LabVIEW subscription model for 2022

[EricR]

I agree with the other replies already here.

Technically, the Debug/Deployment license for LabVIEW lets you do anything you can do with the LabVIEW editor.  Its role is to allow you to make "real-time" edits on a production floor if something goes wrong, to minimize the downtime of that system.  Those licenses aren't meant to do "development" work, but to debug a problem and fix it immediately.  So while you need access to the same tools in order to fix an issue, you aren't using that computer as your actual development machine and you won't use the editor in the same way that you do for development tasks.

From a legal standpoint (what is in the EULA), the DEVELOPMENT license is meant when you are primarily developing new test applications or new versions of existing applications.  Its for when you work is "primarily development".  The DEBUG/DEPLOYMENT licenses (when needed) are for debugging applications or deploying applications when specific NI IP is included in your deployed applications.  It is for when that computer is mostly being used for production scenarios and your primary task for using that license is DEBUGGING or RUNNING an existing application.

Deployment doesn't always require a license.  LabVIEW is a programming language so most things you build in LabVIEW are YOUR IP, so the LabVIEW deployment license is free (its the LabVIEW RTE which doesn't have any activation included in it).  In some scenarios, like with NI VISION products, there is a relatively large amount of NI IP being deployed with NI VISION so there is a deployment license, but its still small compared to the development system.

[EricR]

Kevin,

I did send the message out last night but I didn't see a reply yet today.  I'll go look in the Outlook filters to make sure a reply didn't get eaten by the sometimes-overly-aggressive filters.

Eric

[EricR]

Kevin,

Strike that last statement.  I found your email and I'll reply.  Thank you.

[CyGa]

Hi,

Working for an NI partner, this doesn't change much for us 

But for our customers it changes a lot.

Not only about the price but also about the image it gives. They feel trapped with an annual subscription even before starting a project.

Often projects are thousands of dollars, but if you want to keep developing it you'll have to pay more and more each year (even sticking to a specific version of the IDEs).

Many of our customers have budget based on projects. So this budget is not renewed every year... It makes it complicated to provision money for annual subscription.

I also get about universities and labs. These entities won't have the money to pay each year for the development licences. They will go with less expensive (free?) solutions. Which means that students will become less and less familiar with NI SW solutions.

Finding LabVIEW is already hard today. It will become harder since students wouldn't even be aware of it.

To summarize, the annual subscription model might be ok. But the image it gives isn't good.

Moreover, it was announced late and we (partners) found out almost at the same time as our customers.

And when I see this thread, it looks like Eric is preparing a document to explain the reasons : we're in March, annual subscription are a reality since January. Isn't that something string in some way?

[WavePacket]

---

@EricR wrote:

... I would like for you all to continue posting your concerns here.  Many of them have sparked some good debate with me and my colleagues.  I think a healthy amount of debate is always good, especially when a company has introduced change elements into an ecosystem, as NI has done in this case.

---

Thanks for your engagement. I'd appreciate your comments on your views regarding the affect the subscription model will have on smaller businesses and startups.

(Such businesses frequently spring out of academic labs, and academic labs seem poised to push towards esp. python with both the subscription model and fee increases. The subscription policy has affected my internal calculations as a new LV programmer to invest my time in NIs training -- I'm considering whether to invest those marginal hours rather in .net or python. My employer uses LV, .net, and some python. LV had become a professional development for me, but I'm concerned it's moving to much into a niche category to be the most productive way forward in my professional development.)

[Neil.Pate]

I think the problem is that there appear to be very few benefits (like literally none that I can think of) to us end users. NI has not managed to convey a single compelling reason why this is a good thing for us. Progress in LabVIEW has stalled for the better part of a decade. Nothing we see coming out of NI makes us think this is about to change any time soon.

I love LabVIEW dis-proportionally, and have based my entire career off of it and want nothing more than it to succeed. But unfortunately, like Kevin, I am now telling the junior devs I meet who are about to set their path for their whole career that LabVIEW is probably the wrong horse to bet on.

[WavePacket]

---

@Neil.Pate wrote:

...

I love LabVIEW dis-proportionally, and have based my entire career off of it and want nothing more than it to succeed. But unfortunately, like Kevin, I am now telling the junior devs I meet who are about to set their path for their whole career that LabVIEW is probably the wrong horse to bet on.

---

As a new dev., I feel the weight of this comment...

[pante]

I just saw that!

Terrible news.

For me, like many others, this will be the end of LabVIEW !

Pity... a very nice programming language

[CyGa]

Many typos in my previous post and I cannot delete it, here is the corrected version

-----------------

Hi,

Working for an NI partner, this doesn't change much for us.

But for our customers it changes a lot !

It is not only about the price but also about the image it gives.

They feel trapped with an annual subscription even before starting a project.

Often projects cost several tens of thousands of dollars, and if you want to keep developing it you'll have to pay more and more each year (even sticking to a specific version of the IDEs).

Many of our customers have budget based on projects. So this budget is not renewed every year... It makes it complicated to provision money for annual subscription. Morevover they feel trapped because if they do not renew, they have a bunch of VI files that cannot be opened by anything else than LabVIEW ! If you think about text-langages a simple notepad editor let you at least see the code.

I also get worried about universities and labs. These entities won't have the money to pay each year for the (costly) development licences. They will go with less expensive (free?) or perpetual licensing solutions that will allow them to develop several years without additional cost. Which means that students will become less and less familiar with NI SW solutions.

When you start a new job, often you go with the solutions you know. The ones you've been trained with...

Finding LabVIEW developers is already hard today. It will become harder in the future since students wouldn't even be aware of it.

To summarize, the annual subscription model might be ok. But the image it gives isn't good.

Moreover, it was announced late and we (partners) found out almost at the same time as our customers. So it is pretty hard for us to reinsure our customers and make them confident that they should invest on NI solution.

And when I read this thread, it looks like Eric is preparing a document to explain the reasons behind that change and what it really means : we're in March, annual subscription are a reality since January. Isn't that something wrong in some way? Doesn't come too late ?

To me it is also a sign on how NI is treating their partners. They already modified the way they distribute their HW (cutting some profits to partners). They are now modifying the way the IDEs are sold without preparing them for that.

That's a lot of signs that NI is not going the good way for us all. Are they shooting a bullet in their feet doing this ? Future will tell us I guess.

But for me it is time to train on other technologies (SW/HW platforms) in case the market driven by NI technologies finally collapses...

[Taggart]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:
So you could no longer even *examine* your code, let alone modify it.

-Kevin P

---

Makes it real easy to port it to some other language.

"But we're not trying to lock people in."

If that is the case NI ought to at least throw people a bone and provide a free reader.