Future of stand-alone Eagle on Linux

[Karel]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/is-eagle-retired/td-p/9516332

Look how Matt is trying to avoid the hot potato...

[KE5FX]

That's the thing about credibility.  It's hard to get it back once you lose it.

[Monkeh]

It has no future. That's been the case since Autodesk got involved, I'm afraid.

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

"That's been the case since Autodesk got involved, I'm afraid..."

[ataradov]

It is pretty obvious that Eagle is done for. Thankfully KiCad is actually improving rapidly.

[ebastler]

Look how Matt is trying to avoid the hot potato...

When Matt states,

the fact that we have added the PCB design capabilities into Fusion is an indication that at some stage we may tip the balance in favor of one platform,

that seems clear enough. To paraphrase: "Yes, of course we plan to eventually discontinue Eagle as a stand-alone product and force Fusion down your throat".

[macegr]

When Matt says "we currently have no plans to" it has historically meant "we are 100% going to do it and I want people to keep spending money instead of getting upset right now"

[madires]

Anyone surprised? Based on Autodesk's history it's pretty clear that this is going to happen at some point. The only open question is at which time exactly.

[jaycee]

My opinion on this is that Autodesk are a lying bunch of f**ks who have ruined a good product. Screw them. I will happily use my cracked version of Eagle 7.6.0 which does everything I want, and runs where I want without Autodesk interfering.

[jpanhalt]

@jaycee
I realize this is an old thread but agree with that sentiment.  I use 7.2 and 7.7 (purchased).  I still use the classic icons.  As for the enhancements I have read about, I would probably not use them. 

The one thing I have needed is support for plated slots.  OshPark has a modified CAM that does that.  I asked JLCPCB whether it would work for them in late 2019, and was told they would get back to me.  Hasn't happened yet. 

Of course, it also doesn't have workable 3D, but I don't need that either.

[ebastler]

The one thing I have needed is support for plated slots.  OshPark has a modified CAM that does that.  I asked JLCPCB whether it would work for them in late 2019, and was told they would get back to me.  Hasn't happened yet. 

Umm, you mean plated slots like for the mini USB and the RS-232 (mini DIN) jacks in the photo here? That board was designed with Eagle 7.6, and made by JLCPCB.

If I recall correctly, all it takes is a regular oval through-hole pad with a round drill, plus a slot defined in the milling layer at the same position. Both are part of the footprint in the library, so no special trickery is involved when invoking the part.

[oPossum]

If I recall correctly, all it takes is a regular oval through-hole pad with a round drill, plus a slot defined in the milling layer at the same position. Both are part of the footprint in the library, so no special trickery is involved when invoking the part.

That is what I do for JLC and OSHPARK.

JLC says to leave a note if you have plated slots. Don't do that - it just confuses them.

[jpanhalt]

@ebastler

Thank you for the example.

Yes, that is what I wanted.  JLCPCB and I had about 2 or 3 email exchanges.  Here is what I submitted to JLCPCB in March 2020 and got no reply:

2)  Plated through slots are more difficult, as my version of Eagle does not have a specific way to do it.  Oshpark and Eagle suggest using a “long pad” of the proper dimensions.  The drill dimension for the hole is then used to draw a slot of the proper length using the Milling layer (#46).  Alternatively, Eagle suggests building the PTH slot from separate layers:  2 Vias (one at either end), Milling (#46), Top (#1), Bottom (#16), t-Stop (#29), and b-Stop(#30).  Which of those two ways do you  prefer, or is there another method?

What you did sounds identical to the first option that I describe.  Did you submit the .brd file or the Gerbers?   For Gerbers, JLCPCB asked for a layer that Eagle did not make.  I went ahead and ordered from Oshpark with Gerbers, since I used its edited CAM processor.  I order PCB's so rarely that the price difference doesn't matter as much as the color.  I like red instead of purple.    Also, Dan (OshPark) is a great help, so I tend to send my business his way, but I would still like to know how to use JLCPCB is an option.



 

[ataradov]

That is what I do for JLC and OSHPARK.

Can you share that footprint?

Not having slots is one of the things stopping me from going USB C. I want to try that with AllPcb and PCBWay too.

[oPossum]

That is what I do for JLC and OSHPARK.

Can you share that footprint?

Not having slots is one of the things stopping me from going USB C. I want to try that with AllPcb and PCBWay too.

Sure. Eagle library attached.

[jpanhalt]

@oPossum

It appears you use the dimension layer for the slot, and because there is copper on both sides, it gets plated.

If that is correct, it is logical and easy.

EDIT:  Are you using version 7.x or something later?

[oPossum]

A zero width line intersecting copper seem to be the key to getting plated holes. I put the slot on the dimension layer because it is already included in the CAM configuration. It doesn't matter what layer it is on as long as it ends up in the proper gerber file with the board outline.

Eagle 7.7.0

[jpanhalt]

Now, that is interesting.  Autodesk (and earlier Eagle) defines the dimension layer as:

Layer 20: Dimension
The Dimension layer has several purposes, the first of which is to specify the outline of your board. Secondarily, you can also use this layer in your design rules to keep copper pours away from the edge of your PCB.

In fact, as I recall, there were instructions not to use dimension though copper layers -- hence the clearance between copper and PCB edge.  LIke I said earlier, logically a structure in the Dimension layer through a pad should give a plated slot.

Thank you for showing that it really works.

John 

[oPossum]

It does keep copper pour away from the slot and there are some DRC errors that must be approved. Putting the slot on the milling layer is probably a better way to do it. I may try that next time.

[jpanhalt]

Were the slots made here:



done the same way?  They look connected to the GND pour, which is probably what one usually wants.

If they are not connected, then I will also use the milling layer.  The advantage is that the Dimension layer is what I believe JLCPCB wants and, as you say, it is already include in that CAM file.

[ebastler]

I just checked my design file, and I did use the milling layer to define the slots. This has worked well for unconnected pads, pads connected to signal traces, as well as pads connected to the GND pour via thermals. Eagle keeps the copper pour away from the pad anyway -- no need to keep it away from the slot by (ab?)using the dimension layer.

I had sent Gerber files to JLCPCB, not the Eagle board files, by the way.

[jpanhalt]

Here is a macro shot of the board I sent off to Oshpark using the Milling layer, named GND, and thermals turned off:

" alt="" class="bbc_img" />

Those slots are connected to the ground pour.  I am really bad at macros currently.  Maybe I should do an update from my cheap, digital microscope.

[ebastler]

Those slots are connected to the ground pour. 

So did you place the slots right into the ground pour polygon? In that case I would expect them to be connected as shown.

Or are there pads surrounding the slots? In that case, I would expect the pads (and hence the slots inside them) to either be totally isolated from the ground pour, if the pads are not defined as GND pads. Or they should be connected to the ground pour via thermals, if they are GND pads.

That's how Eagle should define the copper layer if there were no slots present. And nothing should change by adding the slots. And in my experience, that is how Eagle does indeed behave. -- Or am I missing something here?

[jpanhalt]

I followed the old Eagle/Oshpark directions.  It's a long pad (hole in center), drill adjusted to what I wanted, and milled to the length I wanted at same width as diameter of the hole.  Of course, the pad was named "GND" so it would be included in the pour.

That design is in the library file (package), so I didn't need to go through those machinations on the board.  I have other plated slots for attachment clips and passages done the same way, i.e., as devices, or they can be drawn on the board.

[ebastler]

Of course, the pad was named "GND" so it would be included in the pour.

Then you had the "Thermals" option un-selected in the definition of the ground polygon, right? That would cause the pad to be fully connected to the ground plane (which makes it hard to solder by hand).

But that has nothing to do with the presence of the slot, or its absence. If you want the pad to be separated from the ground plance, and connected only via discrete traces, I would recommend doing that via the "Thermals" option, not via a slot in the dimension layer.

[jpanhalt]

Then you had the "Thermals" option un-selected in the definition of the ground polygon, right? That would cause the pad to be fully connected to the ground plane (which makes it hard to solder by hand).

SMD board and reflow.  Actually with leaded solder, I have had no problem soldering to pads without thermals.  I am quite familiar with the pour options, priorities, making multiple polygons to change properties on a board (e.g., some polygons with thermals and others without), and DRC.  Been using Eagle since 3.x.

The example I gave, however, is the first time I have used plated slots.

EDIT: FIxed typo DRG --> DRC

[ataradov]

Sure. Eagle library attached.

Thanks. This construct generates a ton of Dimension DRC errors. And it does not look like there is a way to exclude that part from the check.

But this match PCBWay description of how to get plated slots - any dimension outline going through copper would result in plating.

Another thing that came to mind. I just looked at USB C connectors I have that match this land pattern, but the though hole mounting lugs only go about half way through 1.6 mm PCB. Is this what everyone uses? Or there are different connectors?

[oPossum]

The DRC errors are due to layer 20 (dimension) being special. I created a new package with the slots on layer 46 (milling) and the DRC errors are gone. Reply #14 has the updated library. The new package is USB_C_16PIN_MIL.

I typically use 0.8 mm PCB for anything with USB C. The tabs are very close to flush with the bottom. Solder from the top with the mighty Metcal.

[oPossum]

Were the slots made here:



done the same way?  They look connected to the GND pour, which is probably what one usually wants.

If they are not connected, then I will also use the milling layer.  The advantage is that the Dimension layer is what I believe JLCPCB wants and, as you say, it is already include in that CAM file.

They are connected to the ground pour because the copper/dimension distance is set to 8 mil. Anything more and it would not be connected.

[Infraviolet]

They might not be compatible with more reently made eagle files, but if I recall correctly there are still installers available for download online for eagle as it was before autodesk bought it and before it required activation upon install. This goes for the free 2 layer area limited version anyway.

[ebastler]

They might not be compatible with more reently made eagle files, but if I recall correctly there are still installers available for download online for eagle as it was before autodesk bought it and before it required activation upon install. This goes for the free 2 layer area limited version anyway.

That is correct. Autodesk continues to provide installers for the non-subscription versions from Eagle 6.6 to 7.7 here.

But you can no longer obtain new license keys to run any of these legacy versions in any mode beyond the free two-layer, 100*80 mm² limited version. So these downloads will only be useful if you own an older license, or can get by with the capabilities of the free version.

Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

[Karel]

To me it seems obvious now that Eagle (standalone) is going the way of the dodo:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/is-eagle-retired/td-p/9516332/page/6

[madires]

No surprises there! That was to be expected when Autodesk bought Eagle. Luckily we have an alternative: KiCad.

[macegr]

Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.

[ataradov]

For the past couple weeks I've been evaluating KiCad v6 (unreleased nightly builds). It addressed all the issues I had with v5. And it is way better than Eagle now (at least the last available free limited versions).

I've migrated big chunks of my libraries with no issues. And once released, I'll be switching to KiCad v6. It is a great tool. Thankfully there is no need to deal with autodesk in this case.

[ebastler]

Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.

Who was claiming equivalence with server-based activation (except for you)? I had merely pointed out that the downloadable installers aren't worth much unless one has an old license key.

If one does have such a key, it is indeed reassuring that Autocad cannot simply invalidate it or turn off an old license server. But that was not the point.

[KE5FX]

To me it seems obvious now that Eagle (standalone) is going the way of the dodo:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/eagle-forum/is-eagle-retired/td-p/9516332/page/6

Not to worry, the Minister of Information Matt B. is on the case.

[ebastler]

Not to worry, the Minister of Information Matt B. is on the case.

Surprisingly, I find Matt's message in that thread quite clear and open. He is essentially saying that Autodesk have given up on EAGLE due to limitations in its code base. The development team is fully focusing on "Fusion Electronics" instead, which is apparently an entirely new code base. They are not adding more features to EAGLE and are merely keeping it on the market until they have convinced everyone that Fusion Electronics is better.

[...] feature development has been slowed or stopped on EAGLE in recent months while our efforts focused on Fusion Electronics. [...]   Moreover, we will continue to develop on the Fusion side until such a time that we prove-out (for users) why Fusion’s core is SO much stronger in multiple areas and by implementing the things which demonstrate “why” we’ve made this choice with the resource constraints any team has on any product.  [...]  we made the decision to keep EAGLE going until we knew clearly that what we believed were best in-class capabilities (which we need for any future development) would work for PCB and the users were able to make the switch.

But my favorite quote in Matt's post is this one. Thanks for the honesty, Matt: 

it would make our lives far easier if we didnt face competition from other tools with core capabilities developed more recently, by a much larger engineering team than what EAGLE had pre-Autodesk and able to make better use of today’s compute resources. 

[ataradov]

I don't really understand what is their end goal here. There is zero chance that they will come up with anything good. What makes them think that mechanical CAD engine is good for EDA?

Their best bet was to support good integration with existing EDAs. This is all you need from a mechanical CAD.

It is fine that they want to re-write the thing, it was obvious even without looking at the code that it will not smoothly integrate into the existing system. Code never works like this, and the decision clearly was made by managers, who have no clue how this stuff works.

But what do they expect? Do they really think they will be anywhere close to usable EDA? I'm pretty sure EasyEDA will have bigger market share than whatever Autodesk comes up with.

[james_s]

I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.

[Karel]

This, plus that autodesk will have a hard time to compete with KiCad 6...

[Ed.Kloonk]

I don't really understand what is their end goal here. There is zero chance that they will come up with anything good. What makes them think that mechanical CAD engine is good for EDA?

Their best bet was to support good integration with existing EDAs. This is all you need from a mechanical CAD.

It is fine that they want to re-write the thing, it was obvious even without looking at the code that it will not smoothly integrate into the existing system. Code never works like this, and the decision clearly was made by managers, who have no clue how this stuff works.

But what do they expect? Do they really think they will be anywhere close to usable EDA? I'm pretty sure EasyEDA will have bigger market share than whatever Autodesk comes up with.

I'm only guessing but I wonder if a patent is in there somewhere that nobody can figure out how to leverage into a profitable product.

[H.O]

OK, first they went subscription and now they're doing the "cloud or nothing" thing because they need to leverage the technology built into Fusion360 

Surely Autodesk must have code that would allow them to read/write files from disk buried somewhere in their 40 years worth of "world class, second to none" software that they can leverage instead of THAT particular piece from Fusion360. Or, if they really want to target the "trendy" users, throw in both and then find out how many users actually choose cloud when given an option.

[MarkL]

The fact that Autodesk tried to buy Altium earlier this year is the biggest tell that the Eagle (Cadsoft) acquisition was a mistake.  I'm not reading much in that article by Matt about what they *do* like about Eagle.  Just why it's not right for the future.

I think they should just acknowledge it was a mistake, cut Eagle loose, and let it live or die on its own.  I would still buy an Eagle license on the old terms with standalone operation.  But realistically that will never happen.

[james_s]

The fact that Autodesk tried to buy Altium earlier this year is the biggest tell that the Eagle (Cadsoft) acquisition was a mistake.  I'm not reading much in that article by Matt about what they *do* like about Eagle.  Just why it's not right for the future.

I think they should just acknowledge it was a mistake, cut Eagle loose, and let it live or die on its own.  I would still buy an Eagle license on the old terms with standalone operation.  But realistically that will never happen.

That would require someone to acknowledge that they made a massive blunder and it would probably cost them their job. Not gonna happen.

[Kjelt]

Personally I do not think they want to compete against Altium, KiCad or the likes.
Their main  ore business for Fusion is 3D CADCAM and they cornered the market there. Almost any business heck even amateurs hobbieists  I know uses it.
Then they realized that integrating a pcb that perfectly fits in for instance an aluminium box or coolingplate would give significant benefits for companies.
It makes more sense for them todo it than Altium expanding to the 3D CADCAM market 

[rsjsouza]

I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.

The only correction or perhaps an alternate possibility is: "Somebody has got it in their head that (...). That turned out to be a disaster, so now he/she was let go and they brought someone else to shut this pipe dream and will just start from scratch (...)"

I have seen the alternate scenario happen many times as well... Everybody else is left to pick up the pieces and turn off the lights on the legacy product.

[Bassman59]

I have seen this sort of thing play out in other companies before so I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Somebody has got it in their head that they need to compete in the EDA market so they decided to buy Eagle. That turned out to be a disaster so now this person has a grand idea that they will just start from scratch and build a whole new tool, except they have zero EE experience and are vastly underestimating the amount of work required to make a viable replacement. They will invest a ton of dev work on it and push out some half baked pile of crap "minimum viable product" that makes a lousy first impression and then they will keep throwing resources at it but it will never gain any market share. What it comes down to is the purchase of Eagle was a massive failure, they wanted into the market but completely dropped the ball and existing users fled like rats off a sinking ship. Now somebody is trying to salvage their career by committing to build a whole new tool but there is no way they will catch up to other options. As soon as they made Eagle subscription-only so soon after stating they had no plans to do so I was pretty sure it was doomed.

The only correction or perhaps an alternate possibility is: "Somebody has got it in their head that (...). That turned out to be a disaster, so now he/she was let go and they brought someone else to shut this pipe dream and will just start from scratch (...)"

I have seen the alternate scenario happen many times as well... Everybody else is left to pick up the pieces and turn off the lights on the legacy product.

My reading of the tea leaves is that CadSoft's principals reached the end of their road with EAGLE -- any proper "upgrade" would require a complete rewrite. This left them with a choice: go ahead and spend the engineering resources to do that rewrite, or ... cash out.

They looked at their resources and the amount of time and money they would need to spend on that upgrade. And they looked at their market and asked hard questions, like, "Will our existing user base pay for an upgrade? Will they see value in paying full price for that upgrade, so we can recoup our investment?" Those of you who paid for the full version of EAGLE -- answer that for us! I realize that this is a rhetorical question.

CadSoft also knew that a significant part of their user base only cared about the free version, and those people were never going to actually pay for anything.

And surely they saw Kicad as being a solid competitor, with active development and a growing user base. This must have played a big part in CadSoft's future planning.

Thus, a decision to look for a buyer. Enter AutoDesk, a company with deep pockets and an idea that offering an integrated PCB and mechanical design suite makes sense. (And be honest, gang -- it actually does.)

It would seem that AutoDesk did not know what it was buying, even though I find that hard to believe. Surely AutoDesk's Legal Sméagols told CadSoft to open their books and their code. More likely they underestimated their ability to merge the CadSoft code mess with Fusion. Who knows. At any rate surely the team at AD who made this purchase happen is already gone.

That they say Eagle development is dead and their future is "Fusion PCB" tells me that the CadSoft project of rewriting their tool is actually in process, perhaps even with the same developers, except it's being paid for by AutoDesk.
And we're all saying, "... but ... Kicad." Indeed -- Kicad is pretty darn great, and it's free. So where does "Fusion PCB" fit into this?

Remember that Fusion360 already has a free hobby license*, a free "startup" license, a free educational license, and the "regular" cost for the standard tool is only US$400 per year. This means that the thousands of people who already use Fusion360 for MCAD will get Fusion PCB for free when it finally arrives, and surely many of these users will try it out, simply because it's there. If it doesn't suck, then maybe it will find a user base. I mean, can it be any worse than Altium's attempts at lower-cost PCB software?

And surely the idea that a low-cost PCB package offered by a major software vendor -- that is, one which would hopefully provide support -- appeals to corporate customers who might not trust a free open-source tool like Kicad.

* The support for electronics design in the hobbyist version is limited, but it is not in the startup version.

[macegr]

They looked at their resources and the amount of time and money they would need to spend on that upgrade. And they looked at their market and asked hard questions, like, "Will our existing user base pay for an upgrade? Will they see value in paying full price for that upgrade, so we can recoup our investment?" Those of you who paid for the full version of EAGLE -- answer that for us! I realize that this is a rhetorical question.

I paid for Eagle Professional and significant upgrade costs. I would have re-paid full price for a much-improved Eagle (performance and features, not the small labeling, routing, and view-flipping tinkering Autodesk did with it. The ability to leverage 15+ years of familiarity and efficiency is pretty valuable.

[macegr]

Edit: For clarity -- Eagle has required "activation upon install" forever, with the limited free/demo mode being the only exception. The big change Autodesk made was the transition the the subscription model, i.e. "reactivation every 30 days".

Huge false equivalence here. Offline license key file and passphrase activation isn't the same as an online activation that requires interaction with a remote server that can just be turned off someday.

Who was claiming equivalence with server-based activation (except for you)? I had merely pointed out that the downloadable installers aren't worth much unless one has an old license key.

If one does have such a key, it is indeed reassuring that Autocad cannot simply invalidate it or turn off an old license server. But that was not the point.

You implied the Eagle activation process was always needed and the Autodesk process was the same except for needing to do it every 30 days. I pointed out a massive difference that you glossed over, attempting to minimize legitimate concerns many of us have with subscription licensing.

[ebastler]

You implied the Eagle activation process was always needed and the Autodesk process was the same except for needing to do it every 30 days. I pointed out a massive difference that you glossed over, attempting to minimize legitimate concerns many of us have with subscription licensing.

Sure, I tried to maliciously minimize your legitimate concerns, I consider all of you to be stupid, and I love Eagle, Cadsoft and Autodesk and worship them three times a day. Any more words you want to put into my mouth? 

[PlainName]

and the "regular" cost for the standard tool is only US$400 per year. This means that the thousands of people who already use Fusion360 for MCAD will get Fusion PCB for free when it finally arrives

It means that's what they want you to think it means. But come the day when Fusion360 gets a decent PCB facility, what's to stop them bumping the price? Or even making ECAD a paid optional part? Nothing.

They are fixated on the cloud because that's the way to enforce subscriptions and, more importantly, lock-in. It is purely a money-grab feature, and that should tell you whether MCAD + ECAD will be 'only' $400/yr when it counts.

[Bassman59]

and the "regular" cost for the standard tool is only US$400 per year. This means that the thousands of people who already use Fusion360 for MCAD will get Fusion PCB for free when it finally arrives

It means that's what they want you to think it means. But come the day when Fusion360 gets a decent PCB facility, what's to stop them bumping the price? Or even making ECAD a paid optional part? Nothing.

I have no illusions that they'll continue to offer F360 for only $400/yr, especially once the ECAD goes live. Maybe they will charge more for it -- after all, who wants to pay for a feature they don't use? (Like Altium and their FPGA crap.)

But, then again, they have to recoup the cost of actually creating the product, right? Say the price doubled to $800/yr. That's still a lot cheaper than Altium.

Does everyone here give away their products? Maybe that's it.

This is what I honestly don't understand. This is ostensibly a forum for professional engineers. That means: people who make a living designing and selling products.

Please,  tell me, who here doesn't think they should charge what the market will bear for their work? Who here works for a company that gives away their products?

Sometimes I think this forum is inhabited only by hobbyists.

[james_s]

But, then again, they have to recoup the cost of actually creating the product, right? Say the price doubled to $800/yr. That's still a lot cheaper than Altium.

Does everyone here give away their products? Maybe that's it.

This is what I honestly don't understand. This is ostensibly a forum for professional engineers. That means: people who make a living designing and selling products.

Please,  tell me, who here doesn't think they should charge what the market will bear for their work? Who here works for a company that gives away their products?

Sometimes I think this forum is inhabited only by hobbyists.

The thing is, I think Altium already has the professional market locked up, maybe it's the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" mentality or maybe the product is really that much better, I don't know, but I don't see there being a lot of room for competing expensive commercial products, even if one of them is somewhat less expensive.

On the other end of the spectrum is KiCAD, it meets the needs of most hobbyists, prosumers and even some professionals, it's free, maybe someone wouldn't mind paying for something if they use it to make money but who is going to pay for something they can get for free?

Another factor is engineers in general are often able to do something themselves rather than pay someone else to do it, my dad had that trait, I inherited that trait, I know a lot of other engineers that have a similar mentality. We're just not in the habit of hiring someone because whether it's changing a water pump in the car, repairing a loose railing, building a deck or fixing the TV, we just do it ourselves. That has skewed my whole scale of what something is worth. I balk at paying $500 for something I can do in a couple of hours, even though I could easily afford to just pay.

[jpanhalt]

Sometimes I think this forum is inhabited only by hobbyists.

So?  If EEVBlog wants to restrict its membership to "professional engineers," then enjoy Farington.  I don't think that is in touch with reality.  Are you?

As an aside, I am a retired professional in another discipline.  I would never need nor even consider coming to a forum like this for help in that discipline.

[Kjelt]

Please,  tell me, who here doesn't think they should charge what the market will bear for their work? Who here works for a company that gives away their products?

Would you buy a car worth $25000 if you had to pay $1000 each month the rest of your life?
Perhaps you would.
Eagles major selling point was a pay once lifetime offline product, if you needed an upgrade then you had to pay again, fair enough.
The first thing autodesk promised ( you can read the posts on this forum) and then broke their word was to keep this licensing model.

That said for a company their pricing is right IMO, for a hobbieist it sucks because they keep removing essential parts from the fusion product like G0 rapid movement and tool change, so they pissed off the hobbieists CadCam community as well and their reputation is now: you can't trust them at all. What else will they remove next year?
So hobbieist drop them and go learn KiCad and FreeCAD 

[ebastler]

This is ostensibly a forum for professional engineers.
Sometimes I think this forum is inhabited only by hobbyists.

Hmm, let me think. Who would spend their time reading and posting on this forum, or watching Dave's often entertaining but always long-winded videos?

(a) Employed professional engineers whose job is exceedingly boring.
(b) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly badly.
(c) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly well.
(d) Hobbyists who can't work up the energy to get back to their current project.

I'm in category (d).   Which one are you?

[james_s]

Would you buy a car worth $25000 if you had to pay $1000 each month the rest of your life?
Perhaps you would.
Eagles major selling point was a pay once lifetime offline product, if you needed an upgrade then you had to pay again, fair enough.
The first thing autodesk promised ( you can read the posts on this forum) and then broke their word was to keep this licensing model.

Lots of people effectively do exactly that by leasing a car. Personally it's something I would never even consider, every time I've bought a car I've handed over a wad of cash and walked away with the signed paperwork and the keys, I have a severe allergy to recurring payments and avoid them whenever possible.

Even though I was already using KiCAD and only had Eagle installed for working with other people's projects that really rubbed me the wrong way when Autodesk did that. Plain and simple they lied, no company that is even remotely competent makes a decision like that on the fly, given the timeline they absolutely had plans to take it subscription by the time they publicly said they had no plans to do so. It was something like 6 weeks, and when a company tells a bald faced lie like that I can never really trust anything they say again.

[james_s]

Hmm, let me think. Who would spend their time reading and posting on this forum, or watching Dave's often entertaining but always long-winded videos?

(a) Employed professional engineers whose job is exceedingly boring.
(b) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly badly.
(c) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly well.
(d) Hobbyists who can't work up the energy to get back to their current project.

I'm in category (d).   Which one are you?

I'm an employed engineer (not PE) and reasonably happy in my job. I participate on the forum mostly in lieu of watching TV in the evening when I just don't have the energy to do anything more productive, and I tend to hop on here while I eat my lunch and every now and then when I just need a break. Admittedly I rarely watch the videos anymore but I consumed those under similar circumstances.

[jpanhalt]

This is ostensibly a forum for professional engineers.
Sometimes I think this forum is inhabited only by hobbyists.

Hmm, let me think. Who would spend their time reading and posting on this forum, or watching Dave's often entertaining but always long-winded videos?

(a) Employed professional engineers whose job is exceedingly boring.
(b) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly badly.
(c) Self-employed engineers whose business is going exceedingly well.
(d) Hobbyists who can't work up the energy to get back to their current project.

I'm in category (d).   Which one are you?

None of the above.  I am a hobbyist (non-engineer) in electronics and often want a second opinion.  I have no problem staying engaged with my projects, time allowing.

[jpanhalt]

Lots of people effectively do exactly that by leasing a car. Personally it's something I would never even consider, every time I've bought a car I've handed over a wad of cash and walked away with the signed paperwork and the keys, I have a severe allergy to recurring payments and avoid them whenever possible.

There are various reasons to lease capital equipment.  For cars used in business, I believe it is often the artificial difference in accounting between operating expenses and capital expenses.  For personal use, it is ego (driving a new car) or ignorance.

[PlainName]

That's still a lot cheaper than Altium

I didn't buy Altium because it was cheap. It's a lot of bang for the buck, but significantly it doesn't need Altium to run, isn't tied to a specific machine, doesn't need a license server, doesn't get forced updates. I'm happy to pay for stability (OK, I'd prefer it cheaper, but one has to be reasonable).

So your $800/yr would make Altium cheap after 3 years (depending on if you got the cheap deal or not). But Altium is one hell of a bigger bang than FusionPCB will be. There are people using seriously old Altium still, but there will be no-one using old Fusion360.