I love that analogy, Julia.
You could also liken it to having to buy a full set of golf clubs so you can play miniature golf.
Sjdorst, only the first sentence had to do with layout. The rest concerned SU.
G
I often hear the “I don’t need use it often enough” justification for avoiding buying pro which strikes me as a very uniquely software position and even more as a uniquely sketchup phenomenon.
I may only use my hammer once every few months. But I don’t expect that to effect the price, I won’t try to take it in and out of Home Depo, returning it back on the shelf in between each use, claiming I don’t really use it enough to buy one.
I say this is unique to sketchup because make exists (which I applaud and think is awesome) but I don’t hear this debate over photoshop or vectoworks. Aspiring professionals and students I know sometimes try to beg-borrow-pirate copies of these but they all assume that sooner or later they will have to get serious and buy the tools they need for their trade.
6 Likes
I know that side as well, I have many hundreds of dollars worth of tools in my garage or work truck that I bought for one job, and now gather dust.
I just get tired of buying things that I have limited need for.
Is it too much to ask Trimble to sell an intermediate product for those who don’t need or want all the bells and whistles?
G
Timble uses a similar approach as do many other software companies. Either a student version, or a crippled version that gets people hooked on their product.
Then we either talk an employer into the benefits of that product or we talk ourselves into it. I see no financially better way than to learn a software product that costs nothing but time. Furthermore the 30 days that Trimble gives you during a trial is hardly enough time to master it, however it is enough time to get your feet wet.
As a software developer I would be very reluctant to offer yet a third variation of a software - yet some companies certainly do.
This conversation made me a bit sad. Mainly due to possible outcomes of such way of thinking, which is not rare.
SketchUp Make is quite unique thing. For example, it allowed me to try the software without any risk, play with it designing some small bits for my home and just some odd things, out of curiosity. And, couple years later, I was in a good position to recommend it as a software of choice at work. I don’t think that without Make I would approach it in the same way, growing my pool of SU licenses to over a dozed. What would I do instead? Possibly go with AutoCAD subscription. Why not? Everyone is using it! 
From the other side, I’m sure that Trimble is quite sensitive to the question of people using Make for “not quite personal” purposes. And I would not be surprised if they were thinking about getting rid of Make (as there is a web-version) or limiting it significantly. Which would be a huge shame. (and this is what makes me sad)
It seems quite straight forward. If you are using it for anything at work, if you are getting any profit (even indirect) by using it - this is a commercial use, just buy a Pro. Or buy a Pro if you can afford it and like SU.
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.
a version for e.g. half of the price with the functionality you don’t use removed … looks like cherry picking for me. With the 3D modeling functionality beeing obviously the key asset of SU, removing seldom used special functionality or LO doesn’t rectify a discount in the dimension you are probably expecting, at least to me.
1 Like
I design something in my head and use SketchUp make to draw it. I make the product physically and make a major commercial success from the product.
I design something in my head and use a Faber-Castell. pencil to draw it . I make the product physically and make a major commercial success from the product.
Do I owe the pencil manufacturer money?
Presumably you already paid Faber-Castell and a reseller for the pencil. They aren’t in the business of giving away pencils.
4 Likes
So basically what you are saying is that sketchup make is not allowed to draw plans for a physical model that is sold to make money?
That because you make money from a say, chair design of yours, only sketchup pro is suitable? ( trying to get my head around this)
If your activity is intended to make money, and it uses SketchUp, then you will require Pro.
SketchUp Make is strictly for non-commercial work - so if you are a hobbyist etc that’s fine, but as soon as you have the intention of making money from SketchUp, then that becomes commercial and so it requires Pro.
It’s relatively straightforward.
If you intend to make money from SketchUp, then you need Pro !
Note how I say ‘intention of making money’ - you don’t actually need to make any - just the intention is enough to be ‘commercial’ and thereby needs Pro.
There are many potential ways to use SketchUp commercially.
e.g. making 3d views from 2d drawings [for payment], drawing house plans which are sold to a builder, creating interior design drawings where a clients pays you for them, designing furniture which you then build [or get built] and sell on, 3d-printing jewelry etc and selling it, developing extensions and selling them - literally doing anything when doing it in Make probably deprives a Pro user from their income is clearly wrong; in fact a double blow first you steal there work, second you have them subsidize you by buying Pro so Trimble can offer the free Make version !
2 Likes
I’m trying to get my head around why it’s so difficult to understand. If you use SketchUp to help you design or make something that you sell whether it is simply a drawing or a real object like a chair, you must buy a license for SketchUp Pro.
Do you expect a tool manufacturer to give you a table saw so that you can build chairs to sell? SketchUp is another tool. Why is is reasonable to expect that Trimble give you the tool for free so that you can make money? That sounds like entitlement to me.
SketchUp doesn’t just fall out of the sky. It takes people working to create it and make the improvements that users want. Those people need to be paid for their work. They need to be provided with a place and resources to do that work. All that costs money.
Would you be willing to invest your time, effort, and materials building a chair so you can give it to me for free?
2 Likes
Don’t forget making fast conceptual sketches of things that’ll later be drawn in other programs, e.g. Revit. In architecture SketchUp is used A LOT for those fast 5 min sketches just to test out the placement of buildings, often with simple boxes.
Wow, no need to be so aggressive .Easy does it.
I am merely asking why would you have to pay for a product that is firstly given away free and then the implication is that all down stream products that are derived from that free program are illegal.
I understand that if one made money from the actual files that are derived from the free program ( like building plans) it would be the right thing to do to buy the pro program.
But if I design a product that is made in 3D, like a chair, what has that got to do with SU?
And what if someone copies that design? Since the original design is derived from a SU program where does SU stand?
My point is that if you are going to give away a free program, it’s kinda difficult to put a moral obligation to it.
I wasn’t being aggressive. I’m sorry you misunderstood.
SketchUp isn’t freeware! It can be used freely for hobbies which is absolutely great but don’t confuse that with the program being free because it isn’t.
SketchUp is, as the name suggest, much aimed at sketching things. Sure, you can make construction documents from it but the most common use in the architectural field I would say is to just try out ideas. That is definitely commercial use!
If you design it in SU it has everything to do with SU! Designing things is the purpose of SketchUp. If you make a chair in SU Make and make money out of it you are making money out of using SU. Simple as that.
It’s up to Trimble to license the software however they wish (I own 3 licenses). I would prefer licensing to be base on functionality rather than usage type. That’s too much like income tax. “Did you make any money? Hand it over.”
But then if Trimble were a non-profit and sold Pro for $20 that would be great also. When purchasing software you can’t control the license terms or price. You simply decide if the software is worth the investment to you.
Honestly I think the non-commercial free Make version makes is way too easy for people to cheat. Or even to feel entitled to the free version.
It’s very unfortunate people interpret the non-commercial free version as a free version. However I think Make is an incredible important part of SketchUp. As a kid it allowed by to make far more advanced designs than I could ever design by hand. It also allowed me to save my work in a whole different way than I could do with physical models or even sheets of papers. Honestly, I wouldn’t be were I am today without the non-commercial free version.
2 Likes
maybe it’s time to have a big “NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY” badge at the welcome screen and the title bar of the Make version. And to block opening documents made with the Pro version in Make resp. requiring a “Save as…” in a Make variant of the SKP format.
2 Likes
I’m thinking the second part might be counterproductive and make more people use a cracked pro version. There are many legitimate reasons to open a model made in Pro in Make, e.g. a home owner viewing the design made by the architect. The first part sounds quite reasonable.