What will SketchUp Free and Pro look like in 2013?
-
We are many to talk around one thing I would like to clearly define.
All these free essential plugins that make Su free and pro an efficient software nowadays give us some rights on it. The trainings and tutorials that are given for free also give us some rights on it. The all splendid models that are shared for free with often their invaluable making-of give some rights on it.
No contract, no paper signed. But
SketchUP now belongs for a significant part to its users community.If tomorrow the users community leave the scene bringing back their skill, their enthusiasm, their models, their plugins, what is going to remain? just a poor overpassed genie soft.
That situation can happen if a significant free version is discontinued, if the community is disconnected from the upgrades.
And yes there are things really more awful to digest that happen in the world every day..simon.
-
@pbacot said:
@d12dozr said:
@sketch3d.de said:
doing maintenance for the current SU free version only should be the way, new functionality for the pro version only please.
I agree
I'll say it again, that I don't see the sense of this. Are you saying there is that little that SU needs to improve?
I think the changes needed now would be so integral, that maintaining the current free version would be like having to support two separate non-compatibale softwares, unless the Pro version is also crippled.
Guys, I think what Norbert is getting at is that SketchUp was put into a very unusual situation by Google. Lets be honest with ourselves here. Those of us that were using SketchUp prior to the Google take over and the launch of the free version to the masses will remember there was quite a bit of shock and dare I say it, disgust in the existing Pro using community. One prominent member of the community GM upped and left for Modo!
I also realise that a few software apps had free versions at the time of Google's action and it has become common in recent years, all be it with much cut down versions of the pay for apps in most cases.
In the case of Google they obviously intended to use SketchUp to enhance their other business interests and they also were not a CAD company, it was simply a vehicle to make more cash for them. However they owned the application after the purchase and could do as they please with it, business is business!
I'll ask the question, how can a company that doesn't have the virtually unlimited funds of Google be expected to upgrade and invest heavily in a free application so that it would remain nearly the same as the Pro version?
The company in question doesn't really appear to have another 'cash cow' that can subsidize this like Google's AdSense! Yes, they (Trimble) obviously have other applications that would greatly benefit from a 'touch' of SketchUp but I still imagine SketchUp will have to 'pay its way' to a large degree and I also feel its more than capable of doing so if handled properly.
On the matter of the User Base in some way owning SketchUp! I do agree with this to a certain extent but in spirit only. SketchUp has grown to be what it is today in much part via the efforts of 3rd party developers because of this 'feeling' /attitude. At the same time we have to keep in mind that the code is locked up in Trimble's safe and they own the application not the community.
I imagine a reasonable and fair way through this stage of SketchUp's further development would be for Trimble to progress with the development of SketchUp in its intended Pro forms, particularly for the AEC sector and at the same time keep a reasonably robust and useful free version that will remain true to the **'3D for Everyone!'**ethos.
-
@mike lucey said:
On the matter of the User Base in some way owning SketchUp! I do agree with this to a certain extent but in spirit only.
Well , fair enough .
There were so much spirit in those days when it all begun .
Spirit melted with matter would be great in the next release . Will see .
-
@pbacot said:
@d12dozr said:
@sketch3d.de said:
doing maintenance for the current SU free version only should be the way, new functionality for the pro version only please.
I agree
I'll say it again, that I don't see the sense of this. Are you saying there is that little that SU needs to improve?
I think the changes needed now would be so integral, that maintaining the current free version would be like having to support two separate non-compatibale softwares, unless the Pro version is also crippled.
My position is don't take anything away from the existing free version. If Trimble needs to further differentiate the free vs. pro versions, then add features to the pro version, but leave the free version as is.
You make a great point though, if Sketchup's core architecture is changed (vs. just adding new tools), then it wouldn't make sense to offer the outdated free version.
-
I agree that free SU should be up to date, at least in core functionality, compared to future Pro versions of SU.
Seeing as we may well have a number of Pro versions in the future, probably at differing price levels, I wonder should there be a broad price range, $0, $50, $100 ........ up to $????? All offering more and more to the user!
This would allow for an full speed free basic version. If the user of a particular 'level' of SU wanted to bring it up the ladder a little they might buy further modules?
-
Don't even have a guess as to what may happen to the free version. I was at my local Trimble distriber last week and according to them Trimble is throwing lots of $ and resourses at SU development though they didn't give me any specifics if they had any. I do think Trimble will move SU from a "hobbyist" software to a "pro" modeler and cad package to eventually compete with Autodesk. Some things seem to be pointing that way, Civil 3D 2011 & 2012 had functions to import Google Earth images, contours, and/or meshes (see pic), Autodesk Labs even had a plugin for Autocad to geolocate a 3D model similiar to how SU does it. That functionality is now gone from Civil 3D 2013, the Autocad plugin is gone, there is a new one for Civil 3D that uses Bing maps. Just saying....
Mike
-
@alpro said:
I do think Trimble will move SU from a "hobbyist" software to a "pro" modeler and cad package to eventually compete with Autodesk.
MikeYou could well be right Mike. In the past, SketchUp developed a 'shake hands' policy with other CAD applications and it still does with the current Pro version. Will that change in the future? Maybe not, but I think Trimble could have their eye on AutoDesk's 'crown' or at the very least require them to 'push over in the bed'
It will be interesting to see how things pan out in 2013 and whether or not Trimble is going in this direction. Building on SketchUp's 'ease of use' will help them on their way but some serious 'beefing up' will be required to SketchUp's core if they are to take on AutoDesk.
AutoDesk's foundation is still built on a 'word processor' approach in my opinion (my use of the application goes way back to the early eighties), whereas SketchUp's foundation was built on the 'doodle on a napkin' approach. The latter feels the more natural for designers and the former, a more natural approach for engineering minds.
There are lots of debates on the Net about SketchUp v AutoCAD, here for example,
Sketchup vs AutoCAD Architecture
http://forums.cgarchitect.com/28151-sketchup-vs-autocad-architecture.html
The debate currently is not valid in my opinion as they are two different type vehicles designed to travel on different type roads. The end destination is the same though, in the case of Building / Architecture at any rate.I think a new 'road' has to be found and there seems to be a lot informed opinion that this new road will be BIM (Building Information Modeling) and as we can see Trimble are very serious about BIM with its acquisitions of late, Tekla etc.
-
@alpro said:
I do think Trimble will move SU from a "hobbyist" software to a "pro" modeler and cad package to eventually compete with Autodesk.
MikeWhile I don't disagree, and I am no lover of Autocad, SU has a long way to go before it can rival ACAD at a PROFESSIONAL level. While SU can run rings around ACAD in 3D and ease of mastering, as well as user supported plugin libraries, it lacks a very fundamental ability to produce 3 view drawings on paper, true isometric drawings and true scaled "shop" drawings that ACAD started off as being quite capable.
Keep in mind, I was using ACAD since Ver 1.2 a long time ago, up until 6 years ago when I discovered SU. Never touched ACAD again after that day, and purged it from my PC.
SU also has some ways to go to challenge SolidWorks in the solids and mechanical assembly capabilities.
But SU has its very own niche regarding rapid model development, ease of learning/use and specialty plugins that neither ACAD nor SW can match. As a result, it is IMHO a very high end hobbyist "semi" CAD tool and a low/medium end professional rapid CAD tool.
And for that, I am very appreciative. -
@jgb said:
As a result, it is IMHO a very high end hobbyist "semi" CAD tool and a low/medium end professional rapid CAD tool
Exactly, SU in its current state is not much use to Trimble. We collect so much field data now, theres no way to bring all that into SU. Everything is brought into Civil 3D where an existing conditions base is made and design goes from there, then its brought back into Trimble where its staked on the ground. I think Trimble wants to keep this whole process "in house". Also theres so much competion in field data collection and mapping, Astech, Lieca, Sokkia, Javad, etc., but they all depend on other software such as Civil or Carlson. It would be a great selling point for Trimble if they could offer the "complete" solution. So I think we'll see big changes in SU, starting with Trimbles first version, which IMO I don't think we'll see till late 2013. I expect to see a coordinate system, drawing real arcs using arc length, chord length, radius. I think Trimbles biggest challenge is making SU sophisticated enough for what they need but simple enough to not have to retrain current autodesk users and current SU users. My 0.02....
Mike
-
[quote="jgb":3n9k31hw]
@unknownuser said:Have you actually looked at LayOut? Some of us have made some quite decent
Have you actually looked at LayOut? Some of us have made some quite decent drawings with it.
-
-
@jgb said:
While I don't disagree, and I am no lover of Autocad, SU has a long way to go before it can rival ACAD at a PROFESSIONAL level.
yep, as with every other prof. 2D CAD as e.g. AC or Medusa etc.
@jgb said:
Never touched ACAD again after that day, and purged it from my PC.
then you obviously do not need any prof. shop drawings.
@jgb said:
SU also has some ways to go to challenge SolidWorks in the solids and mechanical assembly capabilities.
some ways? hahaha, lightyears would describe better... especially because SWX is a NURBS based volume modeler by design.
@jgb said:
But SU has its very own niche regarding rapid model development, ease of learning/use and specialty plugins that neither ACAD nor SW can match.
simply because that is not the purpose or target of them, AC is mainly used for 2D construction drawings (yes, they are still required) and SWX mainly for 3D MCAD, at least by pros. making a living of them.
@jgb said:
As a result, it is IMHO a very high end hobbyist "semi" CAD tool and a low/medium end professional rapid CAD tool.
SU is no 'real' CAD but a 3D sketcher and probably/hopefully will stay for the foreseeable future, last but not least because of it's mesh based wireframe kernel.
The main competition of SU is something like Bonzai/Form-Z (Design) or Modo (CCAD) and maybe VectorWorks (AEC), surely not the HD CADs.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
@tim said:
Some of us have made some quite decent drawings with it.
which is the prerequisite of every commercial usage.
How complicated this is or how long it lasts to produce the drawings (aka productivity) compared with 'real' 2D CAD packages, that's the question.
jm2cts,
Norbert -
@dave r said:
@simon le bon said:
But I think that before the idea of driving people to pay, Trimble team should roll up their sleeves and work for free, and show us what they are capable of such feats they earn our respect. Then we can actually revisit.
simonlebon
So Simon, I wonder if you would be willing to do your job without pay. You ask that of the SketchUp team. You must be willing to do the same.
It seems logical and fair to argue that nobody should work for free, but what Simon is raising I believe is still valid. (I give benefit of the doubt to the not complete command of English)
The question is not whether one's willing to work without pay, but a matter of what really is and will be the mutual agreement.
Sketchup was provided for free with some limitations (not used for commercial work), in exchange the community created models (warehouse) and scripts mostly for free too. It also contributed to widen the use (to applications and uses the author may not have thought about) and spread the reputation and potential. It was a mutually beneficial agreement to enhance the user base, creativity and contribution to the core software. That was beneficial to the free version, but also to the pro version and that was understood and accepted by all parties.
People that developed for sale scripts also benefited from the installed based of users (free and pro) to sell their scripts. And I didn't see anyone (from Google) denouncing the unfairness of that situation.So the question really is whether that somewhat tacit agreement has been fundamentally unilaterally modified, or even worse as I suspect, is planned to be modified but without being forthcoming or clear about it so as not to lose the benefit gained from the counter party (free scripts and model, forums, user base) as long as the illusion that their tacit agreement has not been altered can be maintained.
For Trimble to make SU a full commercial software is fine. They own it, they can run the business model they want with it. But to do so while attempting to keep the goodwill generated based on the free version of it is quite different.
They're smart, I don't believe they will do so abruptly. So first there will be enhancement only to the pro version, free will remain (or being reduced). Then eventually free may not work and only paid stuff will be available and useful. Great strategy.
If Trimble is to argue that they cannot, or are not willing to do any work that is not followed by monetization of such, then so be it, but it could be clearly stated and then so it could be for all involved.
It will be up to each of us to decide whether we accept the new situation or agreement, but what could be expected is for it to be clear and not look like some kind of political discourse:- No worries we will not change anything and will continue even more to support the free version (translation: please stay on board and continue creating and contributing and improving)
- Well nobody works without pay (fallacy as that was never the case) so we expect to be paid for what we do (always was, just with a different model)
- New version and development is to be paid for, but you can still benefit from all the stuff we didn't pay for because we kept a "free" version.
The question has never been whether the SU team is willing to work for free, for as I firmly believe they always have been paid, I'm not aware that they are volunteers and they shouldn't be. It's just that the business model for the product included a free version to monetize the product in a different manner.
Trimble can change that, but fairness would then be to pay all developpers of free scripts and warehouse models something too for the acquired benefit. These people have indeed "worked for free" to create the value in what Trimble HAS now. Value in user base, potential clients, impact, existing IPs and so on. So indeed "nobody should work for free".The least they could do is clarify the situation so that everyone knows exactly what will happen from now on and what to expect if they volunteer their time to contribute to the software and its community: - Will they get a real benefit in return? (like free updates)
- Will they get an opportunity for being paid (through sales or otherwise) for their effort?
- Will they just contribute and only get charged in return (with new software for sale only)?
That would be nice, but I understand why it's not in Trimble's interest, and that is precisely what makes me (and I suspect others) cautious.
That would be nice, but it's neither in Trimble's interest nor duty to keep us, contributors, aware or guarantor of our own interest. Caveat emptor!
-
At the end of the day the answer to the question (what will SU 2013 look like?) will only be answered by Trimble.
It's their software and there is no doubt a change in environment and strategy from Google.
The Google business model was to have a free version thus creating a community, and monetizingg a different way (indirectly), understood.
The Trimble business model is ? We don't really know and they're not telling it seems.And that business model is what will condition what SU 2013 (and after) will be, and until we see acts (what they do) that will speak for themselves, we don't know if they will keep the old Google business model (doubtly), create a new one based only on monetizing everything (fair enough), or some hybrid.
In the end it's their prerogative regardless of how we feel about it.However, it's then up to us as a community, and as such individuals, to see if we belong into that model or not (if we derive an interest, whatever it is).
It would be easier to know in order to decide, alas we don't, so waiting and status quo is the order of the day.
One thing I'm pretty sure of (but it's my opinion and could be all wrong) is that it WILL change. Depending on each one's situation it could be for better or worse. Time will tell. -
Worrying about who gets compensated for what is a fools game -- and so is the free version (for Trimble).
The very best tactic Trimble could pursue is to make the pay versions (since there will be more than one) so much more compelling and useful that nobody would bother using the free version anymore.
Problem solved.
Best,
Jason. -
@jason_maranto said:
Worrying about who gets compensated for what is a fools game -- and so is the free version (for Trimble).
The very best tactic Trimble could pursue is to make the pay versions (since there will be more than one) so much more compelling and useful that nobody would bother using the free version anymore.
Problem solved.
Best,
Jason.I agree to a certain extent but having a free version at some level is also good for business. The trouble is, IMO, that Google appears to have given little or no thought to what should have been in the free version. Then again maybe they did but their ambition of getting an army of SketchUp users 3D modeling the world for GE was flawed! Most free down-loaders take and give nothing back not even a 'Thank You' let alone buy a cup of coffee for the provider, its sad but true. Just ask our army of Ruby guys!
Now if Google sat down and had a good think about it, they might have said, 'Hold on, we are giving away an application worth nearly $500 in the hope that the down-loaders will do a few GE models for us!' They then might have said, 'Overly optimistic, that will never happen!'
After some thought they might have then only given away a nearly Pro free version to folks that actually did some free modeling for them, even kids that uploaded 'my house' to 3DWH
The initially given away free 'testing' version might have been a very basic version of SU not a Pro version with a couple of features taken out. Who would have complained? No one I imagine! Who did complain? The existing Pro users as it devalued an application they paid good money for and intened to build business on. What happened? These Pro users lost out and to make it worse we see lots of ' Ah, that's only a free app you are using for the work you are doing!'
Its going to be difficult for Trimble SketchUp to come up with a solution that suits all but the bottom line IMO is that the new company will have to 'pay its way' ....... advertising and populating GE now looks to be out of the equation!
-
Don't you just love it when people respond to a post without really reading it and....
understanding what was stated????
I said I only use the FREE SU version because it is now a hobby for me, and
the PRO version is not worth the $$ TO ME for the extra features, as desirable as they may be.That means, I can't use LAYOUT to any useful extent.
That also means I don't need to create shop drawings either. I'm not actually building anything.
Well actually that's not quite true. I did do a fairly accurate model of my laundry area to find the best fit for the new washer & dryer, as well as getting rid of the dumb layout the former house owner built.
The SU model showed me a 1 1/4 inch interference with an electrical box jutting out of the furnace. I was then able to move the box BEFORE the units were delivered. No amount of tape measurements onto paper would have clued me to that, until I would have tried to fit them in.Similarly, I modeled my bathroom reno. There I could have used real shop drawings for the new cabinetry, but a few JPG exports with some critical dimensions was enough for the cabinet maker to make cabinets with only 1/2 inch of installation clearance instead of the usual 1 1/2 to 2 inches.
I used to need to make shop drawings about 20+ years ago, and I used ACAD for that. But a small part of my job was conceptual design, and ACAD could not hack it, hence a stack of paper SKETCHES.
When I retired, before the advent of SU, ACAD drove me nuts trying to draw concepts in 3D (2 1/2 D as they termed it). And yes, I tried others as well. An example I use is one where after over 2 solid weeks of trying to conceptualize a complex airplane fuselage in ACAD, I discovered SU and within 2 hours of downloading it, my concept design was done. I've spent the last several years putting a lot of my old paper concepts into SU. New ones too. I use SU for my patent submissions as well, after educating my patent lawyer to use them instead of employing a draftsman. Now he can get and include drawings of complex ideas at any view angle in no time at all.
SU is NOT a CAD. I know that, and I do know the difference, but I do use it as one. Of course there are better tools out there, ACAD, SolidWorx and others that cost plenty. They are NOT hobbyist tools. They are PRO tools.
If I had the $$$$ I would buy a CATIA seat and server.
There are things I can do in SU far faster and easier than with any other s/w.
There are things any other s/w can do better than SU as well.
Ya pays your money and you takes your choice. -
@jgb said:
SU is NOT a CAD. I know that, and I do know the difference, but I do use it as one. Of course there are better tools out there, ACAD, SolidWorx and others that cost plenty.
these are no better or less better tools but tools for other purposes as elaborated above and regardless of the cost.
You should'nt mix them all up in the CAD 'pot' but differentiate between 2D and 3D modeling as well as meshbased wireframe modeling vs. NURBS based surface and volume modeling... which all have their advantages in different areas.
Trying to use AC for 3D modeling just because it is a 'CAD' will not work because it violates the 'using the right tool for the right job' rule... which btw. would be Inventor or Revit etc. if desired from AD.
If ever the need for shop drawings arises and you don't wanna shell out any money for e.g. LO, have a look at the free DraftSight form Dassault (OEM Gräbert CAD).
happy X-mas,
Norbert -
@mike lucey said:
I agree to a certain extent but having a free version at some level is also good for business. The trouble is, IMO, that Google appears to have given little or no thought to what should have been in the free version.................................a solution that suits all but the bottom line IMO is that the new company will have to 'pay its way' ....... advertising and populating GE now looks to be out of the equation!
I like how you think. Indeed a free version also creates a low intrinsic value of a product. that is absolutely correct, hence tons of people not even saying thank you.
So indeed a free version with contingencies attached would be great. Download this and it's free as long as:
- NO commercial use and
- you develop one original script or
- You create 2 buildings (google case)or
- etc...
within one year otherwise the price is $xx
If you don't want to have contingency or need it for commercial use ,then the price is such.
Yes Google should have done that. It creates a form of return on investment for the creator, and it doesn't diminish the intrinsic value, yet it keeps it widely available.
Let's hope.
Advertisement