Dassault buying sketchup?

hellnbak

Let me ask you -- do you care if the Pro version disappears?

I know we have had this conversation before

Best,
Jason.

Yes, I would care about those that use the Pro version. I would also care because if the revenue producing version disappeared, the free version would soon follow.

But, having said that, I don't want to become one of those that jump on anything anybody says about anything, there's way too much of that happening all over the web nowadays. So how about we just end this here.

No offense intended.

Steve

tomot

@jason_maranto said:

Let me ask you -- do you care if the Pro version disappears?
However you may be right, my wife thinks I'm pretty cold in general too...
Jason.

Very funny.....It seems this was never a problem, when we were all newly weds

jason_maranto

Yeah, her pet name for me is Spock because she thinks I have the emotional range of a Vulcan, in her eyes I'm too logical -- but we've been together for nearly 15 years so I think we are doing OK

Best,
Jason.

tomot

that's too .... too funny, your in the wrong business, you should be writing one Liners for Leno!

Gaieus

@jason_maranto said:

I would agree except Building Maker has made SketchUp largely irrelevant for Google Earth... except for the occasional prestige items.

That's nonsense. Do you know how extremely few places BM is available? Also, a good BM workflow also incorporates SketchUp as you need to tweak that model to be really good - if you care about the quality at all.

I do not think that the free version made any "harm" to SketchUp. In fact, the free version was that made it well known finally and one of the most used 3D modelling software in the world which resulted many-many 3rd party developers to (also) develop tools for SU (exporters for their products, built in stuff etc.), make skp or collada or any other native SU generated file types usable in their applications - even plugin developers would not care that much (in fact, many of the authors on our forums do not even have the pro version).

Also, if there is not the free version, I would not be here either. I had not even heard of SU before Google released the free version. What a loss would it be!

Alan Fraser

I wouldn't give any credence to this rumour either. As far as I can see, the only reason that Dassault would bother to buy SketchUp would be to kill it off. They have their own version...3DVIA...complete with their own version of the 3D Warehouse (Link). 3DVIA also uses their own 3DXML format as its primary form, which I'm sure they would want to retain.
The only use they would have for SU would be to cannibalise some of its more useful and user-friendly features before casting it adrift.

As a side issue, I'm not certain about the continued love affair between SU and Google Earth, at least in the long term. We've already seen on these forums a number of mapping softwares that use auto-generated 3D buildings of entire city districts. It's still in its infancy, but the results are very impressive and almost certain to get better and more affordable. Long term it's difficult to see how laboriously building cities by hand could possibly keep up, however enthusiastic the userbase of contributors or the usefulness of apps like Building Maker. I mean, much of the aerial data on GE is already almost a decade out of date.
Building Maker itself is really only of any use where you have the 4 different Iso views available; and frankly these are almost as scarce as the areas covered by the auto-generating systems. There are only 4 available locations in the entire British Isles...and even London isn't one of them.

Of course, as Gaius points out, to produce really good results of 3D buildings on GE, you need SU anyway; but this is really a pro or semi-pro architectural use of SketchUp...not the mass-effect, populate-the-globe use of SU that Google originally envisaged.

jason_maranto

@gaieus said:

That's nonsense. Do you know how extremely few places BM is available? Also, a good BM workflow also incorporates SketchUp as you need to tweak that model to be really good - if you care about the quality at all.

I do not think that the free version made any "harm" to SketchUp. In fact, the free version was that made it well known finally and one of the most used 3D modelling software in the world which resulted many-many 3rd party developers to (also) develop tools for SU (exporters for their products, built in stuff etc.), make skp or collada or any other native SU generated file types usable in their applications - even plugin developers would not care that much (in fact, many of the authors on our forums do not even have the pro version).

I think you may be misreading what I have said -- Building Maker is a better near-term fit to the purposes Google had with SketchUp... they could easily part with SketchUp at this point and still be able to work towards their goals.

I never said the free version did any harm, but certainly the development has been primarily geared toward GE application -- which has hindered (IMO) SketchUps potential development towards a better/more complete modeling package. So while I'm not saying the free version has done any harm, Google have not proven to be particularly good at managing further development of an existing package which had great potential.

In short, Google's goals/vision for SketchUp and my own do not match... and based on what I have read over the last several years here that is true for a good many users (probably more than the majority of even free version users).

My point was simply that I would care as much about the free version disappearing as I would if Maya or 3DS Max were to disappear -- I don't use it, so why would I care? My only motivation for caring would be the concern over how it might effect future development of software I own and use.

Now I have two options, I can choose to move on from SketchUp (which I have been tempted to do) -- or I can hope that development will regain a focus on tools for professionals. I went through a similar problem with Corel Painter, which for several version catered to hobbyist photographers... I was severely annoyed. However when they realized how ill-informed that choice of directions was they returned the focus to developing tools for professional artists (and it shows in version 12). Therefor my faith in Painter is now restored.

Also it should be said that free version users can move on from SketchUp much more easily than I can since they have far less invested than I (or any other Pro version users) do -- there are alot of free packages out there and I imagine if SketchUp were to become pay-only some users would upgrade, but most would simply move on to the next free package that suited them.

Best,
Jason.

Gaieus

Maybe I did misread but I still have to contradict. Just a couple of tools that have been created/implemented by the developers since it's been Google and that has nothing to do with GE (and the majority of which is for the Pro users only):

sketchy styles (not as if I used them a lot but there are people who do) and accompanying Style Builder (for Pro users only)
LayOut (again, Pro only)
Dynamic componants (Pro only)
Revamped Camera tools (Pro only)
Solid tools (Pro only)
Fixing the shadow bug
Considerable speed improvement (with rewriting the whole rendering engine) from 7.0 to 7.1
Lately, during a "simple" maintenance release, revamping the collada exporter in favour of users trying to export into 3rd party apps (not GE - that used to work fine)
Probably there is not a single user who would exploit all these tools (to be honest, apart from a couple of occasions when I need to export to some other formats, I hardly use ny of the "Pro" tools).

And I have to agree with Alan: any change in the "owner" would just bring the risk that the only real reason is to "shelve" SU and kill a competitor.

andybot

@jason_maranto said:

Also it should be said that free version users can move on from SketchUp much more easily than I can since they have far less invested than I (or any other Pro version users) do -- there are alot of free packages out there and I imagine if SketchUp were to become pay-only some users would upgrade, but most would simply move on to the next free package that suited them.

Jason - you keep discounting the value of SU free version. I would pay for the software in a heartbeat as it is essential to my workflow. But it's free and the uses I have only require the free version. Why would I pay for things I don't need? Just because you bought it doesn't mean others don't value it too.

jason_maranto

@andybot said:

Jason - you keep discounting the value of SU free version. I would pay for the software in a heartbeat as it is essential to my workflow. But it's free and the uses I have only require the free version. Why would I pay for things I don't need? Just because you bought it doesn't mean others don't value it too.

You have made my point for me -- you are exactly the type of user that would make it a wise decision for SketchUp to become pay only (most likely with a tiered approach). You use the free version because you can get away with using the free version... if you could not then you would be forced to either financially support the software or move on. I imagine in your case you are tied to SketchUp partially because you own other software that needs SketchUp to function (V-Ray for SketchUp).

Other users who are not so financially tied to SketchUp could easily move onto other packages, of which there are many to choose from.

Best,
Jason.

jason_maranto

Alot of those features were already in the works before Google purchased SketchUp -- and to be perfectly honest those features are a pittance when compared to the features which have been added to packages like Modo in the same timeframe. But to put it into perspective I have used and do use all of those tools.

The idea of killing off a competitor is certianly fine so long as you can reasonably ensure that the displaced users will become yours -- which is far from certain in this scenario... any other approach would be bad business. Giving up over a million potential users would be absolutely absurd.

Best,
Jason.

andybot

I dunno Jason. I get the feeling you're annoyed about having a free user base. Like Csaba, I wouldn't have "found" Sketchup if it weren't free. This is Google's marketing strategy, so why pine for some tiered approach? I'm sure that would be changed with a different ownership.

Gaieus

I am not even (just) referring to the fact that I would not have found it but even as a Pro user, I believe that I benefit from the millions of the free users as there would not be so much development by 3rd party programmers if the SU market would be as tiny as in the @Last days.

jason_maranto

I've clearly said elsewhere that I also found SketchUp because it was free -- and I also have said within this very thread that I seriously doubt the free version would go away.

All I said is I would not care (for logical reasons) and it may make better sense for a different business model... Sketchup is a major brand at this point and that could be leveraged to very profitable ends if managed properly.

Obviously going pay only with the software being what it is now would be foolish, you would need to demonstrate a substantial benefit for users to jump over to a pay-only version.

Best,
Jason.

jason_maranto

I suppose the difficulty of understanding my POV in this thread may come from the idea that I am not thinking about such a sale from the POV of just a user, but also from the viewpoint of what would make sense from the POV of the business that is purchasing this asset. What would make the most sense from a profit and loss standpoint -- because in business that is what matters.

SketchUp was envisioned as being a type of "loss-leader" for Google Earth (which is Google's real interest) -- I'm not sure that business model makes as much sense as other tools are developed... and it certainly would not make sense for Dassualt.

One thing that I find most people don't think about -- Google's motto is "don't be evil". This is just a neutral stance... they are not saying "be good" -- just "don't be evil", which still allows for quite a bit of grey-area in business transactions.

Best,
Jason.

sonder

@jason_maranto said:

I suppose the difficulty of understanding my POV in this thread may come from the idea that I am not thinking about such a sale from the POV of just a user, but also from the viewpoint of what would make sense from the POV of the business that is purchasing this asset. What would make the most sense from a profit and loss standpoint -- because in business that is what matters.

SketchUp was envisioned as being a type of "loss-leader" for Google Earth (which is Google's real interest) -- I'm not sure that business model makes as much sense as other tools are developed... and it certainly would not make sense for Dassualt.

One thing that I find most people don't think about -- Google's motto is "don't be evil". This is just a neutral stance... they are not saying "be good" -- just "don't be evil", which still allows for quite a bit of grey-area in business transactions.

Best,
Jason.

Google did not develop Sketchup. How could it be their loss leader?

jason_maranto

@unknownuser said:

Google did not develop Sketchup. How could it be their loss leader?

The purchase of SketchUp by Google -- just as there must be a compelling and logical reason for Dassault to purchase SketchUp now.

Best,
Jason.