Layout is one of Blender’s major shortcomings and the reason why it cannot be used to produce architectural deliverables.
Believe it or not, some people use Revit solely to produce drawings, despite its high cost.
That’s why I believe Layout is essential. Those who don’t want to use it don’t have to, but they shouldn’t prevent Trimble from continuing its development or encourage its discontinuation.
(post deleted by author)
No idea what you mean.
I don’t think anyone here is proposing abandoning the development of Layout or improving it.
What do you mean by “randomly” typing?
Do you know what was in version 1 of SketchUp?
If you think Layout is useless… Why are Trimble going to maintain the developement?
That is not what I said in my previous posts.
I said, SketchUp was a standalone product at the origin. Layout was asked by users at that time, because they dislike another program as AutoCad to make documentation. And the SketchUp + LayOut workflow hasn’t been adopted by all professional SketchUp users. There is some flaws in this process. That is my assessment; I didn’t say we should stop developing it!
I use SU and LO and find it an incredibe tool to where you design in 3D and output 2D based on the 3D in LO. The main issue I have discovered is that the learning curve to have a seamless work flow is steep but worth it. I took the Workflow by Michael Brightman and have never looked back. I used to be on Vectorworks and Autocad but am now fully on SU/LO.
How does grocery inflation explain why SketchUp can’t offer different subscription tiers?
i think the argument would be more interesting if people see it from broader perspective, as some of my colleagues in 3D modeller and non-architecture would love to model in SketchUp (on hard surface modelling or CAD modelling) but they rather spend more hours learning steeper curve on different software because of the pricing and subscription model that are not genuinely trial/simple bundle (no cloud, no layout) it is pretty simple and straightforward, and definitely easier than other 3D CAD modelling software.
That’s another good point. Cloud services could also be optional. Many users already have their own backup solution, so paying only for the features they use seems reasonable.
Icons are not necessary, I use only shortcuts. Let’s remove them and reduce the price too…
That’s not really comparable. Icons are a core part of SketchUp. Cloud services and LayOut are separate services that not every user needs or uses.
Most of my students discover the benefits of Layout and Trimble Connect when I show them, maybe you should use them to see what they contribute.
Their usefulness isn’t the question. The question is whether every SketchUp user should be required to pay for them.
I don’t draw a lot of circles. Should I have to pay for the tool that lets me draw them?
At this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I can understand your argument if you never use LayOut. Personally, I use it all the time, so for me it’s an essential part of SketchUp Pro.
I don’t think Trimble approach this from the perspective of whether every customer uses every application. They’re selling a professional ecosystem, and including everything keeps the package simple and avoids multiple pricing tiers and unnecessary complexity.
I can’t see Trimble ever selling SketchUp Pro without LayOut. I think they’ll continue to treat it as a single package regardless of whether every user makes use of every component.
It’s a bit like my Microsoft 365 subscription. I use Excel, Word and OneDrive every day, but there are plenty of apps in the suite that I never open. I wouldn’t expect Microsoft to offer a cheaper subscription because I don’t use Access or Teams. The value is in the complete package, not whether every customer uses every application.
Along your line of thought, eliminate the frozen food or the meat section of the store to cut prices.
That analogy actually supports the topic. A grocery store doesn’t force every customer to buy meat, frozen food, and bakery items together. Customers choose what they need. The discussion here is whether SketchUp customers should have similar flexibility.
Your arugment is the same as when people complain about taxes and say “ok but taxpayers should choose what their tax dollars get to fund!!” It’s just not a really serious way to understand how corporate developers understand their dev teams, customers, costs or revenues. It would be nice if you could select features a la carte and pay only for what you plan on using, but it would also be great if I could only pay federal taxes toward infrastructure and healthcare and not contribute to the military or corporate giveaways. The world is a little more nuanced.
While I would love an option of just Sketchup without Layout… honestly the development cost of Sketchup vs the development cost of Layout probably wouldn’t net you much savings on a Sketchup Pro-only package. Maybe like a 10-15% discount, if even.
I feel Sketchup gets the bulk of development costs and Layout gets a pittance, though this is just a guess.
At the very least, with the Sketchup installer, give us an option to NOT install Layout with Sketchup. That’s a couple hundred MBs of space that can be put to use elsewhere 