LabVIEW
LabVIEW subscription model for 2022
Solved!
@WavePacket wrote:
One thing that has struck me (as a newcomer) is that all of "senior devs" that I know who have been involved deeply in LV for many years on this forum are all pretty united in their concerns. Those optics alone make me concerned.
Yeah I had a signature on the forums for a while that said something like "If 10 out of 10 experts agree on something, they are probably right." And it came from a thread on the forums where several CLAs couldn't agree on the right way to do something. And to be fair that is because there are many good ways to do the same thing. But if a group of experts who enjoy arguing nuance, all agree on something? You better listen. To that point I don't hear any supporting this change that aren't NI.
@Terry_ALE wrote:
@pawhan11 wrote:
The biggest problem in this model is that if I stop paying my code is useless since all Vis are binary.
If only in could provide limited free of charge 'minimal' LabVIEW experience for commercial use so people don't end up with useless binary files. Something like notepad++ for textual languages.
Money still could be made on advanced features like debugging, quick drop, code refactorings, libraries.. not to mention FPGA and RT module.
I agree that a free viewer is important.
Yes. Otherwise, if you inherit an old LabVIEW project and want to convert it to Python or something else, you have to pay for the privilege.
To play devil's advocate (since I love to argue ;)) I could see this being a positive if:
1- NI released a free code viewer, and 2- NI dropped the subscription price to something much more inline with industry standards. I'd like them to continue offering permanent licenses, but if they could get their messaging more clear with the deploy/debug license then I could concede that point.
I will admit I didn't like subscription-only software plans for a long time, but I've warmed up to it a bit. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It seems to me that lots of subscription-only software companies release features continually at a reasonable pace, rather than trying to bundle them up for annual releases to try to sell new seats each year. It makes for a much smoother experience. (Specifically I'm referring to Autodesk's Fusion 360).
What I do dislike is extremely expensive subscription pricing and NI's HARD focus on bundling a bunch of stuff I don't need. They should clarify you can get JUST LabVIEW for cheaper than the $2,000 cost of the "Test Workflow Standard" bundle. I do not want or need Flexlogger for the type of work I do, and I suspect many others are the same. You really have to dig to see that Flexlogger and DIAdem are costing you $336 a year extra. Again this doesn't affect me, because I'm already on a software lease plan, but the cost still seems very high and it'd be hard for me to recommend it to a new user.
Plus, you can get LabVIEW Base for $528 a year. When I go to NI's website now, I have to dig around to find their pricing and it looks like my cheapest option is $2000 for Test Workflow. That's going to turn people off and feels like a car salesmen trying to bundle things I don't need at the last minute.
@BertMcMahan wrote:
To play devil's advocate (since I love to argue ;)) I could see this being a positive if:
1- NI released a free code viewer, and 2- NI dropped the subscription price to something much more inline with industry standards. I'd like them to continue offering permanent licenses, but if they could get their messaging more clear with the deploy/debug license then I could concede that point.
A free code viewer and an affordable monthly subscription would go a long way to show that NI actually cares about their customers and isn't just out to grab more money. It would reassure a lot of their customers that you aren't locked into a long-term subscription. If you need to make a few tweaks you can just pay for a month or two. And if you decide to move to some other language, you're not locked in. You can do it without sending NI a bunch of money.
Now those conditions would actually force NI into investing in LabVIEW, because then people actually would have a realistic alternative to just perpetually paying NI. If NI just stopped investing in LabVIEW people could more easily leave (not completely painless, but possible without sending NI a large chunk of money). As is, leaving the NI ecosystem is a very expensive proposal and NI saying people could just leave is disingenuous at best.
