Sketchup subscription
-
Just received a survey from Trimble
Looks like Sketchup licence is going to be subscription based by the wording of the questions.
-
Expect everything to go Subscription and/or moved to the cloud.
Part of the transition to merging of human and machine.Ray Kurzweil and human ver 2.0.
@unknownuser said:
In just over 30 years, humans will be able to upload their entire minds to computers
and become digitally immortal - an event called singularity - according to a futurist
from Google.Either you go along one step at a time or you draw the line somewhere.
-
@rogerb said:
Expect everything to go Subscription and/or moved to the cloud.
Part of the transition to merging of human and machine.Ray Kurzweil and human ver 2.0.
@unknownuser said:
In just over 30 years, humans will be able to upload their entire minds to computers
and become digitally immortal - an event called singularity - according to a futurist
from Google.Either you go along one step at a time or you draw the line somewhere.
I doesn't mean that you have to agree with it or go along with it like a mob of sheep.
Maybe it is time to take a stand and support those who care a little bit about the users.
-
@unknownuser said:
Looks like Sketchup licence is going to be subscription based by the wording of the questions.
No, noo, nooo.
Please noooo.....! -
I sincerely hope this is not the case. They're probably working through their licence database since I am yet to receive the survey and I have an active SU2017Pro licence with maintenance.
-
@seasdes said:
...Sketchup licence is going to be subscription based...
probably related to my.sketchup.com ...which appears to be an appropriate license model for online based services.
-
That is the moment SU starts to die. From free for commercial use, to forcing pro for commercial use was a huge and backwards step.
Subscription for yearly maintenance makes sense as you can upgrade for a cheap price but you can opt to stay with your current version forever too...
However Subscription based software is really an incumbrance, it casts away people that want to use the software seldomly, at a commercial level, and for people like me that use SU daily, even if a subscription becomes cheaper in the long term it's really annoying.
I'd only agree if I knew that at least half of the subscription payment would go to plugin developers.
That would be a turn over and would make us think what sketchup would be if not for plugin developers.
-
What do you guys think of Corona's pricing model? They offer both subscription and one-time licensing.
@unknownuser said:
FairSaaS - 24,99 €/month
- Unlimited access to all major, monthly, and daily experimental builds
- Paid monthly, with option to pre-pay 1 year
- Cancel any time without any penalty
Box - 548 € (= almost 2 years of subscription)
- Time-unlimited access to the version 1.5 and all relevant bug fixes
- One time payment
- Eligible for future paid upgrades to versions 2.0, 3.0, …
We're exploring a similar model for Skatter, so I'm genuinely interested. We will have much more public discussion about this, but let's have a first one in this thread.
Subscription is an interesting model for the developers, because it offers a good forecast for future revenues. It allows to better plan work, secure jobs for growing the dev team, etc.
-
@jql said:
... forcing pro for commercial use was a huge and backwards step.
this is exactly the right step for a professional application especially in connection with a freely available version with a much too strong functionality and therefore regularly used for commercial purposes without paying anything for the efforts developing SketchUp further... and exactly claiming this here for every new release.
@jql said:
... it casts away people ...
Autodesk and Adobe seem to be very successful with their subscription models, partly because there is no alternative software available for a professional usage case (Adobe)... which is valid for SketchUp too. Losing seldom-users or cloud-haters is typically over-compensated by the additional revenue generated.
@jql said:
...that at least half of the subscription payment would go to plugin developers.
nice try
@jql said:
... would make us think what sketchup would be if not for plugin developers.
ask not what SketchUp can do for you, ask what you can do for SketchUp.
-
@sketch3d.de said:
Autodesk and Adobe seem to be very successful with their subscription models
Autodesk has been losing money for the last few years.
-
@jiminy-billy-bob said:
Autodesk has been losing money for the last few years.
not very surprising during a transition of the business model:
@unknownuser said:
Subscription figures increased by 21% to 3.11 million during the 12 month reporting period.
@unknownuser said:
...forecasts for the coming year ... subscription numbers increase by 600 – 650 thousands.
@unknownuser said:
Autodesk’s share price reached an all time high this week...
@unknownuser said:
We finished the fiscal year on a high note with triple-digit year-over-year growth in new model subscriptions... We’re particularly pleased with the success of cloud subscriptions where our ... drove more than a 150 percent increase year-over-year.
@unknownuser said:
Record new model subscription additions ... contributed to our strong fourth quarter results.
-
I really don't understand what you're defending.
It's easy to state that more money means more development of the pro app with powerful new features, but that's not been the case with Sketchup as it's developing the free features (3d warehouse, extensions, new shape drawing tools...). It's easy to say ditch away the free users as they should have not the right for an almost as powerful app as the pro users, but that's how sketchup got an hold of the market and we don't see new Pro features with every release.
What Sketchup has been doing is getting a hold of the free basic users, not of the Pro users.
What Sketchup is doing for pro users is allowing for better extensions. That's not direct development, that's using the force of a huge market that Sketchup (Free
created and still stands and naturally evolves when more people use it.Example: I can show the incredible renders I do with Sketchup, but they are in fact done with Thea. I can show the incredible geometries I can generate, but I use a lot of free and paid plugins for that.
The exception is Layout but, coincidence or not: it has no plugin developing environment; it has developed it´s native features but not that much; there are new features but it's a very long way from what we need; it could go further with plugin developers but...
So...
@sketch3d.de said:
ask not what SketchUp can do for you, ask what you can do for SketchUp.
I do a lot for Sketchup, Plugin developers do a lot more for Sketchup, but I'm a consumer I should ask what sketchup can do for me.
And SU does a lot! Without it I couldn't do half the things I do, however that has been true since SU8 and with only a few major changes (Layout and 64bit) if I now do more than before it's because of scarce Layout development and a LOT of new plugins.
@sketch3d.de said:
nice try
It would be only fair that Sketchup development would fit Sketchup developers AKA Trimble AND Plugin devs.
@sketch3d.de said:
used for commercial purposes without paying anything for the efforts developing SketchUp further...
They build stuff for 3D warehouse, they import stuff from 3D warehouse, they learn the software, they try printing stuff, they have fun and they learn enough and do enough that they then feel the need to buy Pro. Or at least that's how it should be... as long as the extra Pro features justify the buy (IMHO only Layout does.)
@sketch3d.de said:
Autodesk and Adobe seem to be very successful with their subscription models,
Autodesk and Adobe products are necessities, Sketchup is better. Sketchup is a software around a community of free and pro users that SHARE huge amount of things, ranging from tools, models and knowledge.
There's a lot of business opportunities for the community too: new plugins, models, knowledge... You pay for those when you need you don't rent those.
Trimble just has to create killer features and keep updating what they have for it to work much better than before. If that would happen users would really want upgrades, a renting model wouldn't have to be imposed. That isn't yet happening though since Trimble came along after Google, a LOT has changed for the better.
-
@jiminy-billy-bob said:
What do you guys think of Corona's pricing model? They offer both subscription and one-time licensing.
@unknownuser said:
FairSaaS - 24,99 €/month
- Unlimited access to all major, monthly, and daily experimental builds
- Paid monthly, with option to pre-pay 1 year
- Cancel any time without any penalty
Box - 548 € (= almost 2 years of subscription)
- Time-unlimited access to the version 1.5 and all relevant bug fixes
- One time payment
- Eligible for future paid upgrades to versions 2.0, 3.0, …
We're exploring a similar model for Skatter, so I'm genuinely interested. We will have much more public discussion about this, but let's have a first one in this thread.
Subscription is an interesting model for the developers, because it offers a good forecast for future revenues. It allows to better plan work, secure jobs for growing the dev team, etc.
I like subscription models when updates are frequent and features are added. If it means I pay less for the app in the short term.
If you had Skatter Libraries on the cloud I could grab content/submit content etc that would be a good reason for me to pay a sub along with continuous improvement.
Corona's model is good.
Regards SketchUp moving to sub I would to see a roadmap of development. That would justify, IMO, funding the continuous improvement and job hires.
-
The thing with subscription software is that they never seem to take into account that users use several software, and if they are all subscription those "small" monthly costs quickly add up and make it impossible to continue using them.
I surely can't justify not giving my children food on the table just to be able to afford all subscriptions.Buying software may a higher one time cost but it's one that can be planned and when you have the money you buy the software and can use it as long as you like.
Plus that buying software puts the pressure on the developers to make the software better so people will upgrade to new versions. With a subscription the users will continue to pay even if there is no real development just to be able to access existing files.
Corona's subscription model is a tiny bit better than Adobe but I still don't like to rent software.
Also, when companies offer a "boxed" version it seem to be a not quite as good a deal to force users into subscription.At least some new software companies have got it.
Affordable prize to sell more and NO subscription.
-
Personally, I detest subscription models for reasons many have mentioned above.
Let me buy it, I will use it as often / seldom as I choose for as long as I choose. Give me the option of being able to update to a current version at a fair price (for example the annual maintenance like SU currently has) and I'll see if I can afford it and if the progress justifies it.
Subscription model software makes me feel like I'm being milked. Not cool at all.
-
I hope this is a joke. I want to be able to decide if an update is worth my money or if I can stick with the current version because not much has been added that's actually worth it to me.
Subscription = ea$y option that mainly benefits the shareholders and not the users.
-
@kaas said:
I want to be able to decide if an update is worth my money or if I can stick with the current version because not much has been added that's actually worth it to me.
@juju said:
Give me the option of being able to update to a current version at a fair price (for example the annual maintenance like SU currently has) and I'll see if I can afford it and if the progress justifies it.
@pixero said:
The thing with subscription software is that they never seem to take into account that users use several software, and if they are all subscription those "small" monthly costs quickly add up and make it impossible to continue using them.
I surely can't justify not giving my children food on the table just to be able to afford all subscriptions.Buying software may a higher one time cost but it's one that can be planned and when you have the money you buy the software and can use it as long as you like.
Plus that buying software puts the pressure on the developers to make the software better so people will upgrade to new versions. With a subscription the users will continue to pay even if there is no real development just to be able to access existing files.
Finally:
@pixero said:
At least some new software companies have got it.
Affordable prize to sell more and NO subscription.If everybody knew about Affinity, Adobe would be no more.
Everybody knows about Sketchup and, though not everybody knows Layout, if Sketchup+Layout would have a dozen of long standing needed features, Autodesk would be no more.
IF, in 12 months, Sketchup's+Layout would make those features available in a roadmap, I'd happily pay for that subscription even IF they wouldn't develop a single thing in years after that.
However if I'd have to pay for a subscription and keep having a secretive roadmap, I'd really have to consider alternatives...
-
NEVER
dtr Architect -
Well I am glad that I am not the only one that dislikes a subscription based licence.
To me the software developers become slack in developing the software with a subscription based model. Maybe its an indication that the software has reached its peak.
PS I have been using Sketchup since V3 and have always upgraded as soon as a new version is released.
-
@pixero said:
Plus that buying software puts the pressure on the developers to make the software better so people will upgrade to new versions.
As a developer I actually feel the opposite. I'm kind of nervous about offering subscription, because then users expect regular updates each month, as they pay every month.
With a "box" model, you get what you paid for, so it puts less pressure on the devs.
Advertisement