New SketchUp Pricing Model...?

SketchUp Pro
,
60

There has been a lot of talk here about what is fair, what’s CAD, what SU is worth, comparing apps, etc… and most are missing my main point.

  1. We and our work (or fun) should not be locked into a subscription model.

  2. Upgrade purchases should be based on improvements, not the need to keep basic functionality, simply being able to use and modify our work or accessing our data.

What I’m proposing here (and elsewhere) is that the subscription model is not right for users. If you want to rent, fine. I think it is generally better to buy and then pay a modest fee to maintain and/or pay when the upgrade is worth it. That’s what I am proposing, and I don’t know what any user would oppose that option. I have seen some apps that offer either renting or buying and that’s also great, allowing folks to pay only when they need it.

It is hard for developers, as some users are hobbyist who simply wants great tools to use occasionally and some are professional who uses the same tool 5 days a week.

With “real” physical tools, folks buy once, and the hobbyist may never have to replace a great tool, but the pro may need to replace it every year. Not a perfect analogy, and there are many more; perhaps cars are a better one, but nothing is perfect.

I simply think the folks at Momenta got the balance right for users and developers and not sure why anyone would object.

And I think users are investors in apps who should be treated with a great deal of respect, rather than jerked around by the whims of greed and marketing research.

When SU went to Google, Google essentially maintained the model, both in price and usability (ie free downloadable app). IMHO, Trimble has abused their position and should consider adopting a better model, or sell the app to someone who will.

2 Likes
61

Love this bit.
@last, the original Sketchup was a for profit company that sold their software, Google bought the company and released it for free because they wanted people to work for them for nothing and populate google earth with their hard work. When they found this didn’t work they basically stopped development and fortunately sold it to Trimble, a for profit company.

So lets not worship google as some sort of omniscient benevolent company that was giving away the product out of the goodness of it’s heart, nor demonize Trimble for trying to make it a viable business product again.

4 Likes
62

Let’s not reframe or distort what I said.
Google is also a for-profit and I’m certainly not worshiping them.
I doubt you have inside info on why they bought or sold SU.
Regardless their motivations, they maintained the model, price and modest development.

By many accounts,Trimble has done neither.

63

If I recall correctly, had Trimble not purchased SketchUp, Google was going to kill it off.

1 Like
64

they bought it because they wanted to populate Google Maps and they sold it, as it wasn’t required for doing this any more, no doubt.

1 Like
68

…?

1 Like
69

every forum has it’s own muppets
image
They have their own role.

But it’s against forum guidelines to flood threads by multiple post and useless quotes.

Note

I am not flagging some posts anymore after I have been ‘dragged’ (pun intented) through the mud on a french social medium last summer

So, to get back on topic, the proposed licensing model is exactly what is abandoned by Trimble, so I doubt they would reconsider.
The agenda pricing model should work well with extensions (it’s about the same price range) But even extension developers are seeking way’s to prolong their investments by a subscription model.

Last week, Tekla announced the possibility to rent for shorter periods ( and yes, if you want to keep your old license, that would be possible, too)
Maybe, they could introduce this for SketchUp, as well.

Personally, I like the approach of Altair.
It uses ‘Units’ and you can rent any number as an organisation. If you need to do analysis, you can choose out of the whole range of software packages of the Altair and even HyperWorks suite.

For Trimble, this is interesting, because they also have a whole range of other software.
So, you set the number of units needed for each app:

SketchUp: 2
LayOut: 2
Trimble Connect: 1
Trimble Connect Premium (for adding your own property sets and workflow extensions): 3
StyleBuilder: 1
Predesign: 1
Sefaira: 5
Scan Essentials: 3
Tekla: 10
etc.
And then set the unit price: $60 P/Y
As a user, you could buy 2 units and choose to use SketchUp or LayOut only (at the same time) or buy 4 units to use them simultaneously.
As an organisation, you could rent 20 units, have some work in SketchUp, others on LayOut and have access to Tekla, as well.

71

Rent vs. own, it’s actually one in the same. When you get a license for any piece of software, you are in essence, renting, or rather provided to privilege to use the software. The only time one actually owns software, is when they have created it, and in this case, it is the developers and/or company of developers. The phrase “paying for the privilege”, is more so relevant in this day and age, because most everything we do on a computer, is via software that we have, at one point or another, purchased a license for. Even if you want to argue over perpetual licensing, at some point, a developer or company can shut down the server that checks perpetual licenses (i.e. Microsoft, Autodesk), and then you no longer own the software. Even hard media, back in the day, if it had a serial number, keycode or license number, tied or bound the user to renting, and a good argument for companies turning to subscription models later on, was to have better control over the usage of the software and to combat piracy (thanks Napster, Bearshare, Limewire, Bittorrent). Unfortunately, it seems to be the way of things these days, but for some, such as the aforementioned Affinity suite (thanks @trampy), have a perpetual licensing model, and I can attest to buying and using their suite of apps as being just as capable as Adobe, in fact with many more updates that are useful, compared to Adobe. I keep CS6 installed on the off chance of needing something specific from it, but otherwise, Affinity works great and of course, no subscription.

I guess the fact remains that for those who are always looking for the BBD, then shop around and be open to learning new packages, if one that you’ve used for so long, has abandoned the licensing you were used to. The alternatives out there for many software types, are becoming just as good as the big corporate ones. I no longer use Microsoft Office products, opting for Libre Office, I no longer use Adobe PDF, in favor of Foxit, No more Adobe Creative Suite apps, in favor Affinity. Again, they’re out there, just do some research and get some word of mouth advice, along the way. :slight_smile:

72

And so…?

1 Like
73

Rent a temporary license vs own a perpetual license. We all know what is being discussed. Why?

I paid for SU Pro and upgrades for many years, and now I have to rent it if I want to keep using it.

74

Ironically, you’ll still “pay for SU Pro and upgrades” with the subscription model.

1 Like
75

No offense, but I think you are missing the point of the statement I made. No matter whether you have a perpetual license or subscription, you are entitled to the usage of the software for as long as the company keeps it available, or you stop using it altogether. If a company stops running a perpetual license server, for whatever reason, and they are legally entitled to do so, then you are stuck. Getting a subscription does ensure that the company has a steady revenue stream to maintain updates, patches, and/or new features. They aren’t necessarily bound to promises of new features, or patches being available in a timely manner (or to whatever expectations a user may have otherwise). If the software you utilize is worth supporting through subscription, to ensure future development and stability, then great. If you feel otherwise, then you are entitled to look elsewhere. No one is forcing you to do anything you feel uncomfortable with or unjust.

Remember, TOS or T&C aren’t written and posted for the heck of it. When you agree to them, it is assumed by the publisher that you are fully aware of them and have no cause to dispute them, unless explicitly stated in those TOS’s or T&C’s.

77

I think we can agree to disagree about the licensing. It’s pretty much cut and dry about how they work, regardless of whatever you have read into, in the past.

Yes, it is obvious that we are seeing more and more open source projects in development or are released. It is appreciated that they do exist, with many contributors tired of paying through the nose for software that has stalled development, or even worse, developers that stop altogether, leaving users stuck.

Affinity has always maintained the position of having their software pricing and usage set the way it is, because of their direct digs towards Adobe. Either you leave one camp for another, or stay where you are. I’ve had some discussions about Adobe, with coworkers and friends, and for the most part, their attitude is one of, why make the change, though they will also tend to complain about the lack of stability and fixes…maybe they just stick with it so they have something to complain about.

78

Agenda, BusyMac, Affinity, and many others understand the frustration users experience with renting (aka subscriptions) models and users not being able to use what they created unless they keep paying rent. Not unlike the mafia asking for “protection” money.

No, I don’t misunderstand. You keep introducing exceptions and distractions. Of course we all know if a company decides to kill software, whether there is a license server or not, the software will die or fade away.

1 Like
80

Afraid I don’t follow your line of thinking, but that’s fine. No sense in beating a dead horse.

83

:+1:
(Post must be at least 5 characters? [quotes don’t count])

84

Not even remotely like that. The mafia demands protection money in exchange for them not violently attacking you or destroying something you love. Trimble doesn’t demand money and then hack your machine and destroy your computer if you don’t pay. Cmon. They let you use software that you pay to use. That’s it.

1 Like
85

They won’t so you might consider moving on.

1 Like
86

I consider sketchup to be not only affordable, but relatively cheap. It certainly isn’t considered expensive at $25 per month.

It has a good amount of users, and it is not hated. How many things are you going to fabricate in you head and act like it’s a universal fact? Your opinion on the matter is anything but the final word. Just because you FEEL it is expensive doesn’t mean it is. Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t loved by many. Just because YOU don’t think it’s widely used doesn’t mean it isn’t.

3 Likes
87

I pay slightly more for the entire Adobe suite. And yes, I use at least two of their apps (Audition and Premier) regularly so the whole suite makes sense for me. Adobe at least does a whole lot more in functionality, improvements and responsiveness to user requests.

Yes, I’m ticked about their Rental/Subscription model, but it’s a far better deal than SU.

Please stop distorting. Software companies that rent have their users held hostage; pay to play, or you can’t use your old work anymore.

Why anyone would oppose the Agenda model baffles me, unless you are a developer.