The flaw in LabVIEW Tools Network: VI Package Manager

[josborne]

At first I was impressed with the LabVIEW Tools Network (see here).  Its seemed like a plus for everyone:

- Developers who didn't want to reinvent the wheel, could easily find and download code using the VI Package Manager.

- Developers who want to re-sell their code, could easily package it and sell it via the Tools Network marketplace (similar to the iPhone's App Store).

But then I found the flaw:  The VI Package Manager

Developers (essentially) need to use the VI Package Manager if they want to sell their code ... and it costs $999.  And you'll need to add on the cost of a LabVIEW license ($2k+), of course.  This will surely elimate many coders from participating.  In fact, it'll probably also artificially raise the price of all the SW being sold on the Tools Network.

And by the way:  Why is NI relying on a third-party SW delivery tool for their marketplace at all?  Especially one that costs developers $1k to package their add-on?  Why doesn't NI just build their own VI Package Manager and dump JKI Tools all together?  In this case, building their own Package Manager would make sense for NI.  Cut ot the middle-man.  And after all, didn't NI do this to Endevo when they built their own LVOOP tool (thereby dumping Endevo's GOOP toolkit into oblivion?).

Oh... and need I remind anyone that Apple only charges developers $99 to distribute iPhone apps?  And their development environment is given away totally free.

[Ben]

Full Discloser: Jim Kring is one of my fellow LabVIEW Champions so my opinions should be conciderd in that context.

I missed where the VI Package Manager is required.

JKI distributes a free version to support the OpenG code.

For those that want to sell their code, again the PM is not required but is well suited for managing add-ons for LV and will make supporting the delivered add-ons managable. I evaluated the JKI MP for our use and we were close to picking up a site license for same but since we develop custom code for most our apps (how many people are really going to be interested in an app that will characterize Thermophotovoltaic diodes ?) we decide to stay with our existing standards...

So maybe I did not read the right page indicating the JKI PM was required for selling code.

Please forgive me if I missed it,.

Thank you,

Ben

[F._Schubert]

If I read/remember some posts on LAVA correctly, you should be able to make a package with the OpenG package manager. I haven't tested this, but I'm intersted if this works. So if you get some results on this, I'd be glad to hear about.

Ben: an app that will characterize Thermophotovoltaic diodes

I'd be interested! Can you talk more about the scope (devices->Ge?, kind of characterization)?

Felix

[josborne]

Technically, you are right.  VIPM is not 100% required for distributing via the Tools Network.  That is why I wrote that VIPM is "(essentially)" required. 

A developer could always package their code into an MSI installer or something and still distribute via the Tools Network.  But if you want to use VIPM to build a package for re-sale, you need to pay $999 (see here for comparison of VIPM versions). 

By "essentially", I mean that it puts a developer at a serious disadvantage if they don't use VIPM to package their code (IMHO).  And you'd think that NI would want to open the doors a bit to developers. 

I guess that fact that developers don't really need to use VIPM diminished my point.  But NI is really pushing the use of VIPM for add-ons.  This page is a good example:

http://sine.ni.com/np/app/culdesac/p/ap/lvtn/lang/en/pg/1/sn/n21:28/docid/tut-11903

They add a little disclaimer at the bottom, of course:

• Note that some Add-ons on the LabVIEW Tools Network do not use VI Package Manager, for example, those requiring a full EXE installer. (Download and install those Add-Ons manually.)

I guess I am complaining because I want to build my own add-on and sell it on the Tools Network, and I'm annoyed that I really should pay $999 if I want to do it properly and get the most sales.

And I am still curious why NI is using VIPM at all.  I wouldn't be surprised if they built their own VIPM capabilities into LabVIEW at some point soon.  So I hope JKI has a good contract and copyright on their material!

[rex1030]

I hesitate to respond but oh well. Package Manager is a great program.

However, I think that LabView should be able to do what package manager does natively. Thats just me.

If you want to make a package, you need $999 per computer. Yea. I agree with the poster on that respect, though I am not as animated about it (surprizing I know). I would just like to use VPM as a form of source code control and backup to be able to completely revert to previous versions of code, or roll out newer versions. I have yet to be able to justify the price of Package Manager to my superiors, working on a tight government budget. 

I did find it interesting at NI week when all the NI Presenters were using Package Manager and the OpenG toolkit in their code as if that was how it everyone is supposed to be doing it. One would think they would recieve everything they need from NI.

I find josborne's  iphone app comparison a little random and unrelated 🙂 Might as well mention that if we code in Java we can get the development environment free and post our apps anywhere we want at our own risk. suggesting labview should be free or cheap josborne?

I think NI is doing a great job with LabView and I hope their dreams for the future are as grand as mine.

[josborne]

Yeah, you're right.  I admit the iPhone comparison is totally irrelevent. 

I guess I'm just complaining about the high costs.  After shelling out $2k for an LV license, I wish it'd have its own VIPM capabilities, instead of relying on a costly 3rd party.

[Jervin Justin]

Hi josborne,

Thanks for the feedback on the LabVIEW Tools Network. We wanted to make it easy for developers to share/sell reusable code with eatch other, and make it easier for developers to get their hands on reusable code rather than program everything from scratch. We wanted to build an ecosystem and marketplace for LabVIEW developers.

It sounds like your biggest pain point is the $999 price point for VI Package Manager. We worked with JKI this past year to make package building a feature of the free edition of VIPM 2010, the Community Edition. So you do not need the $999 Professional Edition to create a LabVIEW Add-on. The Pro version does have several nice benefits though, and you can read about these here: http://jki.net/vipm/compare

You also contrasted our program with the Apple Developer Program which gives you the development tools for free (with the $99 program fee). Well, the main difference here is that the development environment for LabVIEW is LabVIEW! (As opposed to Apple where you are developing for the iPhone/iPad). So I don't think we're comparing Apples to Apples (no pun intended). However, we do offer start-up assistance to developers who want to develop LabVIEW Add-ons to further reduce the barrier to entry. More here: Add-on Dev Center - Startup Assistance.

To answer your question about why we chose to go with a third party solution (JKI's VIPM) instead of developing our own - we had several reasons. But I can summarize in one - we had a partner, JKI, who has developed an excellent solution for distributing LabVIEW Code, and was willing to work with us to make the integration with LabVIEW even better, so why create a brand new solution from scratch rather than let them continue to innovate in this area?

By the way, if you haven't seen the integration between the Tools Network and VIPM 2010, you really should give it a try! Here's a sample free Add-on to try - the OpenG Libraries (Click the Download button).

[F._Schubert]

But for sure NI would not add it to the FDS but the PDS (so you need to pay 5k) or sell it as add-on (1.5k).

I can feel your pain. I always get some of the coolest hardware for my projects, but on the SW side I'm damned to LV 7.1 . (that's why I do uml and not LVOOP in my spare time ).

Felix

[Jim_Kring]

Hi There,

This is Jim Kring, Founder and CEO at JKI (and, I'm also a passionate VIPM and LabVIEW user).  I can assure you that JKI and NI are working hard to make the LabVIEW Tools Network awesome and accessible to everyone and that we're listening to everyone's feedback.

Here are some key points (many of which other's have already mentioned):

• Users can build packages for free in VIPM 2010
• Users don't have to build packages to put their tools on the LabVIEW Tools Network
• VIPM is the result of nearly a decade of development and JKI has immense domain expertise in this area
• JKI and NI are working very closely together and are committed to SUPER AWESOME integration between VIPM, the LabVIEW Tools Network, and LabVIEW.

Even if you don't agree on all the points above, I hope you'll keep an open mind and an eye out for how JKI and NI continue to improve the ecosystem and tools for 3rd party LabVIEW add-ons.

And, thanks a lot for your passionate post 

Regards,

-Jim

[josborne]

Thanks, everyone.  Perhaps I was mistaken ... in which, I owe an apology for all my griping!

I do understand all of Jim's points.  And I understand that I can package my tool for free using the "community" version of VIPM ... but aren't I then forced to give it away for free?

It appears to me that if I want to sell my package, I need to integrate with the licensing engine using the professional version of VIPM, as stated here:

• In addition, for developers who create paid Add-Ons, VIPM also integrates fully with the third-party licensing/activation feature in LabVIEW. This gives developers the ability to protect their intellectual property and offer free 30-day evaluations of their software

But I thought the free version of VIPM did NOT integrate with the licensing feature (as stated here)?  In which case I have to pay $999.

Or can I sell my package without integrating with the licensing engine (which is probably not a smart idea, because of piracy)?

Perhaps I am very confused now.