Free Unlimited Version of AutoTRAX PCB Design Software

[Iliya]

It is very unlikely that AutoTRAX will be open source, I would be worried about source code being screwed up and software development not be as fast as it is now.

If it was, it would be similar to what you see in QT, in non-commercial and the commercial version.

To build AutoTRAX you would need a developer license for DevExpress , Winforms. $899 US and of course Visual Studio 2013.

https://www.devexpress.com/Products/NET/Controls/WinForms/

[timb]

Frankly, I think you should give any forum user that paid for V5 a free upgrade to V6, due to all the help and feedback you've gotten from us.

Personally, I'm against expiring licenses. I think generally once you pay for a program that should be it; free upgrades forever. Otherwise you end up like Altium or Microsoft, milking their existing customer base year after year with little to show for it.

Offering a lifetime license means you have to work at attracting new customers.

That said, being a one man shop with a single commercial product, I can see your point of view. You do need to eat! (Though DipTrace is a lifetime license and they have a group of coders working full time, so...)


Sent from my Smartphone

[John Coloccia]

That said, being a one man shop with a single commercial product, I can see your point of view. You do need to eat! (Though DipTrace is a lifetime license and they have a group of coders working full time, so...)


Sent from my Smartphone

The DipTrace license entitles you to upgrades within a major release....2.0...2.1, etc.  When they do the next major release, it is 25% of the purchase price.  Anyhow, they're off in space working on differential pairs, and all the stuff we really want fixed is languishing.  It's a nice program, but they really need to start fixing some of the core problems instead of concentrating on stuff like differential pairs.

I think the hard feelings here are due to the super quick abandonment of 5.0, but he did fix stuff in 5.0 for a couple of months anyway.  It's still free and available for non-commercial use, and there was stuff that was fixed, and it's functional, so it's hard to imagine anyone really being too upset.  Still, no free, functional version means a lot of people won't even consider it, even for $50.  Adobe's software is best in class, and I STILL mucked around with that for 3 weeks doing real work before deciding to dump Corel and switch.

[DerekG]

Frankly, I think you should give any forum user that paid for V5 a free upgrade to V6, due to all the help and feedback you've gotten from us.

I think your existing AutoTrax Dex 2020 licence entitles you to any bug fixes & upgrades for a 12 month period.

So you should be able to download Version 6 & run it without any restrictions.

Let us know how you go.

[ozwolf]

Frankly, I think you should give any forum user that paid for V5 a free upgrade to V6, due to all the help and feedback you've gotten from us.

Personally, I'm against expiring licenses. I think generally once you pay for a program that should be it; free upgrades forever. Otherwise you end up like Altium or Microsoft, milking their existing customer base year after year with little to show for it.

Offering a lifetime license means you have to work at attracting new customers.

That said, being a one man shop with a single commercial product, I can see your point of view. You do need to eat! (Though DipTrace is a lifetime license and they have a group of coders working full time, so...)


Sent from my Smartphone

As a paid subscriber, I had no difficulty with upgrading to version 6.  It all happened automatically.

Ozwolf

[timb]

Well then, I was wrong on that front. I based it on someone posting about a "bait and switch" after they just purchased a license. Add to that the discount being given to forum members, I assumed 6 was a paid mandatory upgrade. And yes, I know what they say about assuming.

I still don't like the general idea of paid upgrades, mainly because I've been burnt by companies like Adobe. Releasing a new major version every 6 to 12 months that costs $500 to $1000 for an upgrade is fucking diabolical. In this case, however, it is *only* $50. So, even once a year that's not bad, so long as there are major features to warrant it. So yeah, I retract the whole post.

Though, might I suggest you offer previous registered users of *any* version a small discount? Even the $10 off forum price would be alright. This is psychological tactic that makes users feel rewarded for being loyal to the software. They don't have to pay the same price as *new* users, they're in a special club.


Sent from my Tablet

[John Coloccia]

Well then, I was wrong on that front. I based it on someone posting about a "bait and switch" after they just purchased a license. Add to that the discount being given to forum members, I assumed 6 was a paid mandatory upgrade. And yes, I know what they say about assuming.

I still don't like the general idea of paid upgrades, mainly because I've been burnt by companies like Adobe. Releasing a new major version every 6 to 12 months that costs $500 to $1000 for an upgrade is fucking diabolical. In this case, however, it is *only* $50. So, even once a year that's not bad, so long as there are major features to warrant it. So yeah, I retract the whole post.

Though, might I suggest you offer previous registered users of *any* version a small discount? Even the $10 off forum price would be alright. This is psychological tactic that makes users feel rewarded for being loyal to the software. They don't have to pay the same price as *new* users, they're in a special club.


Sent from my Tablet

You should see what Matlab does. If you let the maintenance run out, and want to ever start up again, you need to pay all of the years in between.

I like Adobe's new subscription model.  For $49 a month, you get everything...EVERYTHING.  Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc...everything they make, you get.  You can pay a little more and do a monthly subscription, or if you just need one program, it's $19 a month.  I think under the old model, this used to cost $2600.  So my stuff stays up to date with the latest and greatest, always.  If I don't make money, I drop the subscription.  If I want to, I can reactivate the subscription at any time for just one month...$70, I think.  Basically, I get to pay them when I'm actively using the products and make money, and when I don't, I can dump them until I need them again.  As a business, I find this very attractive.

[nctnico]

I still don't like the general idea of paid upgrades, mainly because I've been burnt by companies like Adobe. Releasing a new major version every 6 to 12 months that costs $500 to $1000 for an upgrade is fucking diabolical.

I always ask myself the question: do I really need the latest version? Software companies always pretend you'll die a slow and painfull death if you don't use the latest version but in reality the current version should do it's job just fine; otherwise you would not have bought it.

@John Coloccia: What you describe makes a lot of sense to me. It makes software affordable and creates a constant revenue for the software firms. I'd call that a win-win.

[rsjsouza]

I always ask myself the question: do I really need the latest version?

+1 to that. I tend to stick with a working release before considering updates, especially if I am in the middle of a project. Obviously that I usually explore an updated release after a project ends, which may or may not convince me to do that.

I still don't like the general idea of paid upgrades, 

With the advent of internet, SW became an even tougher business... Paying for updates is one of the ways companies can keep investing in innovations and a roadmap of products - obviously that several models exist, and the subscription model mentioned by John Coloccia seems a bit more fair. But, no matter how you look the revenue stream must come from somewhere.

[John Coloccia]

Everyone seems to forget how software USED to work.  You'd go to the store, you'd buy the software, and that was that...NO upgrades...ever.  If you wanted the new version, you went to the store and bought the new version.  Then the internet came, and companies started making bug fixes and things like this available online.  Turbo Tax may have been the first to really take advantage of this, allow you to update your software for the latest tax laws/forms.

And now, everyone wants to pay $50 for a piece of software and have the guy that wrote it work for free for the rest of his life.  LOL.  I understand the "open source" movement, but as a professional, I would never release anything as open source unless I was really just releasing it as a service to the community (which I've done from time to time).  There's no reason in the world why an engineer should have to work the rest of his life for free just because he sold a piece of software.  You don't get your car repaired and upgraded for free, do you?  You don't get free TVs when Samsung comes out with a new version.  But because it's software, apparently it should be free for everyone, and for all time, and in addition if you have the nerve to ever give away a free version, you have to keep giving it away and supporting it forever.

Honestly, I think the open source/free software/whatever movement is a pile of horse crap, and the generally awful software that results is what you get when your software doesn't have to compete with actual good products.  There are some notable exception, but only after real money got involved and supported it.

That's why I really like the subscription model.  No one else does engineering for free.  It's completely ridiculous to expect software engineers to work for free.  Your products would be significantly better if people were willing to pay a few bucks for them and allow the engineer to concentrate on it, as opposed to expecting it all for free and you basically get whatever can be fiddled with in someone's free time.

[pickle9000]

In the end it all comes down to money and time. In reality they are the same. How fast can you learn the package, time saving features, actual cost. How much money you can put in your pocket. At least for a small business / contractor.

Staying with a package because you know it well and can get the job done fast is a valid argument.

Autotrax is an OK package, it's still developing so that's a plus. I wouldn't do a massive project on it but I don't really do those anyway. It's an amazing price, minimal learning curve good support.

The down side and upside is that it's a one man show. The upside is that features are added quickly and the seem to be very robust in implementation (excellent programmer). The negative is that if the designer is down for any reason what happens to the software?

[nctnico]

The down side and upside is that it's a one man show. The negative is that if the designer is down for any reason what happens to the software?

As I wrote above: if the software works then why do you need upgrades? It is a different story with software which stops to work after some time.
Last year I was looking for a VHDL plugin for Eclipse. The company who created a commercial plugin only provides time limited node locked licenses. It is just a tiny company so if they go belly up the time I spend into learning how to work with their software would go up in smoke OR I can no longer use the software if I change my PC.

[Iliya]

In the end it all comes down to money and time. In reality they are the same. How fast can you learn the package, time saving features, actual cost. How much money you can put in your pocket. At least for a small business / contractor.

Staying with a package because you know it well and can get the job done fast is a valid argument.

Autotrax is an OK package, it's still developing so that's a plus. I wouldn't do a massive project on it but I don't really do those anyway. It's an amazing price, minimal learning curve good support.

The down side and upside is that it's a one man show. The upside is that features are added quickly and the seem to be very robust in implementation (excellent programmer). The negative is that if the designer is down for any reason what happens to the software?

You will probably right about the one-man band. Perhaps I should work at getting partners involved, however that inevitably would lead to an increase in price as the overhead would increase dramatically. More people needing to eat!

[pickle9000]

The down side and upside is that it's a one man show. The negative is that if the designer is down for any reason what happens to the software?

As I wrote above: if the software works then why do you need upgrades? It is a different story with software which stops to work after some time.
Last year I was looking for a VHDL plugin for Eclipse. The company who created a commercial plugin only provides time limited node locked licenses. It is just a tiny company so if they go belly up the time I spend into learning how to work with their software would go up in smoke OR I can no longer use the software if I change my PC.

No arguments here, I use xp on the bench to keep an old logic analyzer in use. I don't buy time licensed software unless forced to. Having said that, the preference is to have the software under development. New features save time and that's money.

[pickle9000]

In the end it all comes down to money and time. In reality they are the same. How fast can you learn the package, time saving features, actual cost. How much money you can put in your pocket. At least for a small business / contractor.

Staying with a package because you know it well and can get the job done fast is a valid argument.

Autotrax is an OK package, it's still developing so that's a plus. I wouldn't do a massive project on it but I don't really do those anyway. It's an amazing price, minimal learning curve good support.

The down side and upside is that it's a one man show. The upside is that features are added quickly and the seem to be very robust in implementation (excellent programmer). The negative is that if the designer is down for any reason what happens to the software?

You will probably right about the one-man band. Perhaps I should work at getting partners involved, however that inevitably would lead to an increase in price as the overhead would increase dramatically. More people needing to eat!

All you really need is a plan. A statement that if for whatever reason you are unable to continue with developing the software here is what will happen. What that will be I don't know, will it change over time? Probably, but letting users know that you have a procedure in place is probably helpful. 

[LabSpokane]

Honestly, I think the open source/free software/whatever movement is a pile of horse crap, and the generally awful software that results is what you get when your software doesn't have to compete with actual good products.  There are some notable exception, but only after real money got involved and supported it.

That's why I really like the subscription model.  No one else does engineering for free.  It's completely ridiculous to expect software engineers to work for free.  Your products would be significantly better if people were willing to pay a few bucks for them and allow the engineer to concentrate on it, as opposed to expecting it all for free and you basically get whatever can be fiddled with in someone's free time.

Exactly. I am all too happy to kick a modest fee into the hat on an periodic basis for good software and ongoing development.  The well-implemented subscription models work for me - particularly for things like CAD - where I'm doing a ton of it or none of it.  If someone really nails the intro PCB CAD market, $50/year or whatever is really cheap. 

What I would suggest is monetizing the libraries as well.  That's the work I would happily pay for if I knew the component libraries would be reliable and updated.  Maybe provide a basic library as part of the package, then a "deluxe" parts library on a subscription basis. 

Do good work and don't be too afraid to charge for it.   

[Monkeh]

I would be very hesitant to pay money for libraries. Even more hesitant to pay money for untested ones.

[Iliya]

Honestly, I think the open source/free software/whatever movement is a pile of horse crap, and the generally awful software that results is what you get when your software doesn't have to compete with actual good products.  There are some notable exception, but only after real money got involved and supported it.

That's why I really like the subscription model.  No one else does engineering for free.  It's completely ridiculous to expect software engineers to work for free.  Your products would be significantly better if people were willing to pay a few bucks for them and allow the engineer to concentrate on it, as opposed to expecting it all for free and you basically get whatever can be fiddled with in someone's free time.

Exactly. I am all too happy to kick a modest fee into the hat on an periodic basis for good software and ongoing development.  The well-implemented subscription models work for me - particularly for things like CAD - where I'm doing a ton of it or none of it.  If someone really nails the intro PCB CAD market, $50/year or whatever is really cheap. 

What I would suggest is monetizing the libraries as well.  That's the work I would happily pay for if I knew the component libraries would be reliable and updated.  Maybe provide a basic library as part of the package, then a "deluxe" parts library on a subscription basis. 

Do good work and don't be too afraid to charge for it. 

AutoTRAX is $49 for the first year and $29 for each additional year. You keep the software, it does not run out.

Of course you can get AutoTRAX for $39 until this Easter weekend, 5th. May, 2015

http://kov.com/Purchase/EEVblog

[John Coloccia]

I'd give it a try, but I'm knee deep in DipTrace.  Like I said before, I'm always trying new software out, and if it's good and I use it, I pay for it.  If there was a free version of the latest, or a time locked trial version or something like that, that let me get through a project from beginning to end and exercise all the features, I'd certainly try it.

[LabSpokane]

I would be very hesitant to pay money for libraries. Even more hesitant to pay money for untested ones.

Build a crappy library and everyone drops their subscription. Do a great job and you have a nice revenue stream between releases. Just because it's been an afterthought for so long doesn't mean there isn't room to do the job well and differentiate oneself.

[timb]

Honestly, I think the open source/free software/whatever movement is a pile of horse crap, and the generally awful software that results is what you get when your software doesn't have to compete with actual good products.  There are some notable exception, but only after real money got involved and supported it.

I don't think you realize just how many Open Source libraries are behind modern software.

Pop open the "About" dialog if some of your commercial software and look for references to the OS libraries it uses. The majority of those authors make zero dollars for their work.

This is especially relevant with iOS, Android and OS X software, but has been increasingly common on Windows.

Hell, you wouldn't have stable internet access on Windows if it weren't for OS. (Microsoft replaced the godawful TCP/IP stack they used up until Windows ME with the stack from FreeBSD in Windows 2000.)

Completely free libraries make it possible for commercial developers to churn out advanced paid software. Period. End of story.   

And like I said, I don't mind paying for upgrades, so long as there are features worth paying for.

What I hate is paying for upgrades that fix major bugs which should have been fixed in the old version.

Adobe, Microsoft, Altium et al have been hugely guilty of this in the past and it's made me gunshy.

Sent from my Smartphone

[miguelvp]

Some of those Open Source projects are developed by professionals while working at big companies while on payroll, so I wouldn't say they made zero dollars.

But granted there will be some contributors that just do it for the passion of working on that piece of code.

I guess depending on the library in question and how useful is for the commercial entities the contribution of full time programmers will be higher.

But that doesn't contradict what John Coloccia stated.

[Monkeh]

I would be very hesitant to pay money for libraries. Even more hesitant to pay money for untested ones.

Build a crappy library and everyone drops their subscription. Do a great job and you have a nice revenue stream between releases. Just because it's been an afterthought for so long doesn't mean there isn't room to do the job well and differentiate oneself.

Perhaps.

But I cannot see tested, standards compliant libraries being made by Iliya. He has not the time (one man band), experience (he's not an electronics engineer. He cannot produce and test boards at this time), or funds (standards, PCBs, and components are expensive. So are the tools to go with them.).

[pickle9000]

I would be very hesitant to pay money for libraries. Even more hesitant to pay money for untested ones.

Build a crappy library and everyone drops their subscription. Do a great job and you have a nice revenue stream between releases. Just because it's been an afterthought for so long doesn't mean there isn't room to do the job well and differentiate oneself.

Perhaps.

But I cannot see tested, standards compliant libraries being made by Iliya. He has not the time (one man band), experience (he's not an electronics engineer. He cannot produce and test boards at this time), or funds (standards, PCBs, and components are expensive. So are the tools to go with them.).

That would be a massive undertaking.

[Monkeh]

I would be very hesitant to pay money for libraries. Even more hesitant to pay money for untested ones.

Build a crappy library and everyone drops their subscription. Do a great job and you have a nice revenue stream between releases. Just because it's been an afterthought for so long doesn't mean there isn't room to do the job well and differentiate oneself.

Perhaps.

But I cannot see tested, standards compliant libraries being made by Iliya. He has not the time (one man band), experience (he's not an electronics engineer. He cannot produce and test boards at this time), or funds (standards, PCBs, and components are expensive. So are the tools to go with them.).

That would be a massive undertaking.

Precisely. But unless that's undertaken and done properly, anything you buy you have to double check is right before it wastes your time. In other words, you may as well just do it yourself..