LabVIEW Roadmap 2022 Q3

[OneOfTheDans]

100% agree about the threat of deactivation. My subscription just renewed and it got caught up in my company's purchasing department for some reason. I'm the primary LabVIEW developer at my company and thought I'd get locked out just because the 1 year timer expired.

But beside the new threat of deactivation, I still consider similar: perpetual ~ perpetual with SSP ~ subscription. If I remember the old price structure, renewing a perpetual every 3-4 years cost about the same as just keeping your SSP active (by design, I'm sure!). And I consider annual SSP renewals the same as subscriptions (again, not including the new threat of deactivation). None of these options force you to upgrade the software either. I'm running LV2020SP1 with my up-to-date subscription, just like an SSP would allow access to any historic version.

On a positive note @EricR, I like that the new subscriptions are simple to understand. I was so sick of explaining that you can't buy LabVIEW, only 1-3 years of subscription (SSP) - the SSP is retroactive to all earlier versions, and it doesn't expire because you can use it forever, but you still need to renew it to get updates - renewal prices vary wildly depending on when you renew, and how many years you purchase.

[billko]

---

@OneOfTheDans wrote:

100% agree about the threat of deactivation. My subscription just renewed and it got caught up in my company's purchasing department for some reason. I'm the primary LabVIEW developer at my company and thought I'd get locked out just because the 1 year timer expired.

But beside the new threat of deactivation, I still consider similar: perpetual ~ perpetual with SSP ~ subscription. If I remember the old price structure, renewing a perpetual every 3-4 years cost about the same as just keeping your SSP active (by design, I'm sure!). And I consider annual SSP renewals the same as subscriptions (again, not including the new threat of deactivation). None of these options force you to upgrade the software either. I'm running LV2020SP1 with my up-to-date subscription, just like an SSP would allow access to any historic version.

On a positive note @EricR, I like that the new subscriptions are simple to understand. I was so sick of explaining that you can't buy LabVIEW, only 1-3 years of subscription (SSP) - the SSP is retroactive to all earlier versions, and it doesn't expire because you can use it forever, but you still need to renew it to get updates - renewal prices vary wildly depending on when you renew, and how many years you purchase.

---

That's like saying nuclear warfare is the same as conventional warfare but without the nukes.

[OneOfTheDans]

---

That's like saying nuclear warfare is the same as conventional warfare but without the nukes.

---

🤣

In all seriousness though, there's value in breaking a problem into its parts. It's unlikely NI is going to overhaul the licensing structure again any time soon, but they might be able to tweak it to address any pinpointed complaints.

[EricR]

@OneOfTheDans 

I'm glad that some of the changes have helped to simplify NI's software options. Thanks for sharing that feedback.

One of the largest, most consistent feedback we get is that we have too many options for our products in general.  It is difficult to figure out what you need to buy, unless you have already successfully purchased it before.  You will see us take many actions to make it easier to figure out what to buy.  In some cases, this will be combining multiple similar options into a single option, in some cases we will eliminate options that weren't popular or weren't satisfactory to the people who were using them.

If anyone has any suggestions for ways we can make it easier to find the products you need, and make it obvious that you have found the right options, please let us know.  The more specific the suggestion, the easier it is to take action on it.

[EricR]

We are absolutely looking for ways to identify and address gaps and problems.  I'll be posting again in the near future related to this.  Thanks to everyone for the continued engagement.

[EricR]

I'm confused about this post.  NI introduced the LabVIEW Community Edition specifically for the "tinkerers" back in 2018.  Why is that not a successful on-ramp for anyone looking to explore with LabVIEW right now?

Also, NI is also experimenting with other "exploration" options so we will likely be able to talk about multiple options in the future here but I want to make sure I understand what gap the Community Edition has, based on this thread.

[OneOfTheDans]

---

@EricR wrote:

NI introduced the LabVIEW Community Edition specifically for the "tinkerers" back in 2018.  Why is that not a successful on-ramp for anyone looking to explore with LabVIEW right now?

---

As I read it, the Community Edition is for personal/home/open-source use only. It cannot be used for commercial purposes. I agree it's useful for tinkering & learning LabVIEW on the side. The gap is for engineers that are new to LabVIEW and want to tinker/develop code at work.

For example, a full-time LabVIEW developer with a subscription (or SSP) creates and typically supports large programs for his department. Over the years, various non-developer engineers want to try their hand at LabVIEW for a month by adding a new feature into that large program. This is commercial, so the Community Edition cannot be used. This is development, so Debug and Deployment cannot be used.

• With the old model, the non-developer could use an old license we had lying around that was already paid for - it was essentially free.
• With the new model, we need to either buy a subscription for the non-developer, or pay annually to keep a hot-spare license in case somebody wants to use it to learn LabVIEW. It's just enough cost & bureaucracy that we usually decide it's not worth the hassle, since the full-time developer can make the changes much faster anyway. Rinse & repeat; nobody learns or gets exposed to LabVIEW.

I suppose in theory that's what the 14 (30?) day trial is for, but I've never worked somewhere that people sit down to start a project and can commit the full 2 weeks. They'll spend a week installing LabVIEW, setting up Git/SVN, dealing with dependencies, then get pulled back into their normal work. A month later they pick up LabVIEW again and the trial is expired. Fair enough; you can't give indefinite trials. But this is why I think the new licensing model eliminates the on-ramp to LabVIEW.

[EricR]

I did not clarify something that I think is important in this thread.  I also noticed that the NI website also doesn't call this point out so I'm modifying the website and I'll point to the page where the change will be called out.

Starting with the LabVIEW 2022 Q3 release, that NI just released a few weeks ago, we combined the debug/deployment licenses for LabVIEW, RT, FPGA, and DSC into a single deployment license. This aligns better with the move to subscription and simplifies the purchasing options.  Instead of needing multiple licenses (depending on the technology used in your application) there is just a single debug and deployment license for LabVIEW (in most scenarios). 

The following information is part of the "Select Edition" page for LabVIEW. 

https://www.ni.com/en-us/shop/labview/select-edition.html#debug-and-deployment

The following phrase will be shortly added to the description for that page:  "Starting with the LabVIEW 2022 Q3 release, the debug and deployment license activates your edition of LabVIEW, all LabVIEW toolkits, and the LabVIEW RT, FPGA, and DSC modules."

[EricR]

Thanks for that description.

Currently, LabVIEW can be installed and used for 45 days as a "trial".  We are currently experimenting with other timeframes/on-ramps.

Based on your description, would it work better if the "timing" was something like "45 days of usage", and it didn't count time not being used?  I think its reasonable that there has to be a limit but we all agree that having the "try before you buy" concept its important.  I don't perceive this issue as having anything to do with subscription.  If anything, the lower "buy" price point of a subscription vs perpetual license makes it much more likely for someone who isn't using LabVIEW today to decide that they can afford to just buy the 1-year subscription to "try" it with.  Regardless, this "trial window" existed with the perpetual licenses and NI got feedback that the trial time wasn't enough to make a decision due to similar scenarios to the one you described.  I am willing and able to play with the options around those trials to find a scenario that works better for more people.

[Kevin_Price]

Re: LV Community Edition, tinkering, and the on-ramp

Just speaking from my own experience, the Venn diagram between what I could do at home on CE and what I *needed* to do at work wouldn't have had much overlap.  The kinds of tinkering I did for several years while gradually learning to "think LabVIEW" was entirely about work-related projects that used a combo of data acq devices, instrument communications, and proprietary internal stuff located in the workplace.  None of those things would be available to me at home, on my own time with Community Edition.

As a tinkerer, LabVIEW was merely a means to an end, not something I had an intrinsic interest to learn.  In the work environment, it proved to be a very good means to the needed end.  But at home with CE, I wouldn't be allowed to work directly on my workplace projects.  And I couldn't tinker with closely related general things unless I spent $1000's on my own X-series board, a couple industrial-grade instruments, etc.

I see CE's support for LINX and Raspberry Pi as a good thing in this regard, but I don't really have the experience with it myself to comment further.   Here's a brief observation though: no data, just an impression, but it doesn't *seem* like there's a major influx of newer forum members making any mention of CE.  I can't speculate why, and it might be a me problem with not noticing, but I just haven't been seeing a whole lot of folks "getting on board" with LabVIEW that way.

I would suspect that the incentive for someone to self-teach at home with CE would largely rest on the future value of developing those LabVIEW skills.  And so far I remain persuaded that the value is moving in the wrong direction now with the mandatory annual cost of subscriptions.  To an employer, you're worth committing to an annual subscription cost if:

A. you're already pretty effective with LabVIEW *and*

B. the employer needs you to spend a decent %age of your work time using it.

A lot of businesses won't meet criteria "B", which I think erodes the value of having the beginner-level or even modest LabVIEW skills that most home CE tinkerers might aspire to.

-Kevin P