LabVIEW subscription model for 2022

[CyGa]

I’ve heard of dozens of similar cases with Vision Builder for AI.

It shows that the problem doesn't concern only Vision Builder.

The limit between what is considered programming VS debugging VS operating is somehow tight. And the new licensing model really traps users and developpers, whatever the solution used (Vision Builder, VeriStand, FlexLogger, ...).

[Gribo]

This is one of the reasons I avoided IMAQ and NI-Vision and use OpenCV. My customers won't appreciate SW subscription charges with 0 value added.

[EricR]

Yes.  I just published a public version of roadmap from the LabVIEW Product Managers.  You can find a PDF version here:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/LabVIEW-Roadmap-2022/td-p/4218319

[Kevin_Price]

Earlier in this thread, Eric R from NI reached out to request a conversation with me about my perspective on the subscription model.   That conversation *did* happen and was cordial.  I respect that the interaction was private so I won't attempt to characterize his side of it here.   (For the record, it happened a while back, I just hadn't found/taken time to write this msg yet.)

But I will say this:  I sensed a sincere desire to listen to and understand the backlash that I and many others here have been expressing.  And since the notion of "silencing dissent" was raised in one of these subscription threads, and since my recently-added and fairly provocative signature *was* discussed a bit, I'll also add this: I felt that the thoughts I was trying to express in that signature were respected as-is, without pressure to change it or adhere to any kind of party line.  That said, I will be modifying my signature a bit because the conversation also revealed that it can reasonably be interpreted more strongly than what my real thoughts are.

I *don't* feel like the subscription model should turn me into a "catcher in the rye", desperately trying to prevent anyone and everyone from becoming a new adopter of LabVIEW.  But, as it stands today, I *do* think that the subscription model should give serious pause to those new adopters.

Reporting on only *my* side of the interaction with Eric R from NI, I think especially of my own LabVIEW journey and those who might nowadays be set up for a potentially similar one.

I spent several years as a LabVIEW "dabbler & tinkerer".  It was a pretty small part of my job responsibilities, and I mainly learned to do various data acq things as a matter of "self-defense".  No one else around me already knew how to command stepper motors while capturing motion dynamics from encoders, so I learned enough to do it myself.  And then many months might go by before the next time I needed to deal with LabVIEW and NI data acq hardware.

It took me a pretty long time before I really "thought LabVIEW" first.  The vast majority of that time, I was not particularly productive with it.  My output couldn't really have justified a costly investment in LabVIEW licensing.   Fortunately, way back then, LabVIEW's cost was modest enough that it didn't really *demand* any great expertise to be worthwhile.  An ongoing annual-cost subscription model, IMO, *does* tend to demand more expertise to be worthwhile.

So one of my key complaints is that I think the subscription model, as we know it today, will damage & maybe largely destroy LabVIEW's "on-ramp".   I personally wouldn't have been worth a subscription investment until many years into my LabVIEW dabbling.  If subscription had been policy back then, I doubt I'd have been involved in LabVIEW or other NI stuff for most of the last couple decades.  I'd have changed course early on and focused on developing *other* skills.

I know some people take to LabVIEW like ducks to water.  For those people, it kinda doesn't matter whether licensing is permanent or subscription-based.  It'll just be worth it either way.  But that's not where I come from.  I gravitated toward LabVIEW gradually and slowly over the course of quite a few years before I decided to commit to making it a chosen skill and specialization.  It's my opinion that the subscription model would largely weed out those who are more-or-less like me *before* we have the chance to become proficient.   And I think there's probably quite a lot of us folks who are kinda like me enough to get weeded out.

And that's a pretty big part of my objection and complaint.

The subscription model makes me less inclined to steer new adopters *toward* LabVIEW.   For those like me, who mainly dabble and tinker initially, it'd be awfully costly to subscribe for several years before gaining the level of proficiency needed to make a *good* decision about whether to stick with LabVIEW or abandon it.

   But I also wouldn't be inclined to actively steer folks *away* from LabVIEW if they're already gravitating toward it.  If they have the inclination to pursue expertise with it, well, those users are a much better bet to be worth the price of continued licensing costs.

   Another consideration in whether or not to "steer" someone is my expectation that the subscription model would tend to "weed out" the occasional LabVIEW users, leaving it mostly for dedicated specialists.  So as far as career planning might go, modest LabVIEW skills may not hold much value in the long run.  Either be prepared to specialize enough to get really good or drop out and do something else.

Enough for now, time to go tweak my signature a bit.

-Kevin P

[WavePacket]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:

...

So one of my key complaints is that I think the subscription model, as we know it today, will damage & maybe largely destroy LabVIEW's "on-ramp".   I personally wouldn't have been worth a subscription investment until many years into my LabVIEW dabbling.  If subscription had been policy back then, I doubt I'd have been involved in LabVIEW or other NI stuff for most of the last couple decades.  I'd have changed course early on and focused on developing *other* skills.

...

-Kevin P

---

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy reply. This damage to the on-ramp is precisely why I've been forced to mix in other languages as a skillset diversification. I am not sure what my current employer will do when reup time comes for our SSP, but personally I don't feel that I can afford to be "just" a LV guy anymore.

Microsoft with visual studio community and professional editions nailed both licensing terms.

Thanks,

-wavepacket

[dpak27]

I am done with LabView for good, not going to recommend it for any new projects. 

[danny_t]

I just wanted to ask if I had missed anything else from NI other than EricR's ( https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/NI-s-move-to-subscription-software/td-p/4215663?profile.language=en ) regarding the numerous concerns raised by the community regarding this issue ?

It amazing that at my age I can still be so naive as to hope for some form of reaching our from Company to its unhappy users 😞

I am fully updated to LabVIEW 2021SP1 now and that is where I shall stay come mid April when my current SSP runs out, deeply saddens me that this is the case.

[pawhan11]

We have cancelled our VLA and will use perpetual licenses moving forward. It seems that after vla expires we can no longer download old installers and will have to download all that we might need in the future to external drive... 🙂 

[WavePacket]

---

@danny_t wrote:

I just wanted to ask if I had missed anything else from NI other than EricR's ( https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/NI-s-move-to-subscription-software/td-p/4215663?profile.language=en ) regarding the numerous concerns raised by the community regarding this issue ?

It amazing that at my age I can still be so naive as to hope for some form of reaching our from Company to its unhappy users 😞

I am fully updated to LabVIEW 2021SP1 now and that is where I shall stay come mid April when my current SSP runs out, deeply saddens me that this is the case.

---

I'm not aware of anything more, and I've mentioned my feelings before as a newer engineer. It's quite disheartening that NI hasn't really chosen to reply to the real issues brought up here (In my view, mainly being no perpetual license coupled with price hike). I'd be very happy if they choose to alter course...If they don't, my guess is that they are simply making a business decision that they have leverage to increase the profits required from their consumers. It's up to the consumers to then make their business counterdecision. 

I'm worried that NI doesn't have the leverage against .net & python that it thinks it does. Coworkers of mine already viewed NI as expensive for what it brought, and I do not think they are aware yet of this change of policy yet. My company also reviews risk of suppliers independent of cost, and no perpetual license will certainly increase the risk of continuing with NI.

In this thread, even the loyalists are up in arm. I have to imagine the non-enthusiasts are even more skeptical.

[Eric1977]

Kevin,

I agree with others on thanking you with your lengthy post..

For myself, I am just a self-taught programmer who relies on LabVIEW for some projects, as well as Python, Office VBA, and have dabbled into the .NET world of VB.NET and C#.NET. And now we're looking at software robots like UIPath to move data so we can get jobs done faster without a body doing the work. So, for me, LabVIEW isn't something that I have gone "all in" on.

With costs rising EVERYWHERE for EVERYTHING, my company has had to look at costs from every angle and we're a fairly large company across the USA. I've had an increasingly hard time trying to just justify the cost and, now, with the switch to subscription based licenses, which most software companies have adopted, and to which appear to cost more, I just can't see justification anymore with the price they are asking.

I am most likely looking at Visual Studio with the .NET Framework/Core going forward. I can do the same things that LabVIEW can do (if not more) at half the cost along with my company being heavily invested into the Microsoft products like Office 365, Teams, SharePoint, etc.

Long story short, I can't justify the cost.