LabVIEW subscription model for 2022

[Jay14159265]

I have only worked for one company that said, "we use labVIEW here" ever other place I have worked, I have been the one that introduced labVIEW into the lab, and it's not always an easy sell. In the past, when management has said; "why don't you use python or whatever, it's free!" I can always counter with speed and capabilities of LabVIEW but that all goes out the window when I now have to say that the only option is a subscription and everything breaks if you don't pay it. I feel like LabVIEW always has a big hill to climb when put up against other general purpose programming languages when there is no NI hardware involved and I think the new subscriptions are making that hill even steeper. Why would you ever use labVIEW if you were not using NI hardware when you could use python for free? On top of that there are literally millions of developers out there that already know python at some level?

I wish NI would make the barrier for entry into LabVIEW so low that it is a no brainer for managers (ie: low cost, no subscription). Well that was my rant. How do others feel about the subscription model? 

 

[RTSLVU]

IKR, I believe we will freeze on LabVIEW 2021

It was hard enough to get my company to pay for the SSP, now it's going to cost even more per year just to use it?

Trust me, 30 years with this company and it always comes down to money. NI will lose this battle here and probably at many other companies.

[crossrulz]

If you really want some black pills: NI's New Software Subscription Model on LAVA

[Jay14159265]

Yes, I too will freeze my personal licence at 2021 as I imagine many people will.  I enjoy writing code in LabVIEW but I don't think I will recommend it any more for new projects. It's too bad. I feel like in some sick way ni is recently trying to kill off labview (NXG) or doing their damndest to make sure it is not a mainstream programming language. 

[JimB.]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

It was hard enough to get my company to pay for the SSP, now it's going to cost even more per year just to use it?

---

This is where I think they have messed up pretty badly. Most software that has gone the SaaS route that I can think of has gotten less expensive than before to keep on the latest version. At worst about break even. These subscription prices being much higher than SSP renewals is a slap in the face.

---

@Jay14159265 wrote:

I wish NI would make the barrier for entry into LabVIEW so low that it is a no brainer for managers (ie: low cost, no subscription). Well that was my rant. How do others feel about the subscription model? 

 

I don't mind the subscription model, but the cost is definitely too high.

If the subscription prices were about equal to what the SSP renewals were, I'd probably just shrug it off. We paid every year, so it really wouldn't be that big a difference, and maybe removing the big initial cost would attract more customers.

This? We won't be due for renewal again until November... trying not to get to aggravated until then.

I usually believe Hanlon's razor to be the case, but sometimes it gets pretty tempting to join the chorus of folks saying that they are literally trying to push people away from this product.

[pawhan11]

Subscription is ok but prices are overkill,  paying more than 2k eur for 1 proffesional seat to do desktop programming makes no sense when one can buy Visual Studio , Rider or many others for 500 eur max. Convincing any management to invest in this will be almost impossible.

[Jay14159265]

---

@pawhan11 wrote:

Subscription is ok but prices are overkill,  paying more than 2k eur for 1 proffesional seat to do desktop programming makes no sense when one can buy Visual Studio , Rider or many others for 500 eur max. Convincing any management to invest in this will be almost impossible.

---

I 100% agree, We also use IntelliJ IDEs where I work and pay the $200 a year subscription (which comes with a perpetual licence when you stop paying). We currently have 2 seats of LabVIEW professional so that would be ~4k a year. The software that we are re-factoring was alive for ~25 years (Visual Basic) so not unreasonable to get another 20 years before another major re-factor so that's $80k for an IDE, which does not sound that bad until you hold it up to other options. For the python route it would be $4k (or even less since you get the perpetual licence or can use VS code for free) And that is a huge difference. 

[Jay14159265]

---

@JimB. wrote:

I usually believe Hanlon's razor to be the case, but sometimes it gets pretty tempting to join the chorus of folks saying that they are literally trying to push people away from this product.

---

So before LabVIEW went to SaaS, what I thought I was paying for each year was; new features, and some guarantee that the compiler would make code that ran (and was hopefully optimized) for the latest version of windows and linux. Now what am I paying more money for each year? Just to keep LabVIEW alive? I guess we will see what amazing innovation LabVIEW 2022 and 2023 brings now that everyone has to pay to play. 

[MrMattPayne · Accepted solution]

---

@Jay14159265 wrote:

I have only worked for one company that said, "we use labVIEW here" ever other place I have worked, I have been the one that introduced labVIEW into the lab, and it's not always an easy sell.

 

---

As a young (experience-wise) programmer, this is further pushing me to increase my proficiency in other languages as I don't see LabVIEW as a big part of my future, if at all. Where I work currently has already fallen out of love with LabVIEW and is much more interested in doing everything through Allen-Bradley (ironically, especially in this context), and I think this move by NI decreases the odds of my next company using LabVIEW. Places where it's already dug in, sure, they'll have to keep paying, but like you point out, how am I supposed to sell my best skill when it's tied to a subscription that if they decide to stop paying, whatever was produced with it is wholly unsupported? Not that that's not often the case and I'm sure a lot of companies won't care because the numbers can work out, but as an individual I just don't like having my skill attached to this kind of deal.

It's not like I wasn't already an NI sales rep by being a LabVIEW programmer, but the deal seemed fairer with a perpetual license available. It's a philosophical position and rooted in the past where you bought a CD in a box, but I really feel like that sort of arrangement made it a lot easier for someone to try something new. I feel like this move is going to drive LabVIEW to become even more niche than it already is and shifts the deal from more value for the customer to more value for NI. That almost seems silly to point out because of course, why else would everything be going this route? To make less money? Yeah, that's what Microsoft has been doing, right.

I really enjoy programming in LabVIEW and am really happy with and proud of the programs I've made with it, but this is making it clear that if I want to continue to be a programmer in the world I can't depend on my LabVIEW skills to impress. I also really hope Community Edition stays alive because I've also enjoyed doing little projects at home with their cheap hardware and if that breaks, yeah I'm gonna be mad!

[alexderjuengere]

could it be, that a subscription model is more safe against software piracy?

I don't know, if thats a major concern for LabView...

---

I really enjoy programming in LabVIEW and am really happy with and proud of the programs I've made with it, but this is making it clear that if I want to continue to be a programmer in the world I can't depend on my LabVIEW skills to impress. I also really hope Community Edition stays alive because I've also enjoyed doing little projects at home with their cheap hardware and if that breaks, yeah I'm gonna be mad!

---

dito