Rumor has it...

[janoc]

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.

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 .

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.