EEVblog #527 - Altium Entry Level PCB Tool Rant

[hikariuk]

Of course, it's a lot easier to calculate area when you're not dealing with anything but parallel lines... but that's down to lazy programmers, I think.  It's just not that hard to do... and even if it were, I think it wouldn't be such a big deal if they just took parallel lines on an outline and calculated that way.  If you have a board that requires a lot of cut-outs, then maybe you should rethink it anyway.

It's actually pretty easy to calculate the area of a polygon; it's about 4 or 5 lines of code.

[walshms]

It's actually pretty easy to calculate the area of a polygon; it's about 4 or 5 lines of code.

My point exactly.  Why doesn't every layout tool just do this?

I think it exceedingly strange that a lot of people seem to think that it's okay for these software producers to simply do as they please.  We are, after all, the market -- and it is and certainly should be demand-driven.

If enough people demand it, someone will come along and fill the void because they'll recognize the opportunity.

The best companies to work with are the ones that fully embrace that, and meet the demands.  They not only get loyalty, they get business... and a lot of it.  Look at what Apple did with the iPhone and iPod, and I think I need say no more.

Give people what they want, and they will buy into it.  Do it right, and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

[PeteInTexas]

First, the PCB houses need to be sure that the cost of doing something like this would make sense.  From Altium's point of view, this would effectively be a huge number of seats, which would make it extremely expensive for the PCB house, which would then have to pass on the cost... not a good thing.

Because its web based, Altium will have let go of this notion of per seat pricing and find a reasonable base price then maybe nickel and dime the pcb house for upgrades and updates.

Second, HTML5, WebGL and what -- Javascript?  Java?  Either way, coding that would be a huge nightmare.  Not to mention that it would run very slowly.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see that even being an option for most coders, and it would certainly take some significant investment in time and money to make that work.  In the end, I can't see a web-based PCB design tool having any traction.

WebGL is javascript an takes full advantage of gpu capabilities so it be fast enough.  People are making interactive short films with this so it will be fine.

Granted coding in javascript is a PITA, that's just me.  There are many who are very comfortable with it.  I don't even know why you think that's an issue.

Also, many CAD vendors like Auto desk are moving to integrate WebGL in their design products.  That's got to say something about its capabilities and readiness for hobbyist grade pcb layout.

[David_AVD]

Making a good desktop tool into a web based one would be a major disaster imo.  Maybe I'm in the minority who don't believe in all the "cloud" hype?

[David_AVD]

Four layers ought to be a standard starting point... for the kinds of things people would want to do today, that's almost a necessity, not a luxury.

I've designed hundreds of boards and never used more than 2 layers.  It's just not required for the majority of day to day applications.

[free_electron]

Four layers ought to be a standard starting point... for the kinds of things people would want to do today, that's almost a necessity, not a luxury.

I've designed hundreds of boards and never used more than 2 layers.  It's just not required for the majority of day to day applications.

ive done hundreds of boards and none of em are below 4 layers. you just can't do power planes on 2 layers , nor can you do controlled impedance ...

[mikeselectricstuff]

4 to 6 layer is probably a 'nicer' partition in pricing, correlating with a big jump in fab cost, mostly because of demand, but I don't think a free version with a 2L limit would get too many complaints. Obviously everyone's requirements are different, but few hobbyist-level users will need 4L.

..and limiting people to 2L will help improve layout skills! 4L makes it too easy!
I've done many hundreds of PCBs over the years and maybe only a dozen or so needed 4 layers.

 

[elgonzo]

Making a good desktop tool into a web based one would be a major disaster imo.  Maybe I'm in the minority who don't believe in all the "cloud" hype?

While there is nothing inherently disastrous about a good (!) online tool, i would also have slight concerns if a software company is doing its first steps in this area. Creating a reliable online application requires quite a different expertise than creating desktop applications...

My point exactly.  Why doesn't every layout tool just do this?

Why should every layout tool do this?
Unless you want your "lower" software editions be restricted by area, what is the benefit?
I can't think of a reason. For construction/manufacturing of your device, dimensions are relevant to make the PCB fit the assembly.
For PCB fabs, usually panel size matters, not so much the area of your irregularly shaped board.
Care to elaborate in which scenarios calculating the area would matter (except as artificial restriction)?

I think it exceedingly strange that a lot of people seem to think that it's okay for these software producers to simply do as they please.  We are, after all, the market -- and it is and certainly should be demand-driven.

If enough people demand it, someone will come along and fill the void because they'll recognize the opportunity.

The best companies to work with are the ones that fully embrace that, and meet the demands.  They not only get loyalty, they get business... and a lot of it.  Look at what Apple did with the iPhone and iPod, and I think I need say no more.

Give people what they want, and they will buy into it.  Do it right, and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

Hmm... if a lot of people are okay with what the companies do, would that not mean that the companies met the demands of those people?

Naturally, companies will try to achieve and sustain success (a-ka monies in the bank). Some will do better than others.
Still, the best companies will eventually fall. The reality of the market(s) is far more complex and dynamic than you think.
Only 67 companies from the Fortune 500 list of the year 1955 are still in the Fortune 500 list in the year 2011. Go figure...

[JoannaK]

Four layers ought to be a standard starting point... for the kinds of things people would want to do today, that's almost a necessity, not a luxury.

I've designed hundreds of boards and never used more than 2 layers.  It's just not required for the majority of day to day applications.

ive done hundreds of boards and none of em are below 4 layers. you just can't do power planes on 2 layers , nor can you do controlled impedance ...

This depends a lot from software to software. For example Diptrace free version (300 pin limitation) allows 2 signal layers, plus unlimited plane layers, so typical 4-layer stack is no problem. And there is no limits for board size..

PS: As these primitive basic tools go.. Diptrace feels ok for me.. I have not done anything serious with it, just toyed a few moments. It apparently can only do highly inefficient grid-based routing and offers no real tools to trace shove-ripup-reroute, but for the price it seems ok.

PS2: Still waiting to hear from Cadstar, their freebie version needs *both* net login to acces download and some ***** stupid passwoard for installing the free version. What's the point? If the program is free to use, why make it so difficult?

[EEVblog]

Would an area based constraint be a feature rather than a fixed length and width constraint?. As in "Eagle has a 80 sq. cm" free version, shape it however you would like [SIHYWL]". For $169 it has a 160 sq. cm version, SIHYWL.

The thought being that if Altium is looking for some way to constrain the application yet not look like they just copied the Eagle marketing material, would an area based constraint be an opportunity to achieve that goal and also be of benefit to the end user?

Yes, I certainly think so.
Even the $500+ paid version of Eagle can't do boards bigger than 160mm, and that's just incredibly stupid.
If I want to do a 1 layer board with a led on it that's 170mm long, With Eagle I have to buy the $1200 package.

[EEVblog]

but I don't think a free version with a 2L limit would get too many complaints.

Almost certainly not, as the community is very used to that 2 layer restriction.

[AlfBaz]

If altium do go down this road what will eagle's response be, freagle? Surely they wont just laydown and die

[walshms]

..and limiting people to 2L will help improve layout skills! 4L makes it too easy!
I've done many hundreds of PCBs over the years and maybe only a dozen or so needed 4 layers.

I guess you've enjoyed the challenges then, Mike?  

Admittedly, I did too at first... but now I'm far more interested in what's possible rather than what's challenging.  Maybe I'm in the minority, and my particular point of view is skewed, but for what it's worth, I think that there ought to be a shift in thinking on this.

That's just my opinion... but I felt like it was time to express it.  If it generates some discussion, so much the better...

[walshms]

My point exactly.  Why doesn't every layout tool just do this?

Why should every layout tool do this?
Unless you want your "lower" software editions be restricted by area, what is the benefit?
I can't think of a reason. For construction/manufacturing of your device, dimensions are relevant to make the PCB fit the assembly.
For PCB fabs, usually panel size matters, not so much the area of your irregularly shaped board.
Care to elaborate in which scenarios calculating the area would matter (except as artificial restriction)?

I think you may have missed the thread there.  The original point was a response to the question of why layout vendors limit their versions based on a particular board size in linear measurements as a rectangle... and the question was asking whether it made sense to do it by area instead.  I say yes, it does make sense to do that rather than say "160mm x 100mm" or some other arbitrary linear measurement.

I think it exceedingly strange that a lot of people seem to think that it's okay for these software producers to simply do as they please.  We are, after all, the market -- and it is and certainly should be demand-driven.

If enough people demand it, someone will come along and fill the void because they'll recognize the opportunity.

...

Give people what they want, and they will buy into it.  Do it right, and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

Hmm... if a lot of people are okay with what the companies do, would that not mean that the companies met the demands of those people?

Fair enough, if you think everyone in this thread who's been talking about what they'd like to see from Altium doesn't count.

How long has this industry been this way?  How long would you want it to stay that way?  And can you imagine the possibility of something different?

I can. 

[orin]

If you decide to pick it up again years later , you cough up the delta ... Sounds fair to me.

I was of the understanding that it was significantly more than the delta. i.e. they stung you with a hefty penalty for doing that, so as to "encourage" you to stay on subscription forever.

its the delta + a year of subscription if i remember correctly. we turned on a couple of sleeping licences at work and that is what we paid. bridge the gap and pay for the upcoming year.

Speaking of "penalties" or lack thereof, a long while ago, I got a copy of Cakewalk, what is now called a DAW (digital audio workstation).  It ran on Windows 98.  They have been advertising some rather nice upgrade costs for "any registered user" and I was recently doing the "Introduction to Music Production" course on Coursera.  Of course, I couldn't remember my password or username.

I booted up the old Windows 98 laptop, found what software version I had (I was looking for a serial number, but it didn't have one) and sent a question to their customer service.  A couple of days later, I got a nice message saying they found me in their database, that I should set up a new account, let them know the username and they would link my ancient purchase to the account so I could get upgrade pricing.

I did all but actually buy an upgrade.  I just don't actually need it at the moment, but if/when I do, they are at the top of the list.

Really, if I had purchased the upgrade, it was free money to them.  I didn't buy a competitor, nor would I given their upgrade price.  Set an upgrade price for an out of date version too close to that for a new copy/subscription and see customers defect to the competition.  Once you are that out of date, the learning curve going to a competitor may not be that different to going to a newer version anyway.

Orin.

[walshms]

but I don't think a free version with a 2L limit would get too many complaints.

Almost certainly not, as the community is very used to that 2 layer restriction.

Almost certainly not if it was a free version of Altium... that alone would be a big shift.

A man can dream, can't he?

I just think that there are real possibilities to be explored on this, that's all.  Very true that most people doing the occasional board won't really need four layers.  But if you had that to work with, would that be a bad thing, really?  I think the economics of the whole thing can drive that effectively.  Four layers being more expensive, it would still only be used where needed... but it would put the capability into more people's hands.

Does it have to be free?  No.  But price it right, and far more people would be likely to buy it.  I know I would.  And I'd prefer to be working with Altium; that's really the point here.  Whatever restrictions might be in place, as long as the price was affordable to remove those restrictions, I think Altium would find themselves earning more, not less.

[orin]

Eagle is SHIT and - sorry for being rude - anyone who pays any money for Eagle is an idiot. Whatever you can do with paid Eagle you can also do with free KiCad (or Inkscape...). If you have to - go for DipTrace - it's currently closest to being decent pcb tool at an affordable price.

Started with Easytrax*, went on to Eagle, tried KiCad, went back to Eagle.

Shrug...

Eagle component libraries still suck of course.  Surface mount diodes that don't indicated direction on the silkscreen, or if they do, overlap the pads was my latest irk.

Orin.

*I call it "vi for PCBs"

[orin]

Actually there is something in between - its called the EAGLE Hobbyist version. Its $169 for a 160x100mm board size. it requires filling out  (and signing) a form for them, though.

And as the name suggests, you can't use it for commercial designs. There is even argument over that I believe if you use it to produce an OSHW project and then someone else goes and sells it.

Good point.  The original developer would have to make it explicit in the open source hardware license that a commercial Eagle license would be required for commercial use.  Otherwise, the original developer would be liable for the Eagle license fee.

IANAL etc.

[EEVblog]

I just think that there are real possibilities to be explored on this, that's all. 
Very true that most people doing the occasional board won't really need four layers.  But if you had that to work with, would that be a bad thing, really? 

Of course, you'll likely get no argument from anyone on here about that.
I think the general consensus would be that if if Altium matched Eagle in terms of limitations and price, that that would be ok, and win for the community. Odds of success for Altium in that case is reasonable.
Anything less would be deemed a complete marketing failure.
And anything more above any of the price/limitations options Eagle offer would be a very good thing, and probably a wise thing to do if they really want to screw Eagle and become the dominate player as they hope.

Does it have to be free?  No.  But price it right, and far more people would be likely to buy it.  I know I would.  And I'd prefer to be working with Altium; that's really the point here.  Whatever restrictions might be in place, as long as the price was affordable to remove those restrictions, I think Altium would find themselves earning more, not less.

Of course, and once again, few would disagree with you.

Altium our coming out with something, so it simply remains to be seen if they either
1) screw it up completely
2) become a viable player
3) take the low end market by storm

[walshms]

Actually there is something in between - its called the EAGLE Hobbyist version. Its $169 for a 160x100mm board size. it requires filling out  (and signing) a form for them, though.

And as the name suggests, you can't use it for commercial designs. There is even argument over that I believe if you use it to produce an OSHW project and then someone else goes and sells it.

Good point.  The original developer would have to make it explicit in the open source hardware license that a commercial Eagle license would be required for commercial use.  Otherwise, the original developer would be liable for the Eagle license fee.

IANAL etc.

What good would it do to put that disclaimer in there?  If the original developer would be liable, then the person selling the product wouldn't have any incentive not to commercialize it.  Not his loss, so to speak.

Muddy waters here.  I'll watch from the shoreline.

If Eagle, Altium and the rest were less concerned about "non-commercial" versus "commercial" use and more concerned about getting an affordable tool into as many people's hands as they could, it would clear all of that up immediately.  It would also probably spur innovation in a big way, because more people would have higher quality tools with which to work.  Being distracted by the tools you use is no recipe for a good result, and maybe puts a lot of people off that might otherwise be very creative...

[orin]

Four layers ought to be a standard starting point... for the kinds of things people would want to do today, that's almost a necessity, not a luxury.

I've designed hundreds of boards and never used more than 2 layers.  It's just not required for the majority of day to day applications.

ive done hundreds of boards and none of em are below 4 layers. you just can't do power planes on 2 layers , nor can you do controlled impedance ...

Not really disagreeing, but it depends on what you are doing and whether EMC compatibility is involved.

I've not gone above 2 layers and not at 100s of MHz signal frequencies, so I "got away" with routing most traces on one layer with a flood fill ground on the other layer.  Looking back, the return path for some signals is not optimal(!).

However, these days, I do think 4 layers should be the starting point, not 2.  Just to read Henry Ott's "Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering" makes 4 layers look passe.

Orin.

[orin]

Actually there is something in between - its called the EAGLE Hobbyist version. Its $169 for a 160x100mm board size. it requires filling out  (and signing) a form for them, though.

And as the name suggests, you can't use it for commercial designs. There is even argument over that I believe if you use it to produce an OSHW project and then someone else goes and sells it.

Good point.  The original developer would have to make it explicit in the open source hardware license that a commercial Eagle license would be required for commercial use.  Otherwise, the original developer would be liable for the Eagle license fee.

IANAL etc.

What good would it do to put that disclaimer in there?  If the original developer would be liable, then the person selling the product wouldn't have any incentive not to commercialize it.  Not his loss, so to speak.

I guess I should have made it clearer.  GPL V2 managed it.  They enforce conditions on anyone that uses GPL V2 licensed software and they win in court.  It makes GPL V2 licensed software "pure poison" as far as I'm concerned where I work.  I simply won't consider it.

I don't see why a "You may not commercially* distribute derived works without a commercial <insert required licences> license" clause wouldn't protect the original developer.  If Eagle went after the original developer, I don't see Eagle having much of a case and even if they did, the original developer has a case against whoever commercialized the product since whoever commercialized it agreed to the non-commercial provisions simply by using it.

They make similar clauses work for GPL V2, so there is no reason they shouldn't work in this case.

Again, IANAL, Orin.

*consult a lawyer for appropriate wording.

[walshms]

And anything more above any of the price/limitations options Eagle offer would be a very good thing, and probably a wise thing to do if they really want to screw Eagle and become the dominate player as they hope.

If, as you suggest, they want to dominate then it's really a no-brainer.  They beat Eagle, DipTrace and the rest -- in part with the feature set, and in part with the price.  If they're willing to jump in I'd do all I could to support and encourage it...

[walshms]

I guess I should have made it clearer.  GPL V2 managed it. 

Oh, okay -- I see where you were going now.  Maybe.  Still don't think I'll test those waters.

[Corporate666]

So... you don't want to pay forever... how about updates ? how about mayor new versions.

when an application goes from 3.0 to 4.0 it is normal to pay upgrade fee.
with the sas system there is no upgrade fee. you are always up to date.
pick your poison : 250$ every few years for a major update or 10$ a month over 2 years and always up to date with new features release on a monthly basis ?
same price in the end. i'd rather not have to wait for 2 years before i get some new tool...

I find that when people are forced to pay for upgrades, they tend to evaluate whether they actually need them.

There are a lot of people still running XP because it does what they need it to do.  I am the same with SolidWorks and MasterCAM.  Both packages are expensive to upgrade, and when they introduce new features as upgrades, I like to know what exactly those features are and consider whether I need them.  A lot of people have this idea that they just 'should' have the latest version of software - they don't know why, other than "it's the newest one".  But it's sort of like cars... do you need a new car, or do you just want one?

What is particularly irksome is companies who fix bugs as new versions of the software.  If a piece of software has an acknowledged bug, it ought to be fixed for free in an update - as it was something sold that was not delivered. 

But SAAS - no way.  I am tired of every other company we do business with hoping to get a piece of our bottom line.  I don't like renting.  Imagine if everything worked that way... you could only lease computers, could only lease OS's, only lease cars, clothes, watches, eyeglasses.  That's what companies want but I don't think it is in the best interests of the consumer.  In every implementation I have seen, it's a money grab by the software company.  For example, Adobe might charge $600 for Photoshop and have a new version ever 2 years.  So they will charge $40/mo for a subscription.  Now you are paying $960 every 2 years, regardless of whether you needed the features in the upgrade or not.  It removes choice.