marketers.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #51 on:** February 13, 2018, 02:01:50 am »

Quote from: ataradov on February 13, 2018, 01:54:48 am

Q&A after the acquisition (now carefully scrubbed):
Quote
“Will I be required to pay ‘maintenance’?”
Answer: “Simply put, no. ”

I guess from marketing point of view maintenance is not a subscription. But that's also why people hate marketers.

A marketer calls that a 'soft' lie. Technically not lying, but perpetual payments to continue usage can easily be called 'maintenance'

At the end of the day - I am not guided by marketers. I want a tool that allows me to do my work as effectively as possible. If they keep the upgrades coming, I am will to overlook this kind of marketing crap.

james_s · « **Reply #52 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:51:09 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 13, 2018, 01:49:13 am

Quote from: KE5FX on February 12, 2018, 11:16:13 pm
IMHO, the dick move was lying about changing the model. In itself, changing the model was just icing on the cake.

Once trust is gone, it's hard to restore. Everyone who feels tempted to buy into all of the hot air and promises coming from Autodesk representatives would do well to remember how this started.

Did I miss the lie? What was the lie?

They explicitly said there were no plans to go subscription, around a month before they went subscription. They are either liars who knew darn well they planned to go subscription, or grossly incompetent.

technolomaniac · « **Reply #53 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:13:10 am »

Quote from: ataradov on February 13, 2018, 01:54:48 am

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 13, 2018, 01:49:13 am
Did I miss the lie? What was the lie?

Q&A after the acquisition (now carefully scrubbed):
Quote
“Will I be required to pay ‘maintenance’?”
Answer: “Simply put, no. ”

I guess from marketing point of view maintenance is not a subscription. But that's also why people hate marketers.

I never said that dude. Nothing was scrubbed. I didnt delete any Q&A with Dave. I dont delete my views. You're pushing a false narrative that fits your viewpoint...Sans content to back it up. Here is exactly what I said from these very forums:

@Dave, it's not going subscription. So there. At this stage, that isn't anywhere on my roadmap. Thought about it. Decided against it. Can I say that we will never in the life of any product do that? No, of course not. That would be at best unfair, at worst dishonest. But I have so many things that are more pressing.

The fact is, we were two weeks into acquisition that took over a year to complete. You wouldnt know this, but these things are neither simple nor straight forward. When we completed that process we decided that until we were ready with a major release (version

we wouldnt even entertain the move to subs. We didnt. We released...how you say? Oh yeah, version 7.7. Perpetual. When we moved to the next major version (v8), we decided to go to subs. With neither apology nor regret. I'm proud of what we're doing and you have a choice. Use what you want and stop feeding the narrative that someone "did you wrong."

ataradov · « **Reply #54 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:15:28 am »

I never said that it was said by you. This was on the Eagle site, I have no idea who put it there.

daqq · « **Reply #55 on:** February 13, 2018, 07:33:27 am »

Well that's confidence inducing... Can I assume that once I start a new project, the payment model change again?

Come on, you've changed an extremely important property of the tool you offer and people use and you expect people to be happy about it? In a subscription only-and-mandatory licensing model, the customer always holds the shitty end of the stick.

Cerebus · « **Reply #56 on:** February 13, 2018, 04:53:41 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 13, 2018, 07:13:10 am

You wouldnt[sic] know this, but these things are neither simple nor straight forward.

Oh, well. That's put us little people in our place. A suggestion: when your company has been accused of arrogance, it's a little foolish to belittle your readers.

There are enough people in your audience that I can state with some certainty that some of us have had to live through more mergers and acquisition pain than you've had hot dinners. I know that I've been through enough that I could write a book about it and I'll hazard a guess that I'm not the only one here.

Quote

I'm proud of what we're doing and you have a choice.

Yup, "my way or the highway", we'd already figured that out.

Quote

Use what you want and stop feeding the narrative that someone "did you wrong."

Most people aren't saying that, they are saying you (Autocad) have made a mistake by moving to a subscription model. You have compounded it by publicly giving the impression after the acquisition that Eagle would not be moving to a subscription model and, by your own admission, within a year moving to a subscription model. That doesn't mean that you (Autocad) were deliberately dishonest, but it does make it hard to rely on what you (Autocad) say. So any promises about things like future plans, future subscription pricing, future continued availability and so on have to be evaluated in light of that.

The story about the little boy makes it seem that you have to cry "Wolf!" repeatedly to become untrustworthy. That is not true. Do it once, loudly enough and publicly enough and you loose all future credibility in that moment.

If you've managed to convince me of one thing, it is that Autocad is a company that I would not currently risk doing business with, especially when it comes to tools that could make or break the business that uses them. Even if the tools were the very best available, the risk would be too great. The companies arrogance and inconstancy are exactly what I am looking to avoid in a business partner.

This isn't something I'm saying because "someone on the Internet is wrong", or because I want to score points in some argument with you. My CAD choices are made, for the time being, and I have no skin in this game. I think the subscription only model is wrong and have, previously, offered reasoned arguments for that position. My point of view is very much as a neutral observer looking in from the outside and I have to say you're making a complete pigs ear of it.

What I'm seeing here is a company that made a choice of business model, that many of their existing customers vocally didn't like, being intransigent for the sake of it and making a mess of talking at their customers instead of talking with their customers. If the subscription model is as good as claimed, then you could risk also having a conventional license model as well, retain the customers who will never 'go subscription', and prove your faith in the subscription model if indeed it does win in competition with conventional licensing. Offer a genuine choice instead of the pseudo-choice of "my way or the highway".

edflycad · « **Reply #57 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:47:48 pm »

Quote from: Quarlo Klobrigney on February 12, 2018, 08:18:23 pm

I'm trying to migrate from an XP to 7 machine (kicking & screaming) I have many 7 machines but some tools only worked in XP. Now that they have "matured" I can get into the modern age completely. My problem is this, nobody answers the phone in Florida. Nobody. The "expert" via chat at Autodesk Pakistan say they cannot find my info after 20 minutes of back and forth babble. The license server no longer works for the secret codes given by email to authorize Eagle v7.
Fubar and screw Autodesk for anything especially THE CLOUD. I'm done with their bullshit.
Anybody have ideas about the v7 license on the 7 machine. Tried everything...

Hi, I hope you are doing well. Just wanted to inform that if you supply the Autodesk operator your EAGLE v(insert version here) Serial number, they will be able to create a case and funnel it to the appropiate team. We usually respond to the license request the same day if not by the next day. If you have already contacted Autodesk and created a case, it is quite possible we have already responded to your request. Make sure to check your Spam folders. We will respond to the email address used to create your account.
I hope this helps.
Ed

nctnico · « **Reply #58 on:** February 13, 2018, 06:58:10 pm »

Quote from: Cerebus on February 13, 2018, 04:53:41 pm

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 13, 2018, 07:13:10 am
Use what you want and stop feeding the narrative that someone "did you wrong."
Most people aren't saying that, they are saying you (Autocad) have made a mistake by moving to a subscription model.

I can imagine people wo are long time Eagle users and have upgraded a couple of times in the past decades feel cheated. They have made Eagle great and now they are missing out on the new features because they want a perpetual license just like they had before.

ebastler · « **Reply #59 on:** February 15, 2018, 12:21:32 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 13, 2018, 07:13:10 am

Here is exactly what I said from these very forums:

@Dave, it's not going subscription. So there. At this stage, that isn't anywhere on my roadmap. Thought about it. Decided against it. Can I say that we will never in the life of any product do that? No, of course not. That would be at best unfair, at worst dishonest. But I have so many things that are more pressing.
[...]
When we moved to the next major version (v8), we decided to go to subs. With neither apology nor regret.

So, on a typical day, how far out does your "roadmap" extend?
Must be interesting to work at Autodesk. Living the wild, free-wheeling life...

DerekG · « **Reply #60 on:** February 15, 2018, 12:48:52 pm »

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 13, 2018, 07:13:10 am

When we moved to the next major version (v8), we decided to go to subs. With neither apology nor regret.

Having had a chat yesterday with the DipTrace Design Team, I learn that the decision by Autodesk to move to a subscription model has been good news indeed.

"Several Hundred" EAGLE users have already taken up the special DipTrace cross-grade offer.

Hey, Autodesk, why not speed up the exodus by doubling your annual subscription price?

janoc · « **Reply #61 on:** February 15, 2018, 01:56:01 pm »

BTW, even the next stable version of Kicad due in a few weeks will have a fairly decent Eagle import too (has been demoed recently). I guess we should thank Autodesk for boosting the rest of the PCB CAD market with their subscription move

But I am really sorry for the sales and marketing guys who need to push the official company line about how great this idea is.

And re Fusion 360 - for my personal stuff I have switched either to FreeCAD or OnShape (depending on what am I doing). Fusion doesn't work in Linux (and there is no support planned). I find OnShape a lot more logical and less glitchy to use than Fusion, even though it is a monster blob of Javascript (!) running in a browser.

And at work we actually do have a subscription for it, but it is a pretty buggy and slow piece of ... Fortunately our business doesn't depend on CAD so much outside of importing some client files, so we can deal with that. But it is very unlikely that more licenses will be bought ...

Quarlo Klobrigney · « **Reply #62 on:** February 15, 2018, 02:03:50 pm »

Exactly. Eagle from Autodesk stick a fork in it it's done. I've been migrating to Kicad for some time. This lack of support is the last straw. As I said I'm done. Not interested in anything more in rebuttal from tech support ghosts, talking via a chat session, cloud based or any other big brother things. I WILL be able to import my files in any software format I wish. I liked them when they were small. Farnell-> Autodesk

$\$\Omega\$$
All hail Lord Doomcock. If only he could do an Autodesk video.

Quote from: janoc on February 15, 2018, 01:56:01 pm

BTW, even the next stable version of Kicad due in a few weeks will have a fairly decent Eagle import too (has been demoed recently). I guess we should thank Autodesk for boosting the rest of the PCB CAD market with their subscription move

lundmar · « **Reply #63 on:** February 15, 2018, 05:45:08 pm »

Quote from: Quarlo Klobrigney on February 15, 2018, 02:03:50 pm

Exactly. Eagle from Autodesk stick a fork in it it's done. I've been migrating to Kicad for some time. This lack of support is the last straw. As I said I'm done. Not interested in anything more in rebuttal from tech support ghosts, talking via a chat session, cloud based or any other big brother things. I WILL be able to import my files in any software format I wish. I liked them when they were small. Farnell-> Autodesk $\$\Omega\$$
All hail Lord Doomcock. If only he could do an Autodesk video.
Quote from: janoc on February 15, 2018, 01:56:01 pm
BTW, even the next stable version of Kicad due in a few weeks will have a fairly decent Eagle import too (has been demoed recently). I guess we should thank Autodesk for boosting the rest of the PCB CAD market with their subscription move

It's an interesting discussion. As KiCad improves it becomes increasingly difficult for the likes of Autodesk to justify the high cost for their design software despite whatever silly payment model they offer. I mean, Autodesk etc. can only do so much to stay ahead of the curve - eventually KiCad will catch up on features and do so using open formats. Also, with KiCad you get almost instant support via the KiCad community and all the various information available online. Heck, if you want to improve and help the direction of KiCad you can even get involved in the project yourself if you wish.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #64 on:** February 15, 2018, 06:40:21 pm »

I have never used KiCAD so I cannot make any direct comments. I also support open development.

I will say that when I tried Open Office / Libre Office because it was supposed to be the same or better than MS.....I wanted to throw it out the window on any given day. Now, once again, MS gets my money for Excel, Word, etc.....

While Eagle is the worst software in my current arsenal - they are clearly highly motivated to make it better and more marketable. Autodesk really wants the market and has considerably more dev power than KiCad could ever hope for. One will develop much faster than the other.

Gerhard_dk4xp · « **Reply #65 on:** February 15, 2018, 07:33:31 pm »

Quote from: KE5FX on February 12, 2018, 01:56:17 am

Quote from: technolomaniac on February 12, 2018, 01:47:47 am
Are you still using the same SW 10 years later on a later operating system? That raises questions about whether the SW will generate the same outputs from the data sources given the change in OS / OS-specific libraries. Are you archiving the OS as well? And what about the HW? Are you maintaining the legacy machine as well? If not, you put all of that data at risk with any change at any level. Having worked as an engineer I never recall us keeping our legacy machines around to support 20 year old files. We always imported legacy files into the new OS / new SW, updated them, validated they were the same and re-released to ensure we had a current, canonical copy of the data. Otherwise we put ourselves at risk of one day not having access to the information *for good*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine

But you knew that.

I was denied any help from Altium for running it on WIN7 on VMware.

I set up a native Win7 machine and the Altium crash remained.
I finally found out myself that loading a historic Protel99 library
crashes AD when it is renamed as .SchLib.

Also, if your 3D support is switched off / not good enough, there
are no complaints. It's just that some windows are not updated.

Hey, Orcad under DOS4 could display a layout without problems.

That coding practice of ignoring errors or simply not checking
for them seems to be everywhere in AD. I'm not sure if that
will be a big win for Eagle.

I have frozen in a machine that works with only some minor
quirks; it does what I need, and I ended the paid support.
It helped me never ever apart from new features invented
by marketing.

regards,
Gerhard

You need a helping hand?
You find it at the end of your right arm.

janoc · « **Reply #66 on:** February 15, 2018, 10:05:40 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 15, 2018, 06:40:21 pm

I have never used KiCAD so I cannot make any direct comments. I also support open development.

I will say that when I tried Open Office / Libre Office because it was supposed to be the same or better than MS.....I wanted to throw it out the window on any given day. Now, once again, MS gets my money for Excel, Word, etc.....

While Eagle is the worst software in my current arsenal - they are clearly highly motivated to make it better and more marketable. Autodesk really wants the market and has considerably more dev power than KiCad could ever hope for. One will develop much faster than the other.

That's certainly true. Kicad (and Open/Libre Office) can't compete with a team of high-paid engineers working on a product full time.

On the other hand - they don't really have to. Kicad is good enough for most things users of Eagle were doing already (not comparing with Altium or such - that's a different league). And is getting better every day. It doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough. If your choice is between a tool with an unpalatable business model and a tool that is not great but does the job, Kicad will still win, no matter what magical features they add to Eagle. Furthermore, most of the new stuff, like the MCAD integration is tied into Fusion 360 - which has a lot of its own issues.

Moreover, if the automatic updates for Eagle work the same as for Fusion 360, ooof ... Fusion has the updates forced on you and you never know what breaks after installing one. Wonderful if your job depends on such tool.

Re Open/Libre Office - if you need to exchange documents with people using MS Office then nothing but MS Office will work for you, sadly. There is simply no way for a 3rd party product to implement the various undocumented stuff those products do and rely on. It is actually a miracle that the Libre Office works with those documents as well as it does, given the history of active sabotage and obstruction from Microsoft.

On the other hand, if you mostly need those tools for your own use and can handle exchanging files with outside parties in neutral formats like PDF, I have found Libre Office pretty adequate for normal office use at work. Some things in MS Office are better, some are worse, but I wouldn't claim a clear winner there. Preparing major documents in both is a masochistic exercise with a lot of swearing and hair pulling. Give me LaTeX any day.

rachaelp · « **Reply #67 on:** February 15, 2018, 10:19:02 pm »

Quote from: janoc on February 15, 2018, 10:05:40 pm

Moreover, if the automatic updates for Eagle work the same as for Fusion 360, ooof ...

They don't. There are no automatic updates in EAGLE. You get update notifications for new versions the same as you always did and you download and install a complete new version alongside your existing version(s), just as it's always worked.

Best Regards,

Rachael

rx8pilot · « **Reply #68 on:** February 16, 2018, 12:06:44 am »

Quote from: rachaelp on February 15, 2018, 10:19:02 pm

Quote from: janoc on February 15, 2018, 10:05:40 pm
Moreover, if the automatic updates for Eagle work the same as for Fusion 360, ooof ...

They don't. There are no automatic updates in EAGLE. You get update notifications for new versions the same as you always did and you download and install a complete new version alongside your existing version(s), just as it's always worked.

I can confirm this. ON my latest project I got a notice that a new version is available but I am sitting on it until I complete what I am doing. If it has issues, I can revert.

In fact - I still have version 6.5 that still works as always. There is indeed some insurance in that approach.

janoc · « **Reply #69 on:** February 16, 2018, 05:17:27 pm »

At least that. In Fusion 360 you don't really get a choice - if there is an update it will autoinstall the next time you open the software. Just tried to open it now - and right away I got the "clock" icon in the menu bar indicating a background job running and it says "Installing update ...".

Worse than Windows 10 - there you can at least move the install and reboot to a more convenient time. In Fusion nope. And if it screws something up - "Tough luck, no warranty, we aren't responsible!"

rx8pilot · « **Reply #70 on:** February 16, 2018, 06:04:56 pm »

That is the scariest thing by far.....and the reason I waited as long as possible.

At the end of the day - it replaced my previous tools: SolidWorks with simulation, Mastercam for Solidworks, and Keyshot Rendering. All of which needed updates that were going to be a huge number. The last negotiated rate if I recall was about $15,000 for all 3 to be the latest version. Maintenance is >$3,000/year

Fusion360 does even more and includes Eagle for $600/yr. After 20 long and fantastic years with Solidworks - Fusion360 is a better solution both technically and financially. The cloud thing is a bit crazy, but less than a deal killer. I can read in any of my Solidworks libraries - even edit and modify the features although the build history is gone.

There were more than a few times over the years that SW left me high and dry with crashing bugs, inability to revert versions, graphics card sensitivity, etc. I am prepared for Fusion360 to have a moment or two as well. Right now - I have it setup on two PC's so that I have an immediate backup and it works fine being disconnected from the internet for quite a while.

Generally speaking, if the internet is down - Fusion360 is the least of my concerns. Nearly all of my work requires a persistent internet connection. Cloud security? Who knows - I don't do aerospace, medical, military, or any other stuff that has defined security requirements.

saike · « **Reply #71 on:** February 17, 2018, 11:06:11 am »

Quote

and it works fine being disconnected from the internet for quite a while

I have done a lot of on site warranty work over the past few years and had a few very entertaining times watching other guys walking around outside holding their laptops in the air trying to get a wifi connection. Once you start working on sites that are slightly away from the mainstream areas, cloud based stuff is one gamble too many.

janoc · « **Reply #72 on:** February 17, 2018, 09:43:10 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 16, 2018, 06:04:56 pm

Generally speaking, if the internet is down - Fusion360 is the least of my concerns. Nearly all of my work requires a persistent internet connection. Cloud security? Who knows - I don't do aerospace, medical, military, or any other stuff that has defined security requirements.

Careful, cloud can bite you in other ways too. E.g. if your client stipulates their data are confidential they often balk at the idea of uploading them into some cloud. E.g. using Dropbox for exchanging such files is a legal no-no at our place because of this, even though the data are never made public in any way.

And opening them in Fusion means you are uploading them into the AutoDesk's cloud. May or may not be a problem, depending on what you are doing and how your contracts are formulated. We had to put some weasel words in our contracts to be covered when using Fusion for client data.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #73 on:** February 17, 2018, 10:49:12 pm »

For sure, I have mixed feelings overall. Fortunately, I am the boss and my business owns all the IP. That keeps me from being liable for anyone's data. Not everyone is in this position though.

I like the 'automatic' backup and built in data management. In Solidworks / Mastercam I am truly on my own and it requires considerable effort to keep track of everything and keep it backed up locally and off site.

I also like that I can open up any files on any PC. That allows me to have a proper design workstation with huge monitors to accommodate the heavy lifting, then move to the PC attached to my CNC mill, or another one on my electronics bench.

Relative to my Solidworks / Mastercam experience..... Fusion 360 is easy and fast.

Short and misplld from my mobile......

ehughes · « **Reply #74 on:** February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am »

Altium user here but I used EAGLE for quite sometime.

I am generally for subscription models. From a business cash flow perspective (on both ends) it is a good deal for organization who are growing and actively trying make money.

Engineers tend to whine. I am not concerned about Autodesk's extistence in 20 years.

If in 20 years it all goes south you have the production data as well as the most open and documented PCB format on the planet . (sorry, KiCAD is a disaster. That file format seems to be as stable as a skyscraper on a fault line). At that point you might want to consider why you are polishing the same turd and move on.

While I will continue to use Altium/Solidworks, I wish the best for Autodesk and EAGLE. Just look at the progress under the previous pricing model when it owned was Cadsoft. It literally was not improved for 10 years. There were minor bug fixes but users never saw any substantial improvements. I have been impressed with progress Autodesk has made with the tool in the past to year. Most Engineers don't understand the burn rate of an active engineering team. The old 90's style pricing model seemed to be large part of the anemic development pace of the old EAGLE.

Sure there are a few users with a chip on their shoulder but I would be willing to bet a basket of chicken wings that the user base is larger than it has ever been and the balance sheet will reflect a solid business model.

janoc · « **Reply #75 on:** February 19, 2018, 02:12:22 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am

I am generally for subscription models. From a business cash flow perspective (on both ends) it is a good deal for organization who are growing and actively trying make money.

It certainly is wonderful for the company renting you the software, because they are getting money for literally nothing. Every month, for years on, like a clockwork. Wonderful way to make business with assured income, whether or not you actually innovate or improve the product - why to worry when you are literally holding the clients' data for ransom.

Also don't forget that cashflow isn't everything, accountants are pretty good at comparing a one-off cost vs pissing money away with the subscription costing much more over time.

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am

Engineers tend to whine. I am not concerned about Autodesk's extistence in 20 years.

Well, hopefully your clients are not neither and are going to be willing to pay to for replacing a perfectly good equipment that you cannot produce a new hardware revision for anymore .

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am

If in 20 years it all goes south you have the production data as well as the most open and documented PCB format on the planet . (sorry, KiCAD is a disaster. That file format seems to be as stable as a skyscraper on a fault line). At that point you might want to consider why you are polishing the same turd and move on.

As if Eagle's file format didn't change few years ago completely.

Files in XML or whatever format are of little use if you can't find software that will actually allow you to open and modify them. The 3rd-party importing is always iffy and usually one way street, with no way to go back.

BTW, Kicad's file format is also text, based on s-expressions and upwards compatible. Which are very much equivalent to XML (in fact, predate SGML and XML by a few decades and served as an inspiration). I don't recall ever having issues opening old Kicad files with newer versions of the sw.

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am

While I will continue to use Altium/Solidworks, I wish the best for Autodesk and EAGLE. Just look at the progress under the previous pricing model when it owned was Cadsoft. It literally was not improved for 10 years. There were minor bug fixes but users never saw any substantial improvements.

And that has what to do with the subscription model? If Cadsoft has tried to switch to subscription model, they would have been in liquidation and not sold to Farnell or Autodesk.

Autodesk is pouring money and engineering into Eagle because they don't have anything else similar in their portfolio - and their MCAD tools are notoriously unfriendly when it comes to integration with anything. Also because if they have slapped the subscription licensing on the old Eagle, everybody would have given them the finger, given how expensive the subscription is. So no wonder it is improving - but given the sorry state it was in, they are basically only playing catch up with the market.

nctnico · « **Reply #76 on:** February 19, 2018, 04:42:25 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 04:08:35 am

Altium user here but I used EAGLE for quite sometime.

I am generally for subscription models. From a business cash flow perspective (on both ends) it is a good deal for organization who are growing and actively trying make money.

That depends on the size of the company. For small companies (and one man bands) it is better not to rent key pieces of equipment/software. If a small company gets into financial trouble then the worst thing that can happen is all the tools being taken away. And don't say it won't happen to you because sh*t happens to everyone.

Quote

Just look at the progress under the previous pricing model when it owned was Cadsoft. It literally was not improved for 10 years. There were minor bug fixes but users never saw any substantial improvements. I have been impressed with progress Autodesk has made with the tool in the past to year.

Well, Autodesk hasn't earned a penny yet. At this point all their efforts are purely an investment.

ehughes · « **Reply #77 on:** February 19, 2018, 06:53:14 pm »

Quote

Engineers tend to whine. I am not concerned about Autodesk's extistence in 20 years.

Well, hopefully your clients are not neither and are going to be willing to pay to for replacing a perfectly good equipment that you cannot produce a new hardware revision for anymore .

I should have worded that sentence better. From the perspective of company solvency, I would bet that Autodesk will be around in 20 years. A company that bitches about $50 a month for a tool probably will not be around in 20 years. I think that company has bigger problems than worrying about if they can modify their design in 20 years.

From a value proposition it is a no-brainer. If I wanted to hire another good engineer in my region, a $100k + with a minimum 2x overhead is the starting price. At a $200k a year burn rate, even the cost of Altium is the not the driving factor let alone the inexpensive cost of EAGLE.

In terms of a one man band, etc., if you are dire straights and can't afford the tool you probably can't affords the salaries that are 100x the tool.

ataradov · « **Reply #78 on:** February 19, 2018, 06:58:42 pm »

I don't have a problem with the price. But the subscription based model basically lets provider to get away with anything. Tough times? Fire everyone on the development team, still charge the same amount of money.

Tough times as a subscriber? Too bad, still pay the same amount of money without an option to hold over for a bit.

So in a good economy, subscription works fine, but in a declining economy, it greatly benefits the provider.

nctnico · « **Reply #79 on:** February 19, 2018, 10:09:45 pm »

Quote from: ehughes on February 19, 2018, 06:53:14 pm

In terms of a one man band, etc., if you are dire straights and can't afford the tool you probably can't affords the salaries that are 100x the tool.

It is not about being able to afford the tools it is about being able to keep the company running during a financial drought. Those are two distinctive different things. A company can do just fine but if the assets are frozen for a short period (which actually happened to one of my former employers) the bills cannot be paid. If that happens when the subscriptions are due then you'll have a bunch of engineers sitting on their thumbs. Suddenly the cost of a perpetual license doesn't seem that large anymore.

ebastler · « **Reply #80 on:** February 20, 2018, 08:42:49 am »

Quote from: nctnico on February 19, 2018, 10:09:45 pm

A company can do just fine but if the assets are frozen for a short period (which actually happened to one of my former employers) the bills cannot be paid. If that happens when the subscriptions are due then you'll have a bunch of engineers sitting on their thumbs.

But how long will the engineers stay around anyway, if the company cannot pay their salaries anymore? Having your assets frozen is a pretty severe step in most jurisdictions, and not typically compatible with a company "doing just fine".

daqq · « **Reply #81 on:** February 20, 2018, 09:19:39 am »

I'm kinda confused... why is there any actual discussion on whether or not the customer is getting the shitty end of the stick in a mandatory monthly/yearly fee + mandatory internet access system?

The only way this can be made to look good is when the total cost of the subscription over the expected period of usage is significantly lower than a competitors permanent buy once license... which it simply isn't. Even if it were, I'd avoid touching it.

I'm probably old fashioned, but I prefer having at least some amount of control over the tool that literally puts bread on my table. I'm not gonna rent my screw driver, scope or hammer.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #82 on:** February 20, 2018, 04:15:00 pm »

Quote from: daqq on February 20, 2018, 09:19:39 am

I'm kinda confused... why is there any actual discussion on whether or not the customer is getting the shitty end of the stick in a mandatory monthly/yearly fee + mandatory internet access system?

The only way this can be made to look good is when the total cost of the subscription over the expected period of usage is significantly lower than a competitors permanent buy once license... which it simply isn't. Even if it were, I'd avoid touching it.

I'm probably old fashioned, but I prefer having at least some amount of control over the tool that literally puts bread on my table. I'm not gonna rent my screw driver, scope or hammer.

Software companies (perhaps the majority now) are trying to level out the cash flow based on how people like me behave. I regularly skipped maintenance on Solidworks and Mastercam. I skipped numerous versions of Adobe products, Microsoft Office, our accounting software, etc. In general, I liked having the latest updates but when faced with the cost - I skipped them. Of course, the various companies had no idea why, what, when a customer was going to pay anything or if they are even still using the software.

That is a crazy challenging way to run a business. In this new world - the software company effectively finances your purchase and is able to plan ahead a little better. They get more immediate feedback if people like the latest versions and if they are still using it at all. In concept, not so bad. Like I said earlier in this thread - I was facing a massive penalty for skipping versions of my software - >$15k in a single shot. My business is increasingly cloud/subscription-based and not really by design but because the tools I need are only available that way. From Evernote to MS Office, to Adobe products. The majority of the time, it is fantastic and I do not have to design/build/configure/maintain an IT infrastructure to support the stuff I do.

As always - there is good and bad. Even if I spent the huge $$$$ to update Solidworks and Mastercam, it would still not be as good as what I get with Fusion360 for a fraction of the cost. It is an excellent set of tools that covers a lot of the work I do. Autodesk is a reasonably stable company that has been around for many decades and has a wide portfolio of products.

Cerebus · « **Reply #83 on:** February 20, 2018, 08:06:37 pm »

Quote from: ebastler on February 20, 2018, 08:42:49 am

Quote from: nctnico on February 19, 2018, 10:09:45 pm
A company can do just fine but if the assets are frozen for a short period (which actually happened to one of my former employers) the bills cannot be paid. If that happens when the subscriptions are due then you'll have a bunch of engineers sitting on their thumbs.

But how long will the engineers stay around anyway, if the company cannot pay their salaries anymore? Having your assets frozen is a pretty severe step in most jurisdictions, and not typically compatible with a company "doing just fine".

He doesn't mean in the 'court order' sense, just the everyday 'you can't make a move' sense. Everybody who's worked for a small company or three will have experienced this - a big customer fails to pay their bill on time, or in full, or the bank temporarily restricts your overdraft, or a loan or fresh capital takes a few days/weeks more to get hold of than was expected, or a big overseas payment takes longer than expected to clear. Any of those mean that paying bills (but not usually salaries) gets put on hold until the money is available - the company might only 'not have the money' for a few days but experience teaches me that it takes weeks to finally settle everything.

As I've said on the topic before: in these short to medium term cash squeezes a small company often has to "sweat its assets" such as delaying a software upgrade and relying on the current version it already has a license for. If you're renting your tools they aren't assets that can be "sweated" they are, in an accounting sense, liabilities that in times of no cash become critical liabilities (in the existential sense).

Cerebus · « **Reply #84 on:** February 20, 2018, 08:17:26 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 20, 2018, 04:15:00 pm

Software companies (perhaps the majority now) are trying to level out the cash flow based on how people like me behave.
...
That is a crazy challenging way to run a business.

It wasn't a barrier to Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle etc. etc. or even Autodesk becoming hugely successful in the first place. I don't see that any fundamental changes have taken place that make a change of sales model absolutely necessary.

ataradov · « **Reply #85 on:** February 20, 2018, 08:47:56 pm »

There was a change. We basically reached the limit if development on most of the software. There is nothing useful to add to the office software. So people are not upgrading that often.

Quarlo Klobrigney · « **Reply #86 on:** February 20, 2018, 08:51:59 pm »

But there is.. The cloud and the ribbon..

Quote from: ataradov on February 20, 2018, 08:47:56 pm

There was a change. We basically reached the limit if development on most of the software. There is nothing useful to add to the office software. So people are not upgrading that often.

Gribo · « **Reply #87 on:** February 20, 2018, 09:44:53 pm »

A Few years ago I was working in a small startup which rented its lab equipment. And, as usual for startups, there were times with no money. Guess what happened? No SA, no scope, wall warts and batteries as power supplies. No thanks, I will never rent my tools. Both Microsoft and Adobe are facing competition from FOSS. LibreOffice Calc in its most recent release is fast enough to be useful with medium sized files. GIMP has enough features and capabilities to go toe to toe with Photoshop, so it is only a matter of inertia that these companies maintain their market share.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #88 on:** February 21, 2018, 12:12:50 am »

Quote from: Cerebus on February 20, 2018, 08:17:26 pm

It wasn't a barrier to Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle etc. etc. or even Autodesk becoming hugely successful in the first place. I don't see that any fundamental changes have taken place that make a change of sales model absolutely necessary.

I was using ancient copies of Adobe and MS office products because I did not want to update all of them. When they started offering a subscription - I updated everything and added a few more. Clearly, it works.

Neither company did this as a desperate act to avoid bankruptcy - they just wanted to pivot the business model to stabilize cash flow and gain additional customers. I did not hesitate and like all of my new capabilities that I otherwise was unwilling to spend a pile of cash.

ataradov · « **Reply #89 on:** February 21, 2018, 12:25:02 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 12:12:50 am

Clearly, it works.

Yes, not giving a choice works.

Now you are spending pile of cash spread over a few months, and now you also don't own anything as a result.

You could improve your cash flow by introducing reasonably priced products for varying target audiences.

I bought Matlab license when they made hobby price to be $150. That's about how much I actually use it, and at this price it is a good value for me. There is no chance I could justify a full price. There will be no way I will pay for subscription, since I need it a few times a year. I also get access to a full backlog of previous versions, just in case I need it. It does not fully solve independence from the company, since you still download an installer, and installer downloads the product.

Enforcing correct usage of various price tiers is hard, it is probably mostly honor based system. But if you want to violate the licence conditions, might as well pirate the whole thing to begin with.

Cerebus · « **Reply #90 on:** February 21, 2018, 12:33:50 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 12:12:50 am

Quote from: Cerebus on February 20, 2018, 08:17:26 pm
It wasn't a barrier to Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle etc. etc. or even Autodesk becoming hugely successful in the first place. I don't see that any fundamental changes have taken place that make a change of sales model absolutely necessary.

I was using ancient copies of Adobe and MS office products because I did not want to update all of them. When they started offering a subscription - I updated everything and added a few more. Clearly, it works.

Neither company did this as a desperate act to avoid bankruptcy - they just wanted to pivot the business model to stabilize cash flow and gain additional customers. I did not hesitate and like all of my new capabilities that I otherwise was unwilling to spend a pile of cash.

You kind of prove what I was suspecting. Adobe and MS were already rich, and they found a way to get you to make them richer. The 'jerky' nature of cash flows from product lifetimes and licences were no barrier to them getting rich in the first place. The change to subscription does more than even out their cashflow, it persuaded you to make purchases that you wouldn't have otherwise have made.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #91 on:** February 21, 2018, 01:22:19 am »

Quote from: Cerebus on February 21, 2018, 12:33:50 am

You kind of prove what I was suspecting. Adobe and MS were already rich, and they found a way to get you to make them richer. The 'jerky' nature of cash flows from product lifetimes and licences were no barrier to them getting rich in the first place. The change to subscription does more than even out their cashflow, it persuaded you to make purchases that you wouldn't have otherwise have made.

Welcome to capitalism. It's kinda how things work.

ataradov · « **Reply #92 on:** February 21, 2018, 01:26:50 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 01:22:19 am

Welcome to capitalism. It's kinda how things work.

So what your are saying is "give up, and stop pressuring vendors for non-subscription options". Because that's how it works, of course. Can't say I agree with that position. Obviously giving up is easy, but they will sure find a way to exploit you even more. The next step is slight increases of the subscription price. Just enough so it is below the pain point. But if you do that many times, you can smooth your cash flow to no end.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #93 on:** February 21, 2018, 01:37:02 am »

Quote from: ataradov on February 21, 2018, 01:26:50 am

So what your are saying is "give up, and stop pressuring vendors for non-subscription options". Because that's how it works, of course. Can't say I agree with that position. Obviously giving up is easy, but they will sure find a way to exploit you even more. The next step is slight increases of the subscription price. Just enough so it is below the pain point. But if you do that many times, you can smooth your cash flow to no end.
[/quote]

I am saying the opposite.

If the software companies make a change with expectations they will make more money and the target audience rejects it and does not buy it - they lose.
If the software companies make a change with expectations they will make more money and the target audience buys it - they win.

The audience has the power to reject it by not purchasing. There are a lot of other tools that are not subscription - some free and some are $10k. Pick the one that gives you the best value.

For me personally - at the current rates - I would not reach the cost of Solidworks/Mastercam for something like 25 years if I never updated Solidworks or Mastercam. I also get Eagle for 'free'.

If I kept SW and MC under maintenance and did regular updates - the cost would dwarf the Autodesk solution. Again - that does not even count the cost of Eagle.

KE5FX · « **Reply #94 on:** February 21, 2018, 01:55:02 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 01:37:02 am

The audience has the power to reject it by not purchasing.

Yes, Autodesk has given me the "power" to lose access to all of my work if I stop coughing up the Danegeld. Whatever will I do with all of this newfound power? Truly, the head rush alone is intoxicating.

ataradov · « **Reply #95 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:00:01 am »

The real choice is to offer both options and see what people see fit. But companies know that they will not see the result they need. I honestly wish there was still a way to buy Eagle 7 licence and stay with that. In that instance I could not give a crap about their improvements, it already does what I need it to do.

Obviously each model has its ups and downs. And your case may be special. And if not - there is no downside for Autodesk in offering a non-subscription service. People will just not use it, if it is a bad deal.

Also, this equation shifts considerably with the price of the product. That's why we are discussing a low end, reasonably cheap tool. If it was $5000 product, I would absolutely consider renting it for $20/month. That's a great deal.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #96 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:32:14 am »

Quote from: KE5FX on February 21, 2018, 01:55:02 am

Yes, Autodesk has given me the "power" to lose access to all of my work if I stop coughing up the Danegeld. Whatever will I do with all of this newfound power? Truly, the head rush alone is intoxicating.

No, they give you the power to jump ship. Run away forever. Keep in mind - if they did not buy Eagle, they would likely shrivel up and die.

Quote from: ataradov on February 21, 2018, 02:00:01 am

The real choice is to offer both options and see what people see fit. But companies know that they will not see the result they need. I honestly wish there was still a way to buy Eagle 7 licence and stay with that. In that instance I could not give a crap about their improvements, it already does what I need it to do.

Obviously each model has its ups and downs. And your case may be special. And if not - there is no downside for Autodesk in offering a non-subscription service. People will just not use it, if it is a bad deal.

Also, this equation shifts considerably with the price of the product. That's why we are discussing a low end, reasonably cheap tool. If it was $5000 product, I would absolutely consider renting it for $20/month. That's a great deal.

I was hoping for the same thing, yet that was not meant to be I guess. Keep in mind, I only went with Autodesk because of Fusion360 being bundled with it. On its own, Eagle is so weak I would have done something else. In my case, Eagle is effectively free. Eagle, in my view, is worth a couple hundred $ as a perpetual license, maybe $10/mo.

Cerebus · « **Reply #97 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:50:42 am »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 01:22:19 am

Quote from: Cerebus on February 21, 2018, 12:33:50 am

You kind of prove what I was suspecting. Adobe and MS were already rich, and they found a way to get you to make them richer. The 'jerky' nature of cash flows from product lifetimes and licences were no barrier to them getting rich in the first place. The change to subscription does more than even out their cashflow, it persuaded you to make purchases that you wouldn't have otherwise have made.

Welcome to capitalism. It's kinda how things work.

One can be a Capitalist without pursuing naked greed. I think that most people that identify as Capitalists would not be in favour of the style that rewards loyal customers by devising schemes primarily to extract the maximum profits from them. That's not Capitalism, that's Finance Capitalism - which is a very different beast and what's primarily wrong with big business today. Proper Capitalism delivers some real value at the end of the day, Finance Capitalism tends to regard actually running a business or delivering products as an annoying diversion from making money out of mergers and acquisitions and asset stripping.

I'd have a lot more sympathy your suggestion of a rental arrangement to smooth cash flow for a newly developed product, but the tendency of everybody to take mature, already developed products and move them to rental only just looks to me like classic rent-seeking, an attempt to milk the cash cow without actually feeding it.

You seem to be advocating for the rental model and at the same time you are quietly producing the evidence of exactly how it exploits its consumers. Were you once perhaps, in a former life, a turkey that voted for Thanksgiving? One of the worrying things about the rental only model is that at leaves one at risk of a vendor, once you're adequately invested and tied-in, coming along and saying "Spread your legs and bend over, here come the new usage terms". At least your former life will have prepared you for that. I doubt, however, that the new usage terms will come in sage and onion flavour.

rx8pilot · « **Reply #98 on:** February 21, 2018, 02:59:37 am »

I am not advocating one way or the other - just saying that all involved have a choice. The supplier can get as greedy as they want, they can be 'fair', they can cancel the product, they can improve the product, whatever. They can do whatever they please with the product or service.

The consumers can also do whatever they want. They can run away, they can bash the company for being greedy assholes on forums, whatever.

All I am pointing out is that everyone has a choice. My particular situation is a good-enough fit for the subscription model. I would love the control, but cannot afford the software that allows that. I cast my vote along with everyone else. My best guess (pure speculation) is that it is working just fine for Autodesk and they are putting a considerable effort into Eagle and have already put piles of effort into Fusion360.

If you don't like it, no one is forcing anything on anyone. It's a democracy. Cast your vote with your wallet.

Capitalism is not about fairness - it is about taking what you can. It is a cold concept at its core. If you take too much, you will be pummeled and punished, but I don't see that happening to Autodesk right now.

Wilksey · « **Reply #99 on:** February 21, 2018, 12:08:26 pm »

Interesting discussion.

EAGLE has always been hated upon for one reason or another, I liked it, it has a free offering which for me many years ago worked fine, and was fairly powerful for what it was.

Some people didn't like the interface but then when you are paying thousands of dollars / pounds for a piece of software why would you prefer one that costs much less, and more importantly, one you are not used to.

I have used EAGLE for a number of years, latest one being 7.7 before Autodesk took it on.

The subscription model was a kick in the balls for most, it might not make much difference if you amortise it out and factor in upgrade costs, but it's the thought of being tied into a subscription model, and as others have said, in years to come I can open my V7, update a component and regenerate the Gerbers without any issues, if I had V8, I would not be able to do this unless it fit inside the free model constraints, which it wouldn't.

The interface has been slightly improved, not sure any of the updates have much real use for most of us, but still. That bloody loading screen and internet connection page is what really puts me off though, just feels clunky and out of place.

Ultimately I have moved to other packages, but will still continue to use V7 for legacy stuff.

nctnico · « **Reply #100 on:** February 21, 2018, 10:11:53 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 02:59:37 am

The consumers can also do whatever they want. They can run away, they can bash the company for being greedy assholes on forums, whatever.

When it comes to schematics/PCB design that isn't true because each package has an incompatible format. Moving from one package to another means flushing many hours of work in the libraries down the drain. If you rent package A and move the package B you have to keep paying rent for package A in order to work on your files made with package A.

KE5FX · « **Reply #101 on:** February 21, 2018, 11:41:58 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on February 21, 2018, 10:11:53 pm

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 21, 2018, 02:59:37 am
The consumers can also do whatever they want. They can run away, they can bash the company for being greedy assholes on forums, whatever.
When it comes to schematics/PCB design that isn't true because each package has an incompatible format. Moving from one package to another means flushing many hours of work in the libraries down the drain. If you rent package A and move the package B you have to keep paying rent for package A in order to work on your files made with package A.

It doesn't matter how many times you point that out, people just don't think that far ahead. Or they assume it will never be an issue for them, because of course, they're different. The words go in one eye and out the other. They're EEs, so of course they've never heard of SoftImage, or Plays For Sure, or Sonos, or any number of other DRM debacles where Big Brother has altered the proverbial deal.

Everybody has to learn the hard way.

thm_w · « **Reply #102 on:** February 22, 2018, 12:14:06 am »

Quote from: Gribo on February 20, 2018, 09:44:53 pm

A Few years ago I was working in a small startup which rented its lab equipment. And, as usual for startups, there were times with no money. Guess what happened? No SA, no scope, wall warts and batteries as power supplies. No thanks, I will never rent my tools. Both Microsoft and Adobe are facing competition from FOSS. LibreOffice Calc in its most recent release is fast enough to be useful with medium sized files. GIMP has enough features and capabilities to go toe to toe with Photoshop, so it is only a matter of inertia that these companies maintain their market share.

So you can't do any meaningful work, any sort of project timeline is delayed but you should still be paid. Not sure I see the problem here (unless you are the owner of said startup).

rx8pilot · « **Reply #103 on:** February 22, 2018, 12:20:53 am »

Quote from: nctnico on February 21, 2018, 10:11:53 pm

When it comes to schematics/PCB design that isn't true because each package has an incompatible format. Moving from one package to another means flushing many hours of work in the libraries down the drain. If you rent package A and move the package B you have to keep paying rent for package A in order to work on your files made with package A.

I just switched from Solidworks and Mastercam to Fusion360 - totally and completely different in every way. The learning curve is steep, but I weighed my options and decided it was better in the long run.

That was a decision I had to make. Not an easy one, but I had the option to jump ship and I did. None of my old work is compatible so I have to maintain an old system for as long as I need to access legacy files. It really sucks, but still a choice.

In the 90's I bailed on Avid for Final Cut Pro. A huge challenge, but better in the long run. Then bailed on Final Cut Pro in favor of Adobe Premier Pro....again - huge effort to switch, yet I did along with many others. Each time I had the option to stat with software that no longer fit my needs or jump ship.

In a perfect world - everything would be perfect and never change after it is learned. In the real world - things change.

Cerebus · « **Reply #104 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:45:34 am »

Quote from: thm_w on February 22, 2018, 12:14:06 am

Quote from: Gribo on February 20, 2018, 09:44:53 pm
A Few years ago I was working in a small startup which rented its lab equipment. And, as usual for startups, there were times with no money. Guess what happened? No SA, no scope, wall warts and batteries as power supplies. No thanks, I will never rent my tools. Both Microsoft and Adobe are facing competition from FOSS. LibreOffice Calc in its most recent release is fast enough to be useful with medium sized files. GIMP has enough features and capabilities to go toe to toe with Photoshop, so it is only a matter of inertia that these companies maintain their market share.

So you can't do any meaningful work, any sort of project timeline is delayed but you should still be paid. Not sure I see the problem here (unless you are the owner of said startup).

Amazingly some people go to work expecting to do some and not just sit there twiddling their thumbs all day. Whether it's a Protestant work ethic, low boredom threshold or just a wish to use one's time usefully in my experience most people hate sinecures, especially imposed ones.

james_s · « **Reply #105 on:** February 22, 2018, 08:54:49 pm »

Quote from: Cerebus on February 22, 2018, 09:45:34 am

Amazingly some people go to work expecting to do some and not just sit there twiddling their thumbs all day. Whether it's a Protestant work ethic, low boredom threshold or just a wish to use one's time usefully in my experience most people hate sinecures, especially imposed ones.

Going to work, having nothing to do but goof off and still getting paid sounds nice doesn't it? It's really not, I've been there and it was awful. The minutes crawled by at a glacial pace. I joked about bringing in one of my personal projects and working on that instead but I just couldn't bring myself to screw off *that* blatantly.Every day that no work is getting done is one day closer to the whole company folding. I ran out of things I felt like looking at on the internet, I found myself engaging in menial tasks like sweeping floor in the server room and sorting piles of random cables into boxes, it was some of the most boring and least fulfilling "work" I've ever done. Eventually the company did collapse, at least anything that could genuinely be called a company, the website remained for years as if nothing had changed. I hung on until the end out of morbid curiosity until I was finally asked if I wanted to be laid off and said yes please.

I'd rather spend my days busy working and learning new things. It's nice when I get sucked into whatever I'm doing and suddenly realize I forgot to go home half an hour ago.

nctnico · « **Reply #106 on:** February 22, 2018, 11:11:01 pm »

Quote from: rx8pilot on February 22, 2018, 12:20:53 am

Quote from: nctnico on February 21, 2018, 10:11:53 pm
When it comes to schematics/PCB design that isn't true because each package has an incompatible format. Moving from one package to another means flushing many hours of work in the libraries down the drain. If you rent package A and move the package B you have to keep paying rent for package A in order to work on your files made with package A.

I just switched from Solidworks and Mastercam to Fusion360 - totally and completely different in every way. The learning curve is steep, but I weighed my options and decided it was better in the long run.

In a perfect world - everything would be perfect and never change after it is learned. In the real world - things change.

True for some part. For the past 15 to 20 years I've been using Orcad Capture for schematics and it still suits me. Unfortunately Orcad's PCB package has been discontinued and it doesn't support any 3D stuff. So that means learning a new PCB package. My point: a good choice may last you a long time and software doesn't wear down.

thm_w · « **Reply #107 on:** February 23, 2018, 12:19:36 am »

Quote from: james_s on February 22, 2018, 08:54:49 pm

Going to work, having nothing to do but goof off and still getting paid sounds nice doesn't it? It's really not, I've been there and it was awful. The minutes crawled by at a glacial pace. I joked about bringing in one of my personal projects and working on that instead but I just couldn't bring myself to screw off *that* blatantly. Every day that no work is getting done is one day closer to the whole company folding. I ran out of things I felt like looking at on the internet, I found myself engaging in menial tasks like sweeping floor in the server room and sorting piles of random cables into boxes, it was some of the most boring and least fulfilling "work" I've ever done. Eventually the company did collapse, at least anything that could genuinely be called a company, the website remained for years as if nothing had changed. I hung on until the end out of morbid curiosity until I was finally asked if I wanted to be laid off and said yes please.

Working on a personal project and looking at random things online are really no different in my eyes. Although it sounds like you were in IT, so the electronics aspect is not as related to your position.

Quote

I'd rather spend my days busy working and learning new things. It's nice when I get sucked into whatever I'm doing and suddenly realize I forgot to go home half an hour ago.

I agree.


EEVblog Main Site	EEVblog on Youtube	EEVblog on Twitter	EEVblog on Facebook	EEVblog on Odysee