Sketchup Pro Pricing VS Make

I think there aren’t any architectual offices which do not use SU somehow. When informing for a Pro license, the first question is always ‘On how many computers can we install it?’ Most of the time, their own websites are filled with copyright-marks and statements that all their content may not be used. The thing is, if you are using it commercially, you must use the Pro version, and if you consider yourself as an proffesional in your line of work, hiding behind arguments like ‘We would pay if it costs less’ does pop up the counter question :
“Would you pay more if it does what you want” ?
SU is modular, you can add your own extensions and pricing is, in my region, somewhat of a 2~3 days of revenue. For larger firms, there are network versions so you could spread the use over more employees.

2 Likes

3D for everyone !

1 Like

Just to be clear Mike, I never use Make commercially - I’m just a retired software guy who enjoys geeking out with his toys! Anyway, fair point about extensions making SU (“sort of”) modular, although I always thought of modularity in terms of core functionality, and extensions as the “gee, wouldn’t it be cool if it also did so-and-so” solution. And as extensive and robust as the supply of extensions may be, the users are still dependent on someone deciding to create the feature they’re interested in. In my case, I’d love to try creating a dynamic component, but as far as I know no one has duplicated the Pro interface for that as an extension (that doesn’t require Pro to run it). Also, with extensions there’s a certain amount of, shall we say “variety”, in interface design, documentation, etc. No disrespect intended - those folks do a commendable job considering most of them offer the fruits of their labor as free downloads - but it’s a consideration.

2 Likes

Dan - I like your craftsman concept - I have little use for layout, and when I have tried it on the free upgrade, it was difficult for me to be as productive as with SU. I think the Craftsman version would come without layout functionality, perhaps for half the price of the full version. I don’t think limiting the use of plug ins are the way to go.

If Trimble had the free make version for hobbyists, and all of its limited functionality geared towards them, the half price version for the small business, and the full on with all bells and whistles for the pro architects & large firms I think they would see an increase in sales,

I am not a fan of subscriptions either - I would rather purchase an older stand alone version, than be hung with paying continually for functionality I don’t use.

And as to admitting defeat - the reason for the free version is to make a person experience it long enough to get the hang of it so they will want to upgrade to the full version. That is a failing point on other free software that goes belly up after 30 days - I have ended up deleting them off my system because I was unable to find enough time to learn them sufficiently well in that period of time, considering all the other things going on in my life, to determine if I wanted to purchase them or not. Thus they lost a potential sale.

And, yes, the pro version is a bargain compared to Auto cad et al.

G

5 Likes

Just a note that Trimble already sells Pro under a discounted license called an “Educational” license. (And actually have a free “Teacher” license.) So, they are well able to charge whatever they need to (or wish to) for a license. Reading the EULA there are separate clauses and sections that create slightly differing terms and conditions for these various licenses.

So, with regard to BDTCD’s post above, they can and are already delivering discounted licenses. (The Home Depot comparison is bombastic and invalid. The actual situation is that the professional contractors and carpenters are the ones receiving the discounts because of the yearly volumes that they buy. Furthermore, one yearly software license purchase is not equivalent to frequent restock of bulk raw materials like lumber and hardware. It’s “apples and tiddlywinks” [ie, “not even the both a fruit.”])

I don’t know if I ever said that specifically, but I had previously expressed the wish that SketchUp Pro could be purchased separately from LayOut and StyleBuilder. I’ve never used StyleBuilder, and probably never will. And as long as LayOut lacks a “live” Ruby API for scripting and extensions, as well as not having a CAD-like/Visio-like attribute system, it will remain just something I don’t use much.

I’m in the same boat. But mainly because I feel that the yearly cycle is too short to develop some of the larger overhauls that SketchUp needs.

It was sarcasm at it’s worst. :wink:

4 Likes

I like to concept of Layout - a program to turn SU models into construction documents, but I agree, the execution of the concept needs work. You mention the live rubi APi and the cad visio - I am not familiar with those terms since I am not a power user. Could you explain them and how they could work in layout?

Thanks.

G

Not in this thread, it would be way off-topic. (See this post in topic: Ruby API on Layout.)

2 Likes

Like X 2!

I also get the feeling I’m purchasing functionality I don’t need. I don’t use LayOut or StyleBuilder. Actually with the extension I developed Make would provide ALL the functional I need.

a version for half of the price with the functionality you don’t see value in removed … looks like cherry picking for me. With the 3D modeling functionality beeing obviously the key asset of SU, removing seldom used special functionality doesn’t rectify a discount of 50%… at least to me.

1 Like

you allways purchase functionality with allmost every non-trivial product you buy… check the user manual of your television/car/smartphone for proofing this.

1 Like

I was thinking Make or less functionality for a reduced price. (not necessarily 50%)

But I totally get it. As long as there is a free Make version any other paid version will reduce the number of Pro sales and probably decrease overall revenue.

I have bought lots of software with features I’ll never use. That’s part of life. My only reason for starting this topic really was because of the issue with the free Make version being used for commercial use.

Most other software has a free version with such limited functionality that any serious user will want the Pro version.

SketchUp is different in that respect. I spoke with a SU rep last week about this. He said SketchUp has been free for so long that it’s hard to switch from that.

I own and design on a pro license but tell my clients to download the Make version so I can email them the drawings and they can view it. So hopefully SU does not take away the ability for designers to share drawings with clients. They can take away the functionality of the extensions as long as the drawing can be viewed with scene tabs by the clients.

This workflow is what the Desktop SketchUp Viewer is for.

Yes, scene tabs do appear in the SketchUp Viewer.

1 Like

Technically, nobody owns the software :

“You acknowledge that you are obtaining only a limited license right to the Software and that irrespective of any use of the words “purchase”, “sale” or like terms hereunder no ownership rights are being conveyed to you under this Agreement or otherwise.” See point 4 under the terms which you agreed upon : EULA - SketchUp 2016 | SketchUp
Don’t take this message personal, it aplies for all of us and, by my knowing, for most of the software packages we use. I was always under the presumption that you would buy a ‘piece of software’ whereas it be just another tool, like from the homedepot. Turns out, the only thing you’ve obtained is the right to use the software (as is). At some point, software companies have taken the position of the old guilds, when they wouldn’t allow you to exercise your profession unless you were part of it

2 Likes

I’ve been reading through pretty much every post so far because this discussion is at the crux of that great question so many of us have, which is, how to make money in this interconnected day and age where information circulates so easily. Perhaps we’re living the same dilemma as those who were facing the printing press back in the mid 1400s?

In any case I do understand your dilemma and that of those who make plugins using a licensing model that tries to restricts its use to only those who use the pro version of the software the plugin is intended for, only to find it could be used on the free version just as well and complain this business model is stiffling the potential for sales of their product (correct me if I’m wrong) .

I am in the knowledge industry and my business model, if I may give an analogy everyone will probably understand, like modern muscians who understand how the internet works, relies on giving free, totally useable information tools (“free mp3 download”) enough to the point where people will actually hire me and pay for my services (“pay me to perform in concert”).

Why do I believe in this business model? Because like in music, there is a huge difference between listening to a record and experiencing a concert, likewise there is huge difference difference between giving information for free and performing for your audience using that exact same information.

I think if you’ve ever tried to buy tickets to a concert these days, it should pretty much explain what Trimble does with its Sketchup licensing model.

Furthermore, like someone so pertinently said earlier, you simply can not legally use Make in a business setting, and anyone who is really generating income from the use of any tool in business knows how expensive contravening the law is. Ergo, if your plugin is intended for the business market, you can be sure you are not losing any sales because it is used in that setting and your complaint about those who would use one commercial license and many free ones is in reality solely between them and Trimble.

In other words, you are free to commit a crime but if you get caught it will cost you a bundle, and it is a deterrent that has always worked in the history of humanity and I seriously don’t believe your anecdote with that one client is representative of the reality of things, but I do understand that it is open to debate and welcome it.

To me, the whole issue between paid versus free basically boils down to the age old conflict between copyright and sharing and the fact that those who would share and use your intellectual property for free aren’t lost revenue because they would never have purchased it in the first place, and facts have proven that when someone actually ends up making money from using any given tool, they actually do end up paying it.

As for yourself, the real question should be “with all the effort I put into creating this plugin, am I getting a decent return on my investment”. If it’s no, perhaps you should consider an alternative marketing method and consider, just consider, Trimble’s model, even if your recent experience with your 3 license client tells you you shouldn’t.

1 Like

Great point. I really would like to have Pro on all 12 of my computers but wouldn’t be able to justify the cost. (Half the computers would likely never use SketchUp).

I have three offices for as many businesses. I can install Pro in the two where I use SU the most. If I’m in the other office and need SU I could remote into another office instead of using Make. That way I’m legal, as I’ll never be in more than one office at a time. :wink:

1 Like

double technically…

I think you’ll find Trimble owns the codebase that isn’t Licensed to them i.e. the ones in the credits…

back on topic…

the simple option would be to re-instate ‘commercial usage’ for Make, but this time, don’t include access to any Pro ‘features’ anywhere…

i.e.
an ‘is_Pro’ requirement for all Pro ‘only’ features in the API and the SDK forcing any ‘Pro’ level extensions or applications to require a ‘Pro’ version to be installed on the developers and the end users machine… [like 3DMax and others]

blacklist any ‘Make’ extensions, that replicate ‘Pro’ features… [and yes I have contributed to many]

blacklist commercial output quality extensions, that ‘can’ be run on ‘Make’…

in the meantime

commercial output quality extensions, should limit extension usability to ‘Pro’, but, possibly, offer a discounted ‘Pro’ license to any ‘Make’ inquirers… [maybe a reseller deal with Trimble is possible?]

john

Being able to sell Pro at a discounted price along with an extension would be very beneficial. Of course the extensions sold in this way would need to be substantial enough so that the total package cost would still be more than buying a Pro license separately.

(Of course I don’t really anticipate this happening in real life any time soon, but it makes an interesting discussion.)

I don’t know how that is simple. How would SketchUp know what extension mimic Pro features? Wold Make only load extensions that have been manually inspected by a SU employee and if so, how would that affect hobby plugin developers?

Also I don’t think Trimble would like to give away the right to use the program commercially for free. As I’ve said before being able to use the program commercially is THE main feature of Pro, not any of the technical features in it. It’s not Dynamic Components or Style Builder that really makes Pro different from Make but the license.

Regarding getting a reduced price for leaving certain features out I get what you asking for this mean but can’t really agree. I think it’s a little like asking for a reduced price for a flight because the on board entertainment system contains movies you don’t want to watch. It’s not the movies you are paying for, it’s the flight, the movies are just a little extra bonus.

3 Likes

I used simple option as a relative term, because allowing it is easier than increasing the number of available versions…

the mechanics for cutting Make’s functionality may not be trivial, but are programatically achievable…

the simplest option would be to do nothing…

IMHO:
the main Pro feature is support of commercial quality program features, both, programatically and via the maintenance [support] scheme…

for a time SketchUp Make had ‘commercial usage’ provision…

many people still bought SketchUp Pro for the support it offers…

others exploited the situation and sought extensions and forums to by-pass the need for buying this support

removing ‘commercial usage’ from Make has not stopped people doing it, and the influx of high dollar extensions is actually used as excuse to not upgrade…

I have certainly seen posts along the lines of “I already paid $xxx for ‘abc’ and it said it runs on Make, so I don’t need buy Pro as well”

Should they be blocked [somehow] from Make ?, isn’t for me to decide, but that would certainly be better than blocking ruby scripting…

Personally, I would include Dynamic Components and Style Builder in Make today…

maybe a discount coupon code scheme would be easier to instigate…

john

1 Like