LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

NI's move to subscription software

My two cents:

 

I think all the points make really good sense, but they are aimed at the big enterprises. These are already on the subscription (Volume License) and prefer this way -> what is for you predictable revenue is the predictable cost for them. 
Even for the new enterprise customers, this is a suitable approach - If they need a certain number of seats, they would anyway go for the Volume License program.
I assume that's the reason, we don't see many Boeing, Analog Devices, NXP, Valeo engineers rally here and share our concerns. (or at least not as company representatives, but rather worried individuals).

But engineers and software developers sharing their concerns here are in majority small business owners, researchers, and developers in small companies. More importantly, if you check the gcentral or vipm repositories, you'll quickly find out that these are 9 out of 10 people, who are spending their (free) time developing new tools, trying to bring the community together, and in general spread the holy writings about LabVIEW. Those engineers make a bigger promotion for LabVIEW (and subsequently NI) than any marketing campaign. 
And now NI puts those enthusiasts into the position, where they write 17 pages long thread saying this is NOT a good way. 

My suggestion is as many already said, implement a similar model as Microsoft with Visual Studio:
Compare Visual Studio 2022 Editions
Keep the new subscription model, but:

  • If it's for an individual user, small team <5 people, and/or <1M revenue => don't ask for the money. These engineers generate revenue for you in almost every project they make, as they will recommend the usage of NI products in the systems.
  • Ask big bucks from big players, which won't blink an eye, as they had a similar model already.

 

_______________________________________________________________

-Patrik
CLA || CTA
If it helps - Kudo it, if it answers - Mark As Solution
Message 11 of 58
(1,481 Views)

I don't really understand NI.

It is almost 2 months from the first post and they are still not listening.

A company must be flexible and have good reflexes to survive.

Just think how many money they have lose, in the long term, as every new engineer, reads those posts.

It is surely a 7 digit number (i say again, in the long term)

 

If we, who love LabVIEW, speak like this, what is the future...?

 

I will repeat here my proposal: LabVIEW could be easily gain a place in the 10 top, most popular languages, if they offer perpetual license of an old Pro version (6-7 years old, with no support from NI), in a really low price. NI would have only profit from that. And as more people would use LabVIEW, this would start a "chain reaction"

 

 

 

Message 12 of 58
(1,474 Views)

@EricR wrote:

 

They create an ongoing dialog and relationship between a company and its users. This allows the company to better understand how its products deliver long-term recurring value to its users. When our products are built better, it enables you to do your job better, and you, your company, and your customers all benefit.

The ongoing dialog (over 200 messages over several different threads) from large parts of this community, including some of it's most senior members, is "No.".

Plenty of material for the company to better understand it's community.

Message 13 of 58
(1,447 Views)
@EricR wrote:

 

Subscription models at their core, do three things, all of which are important to NI and the people using our products.

  1. They lower the price-barrier to entry because they shift the profitability from a "all or nothing" approach to a "pay as you go". This makes it easier to acquire new seats and lowers barriers to entry. Yes, ongoing costs are higher than with SSP, but they are controllable ongoing expenses instead of a large upfront cost. This is important to a lot of companies, especially during and coming out of COVID where companies costing models experienced big shifts from capital expenses to operating expenses.

I'm going to wade in with some observations of my own

  1. If these benefits to customers are true as presented, then surely offering both perpetual and service-based licenses openly and transparently will cause most customers to voluntarily move over to subscription-based payment as opposed to being forced to. The customers who are having major problems with the subscription model will then be free to stay on the perpetual license model NI has had for decades. Leverage exists on NI's side to influence adoption through their conditions of sale, including differences in pricing between the different options. This way, the customer sees an additional option, and if it's better for them as NI tells us in the message, they will surely switch of their own free will. Sure, it's not so "free" is NI is in control of the pricing, but people (and engineers are people too, believe it or not) do react better to the illusion of free will than the clear absence of it. Human Psychology 101.

My proposal: as I mentioned in 1. above, if NI truly believes what is written here, then give customers the option of perpetual licenses or subscription licenses, just like many other companies do. NI still alludes to perpetual licenses on the Website, just not with pricing. If these licenses are going to exist anyway, be open and transparent about it and give the customers an informed choice. Even a price increase would be annoying for many, but it would create a lot less backlash from established users than a simultaneous reduction in freedom coupled with a price increase being sold as "lowering costs" and "important to a lot of companies" while customers are simultaneously telling you they don't want it.

Message 14 of 58
(1,423 Views)

@Ajskrim wrote:

...


My suggestion is as many already said, implement a similar model as Microsoft with Visual Studio:
Compare Visual Studio 2022 Editions
Keep the new subscription model, but:

  • If it's for an individual user, small team <5 people, and/or <1M revenue => don't ask for the money. These engineers generate revenue for you in almost every project they make, as they will recommend the usage of NI products in the systems.
  • Ask big bucks from big players, which won't blink an eye, as they had a similar model already.

 


+1

0 Kudos
Message 15 of 58
(1,362 Views)

For small teams i think it's ok to have small fees, but even the current one was debated heavily in my company.

12k€ for professional version and then 2k SSP each following year (started at 1400€ and rose to 2000€ in 2 years) for **bleep** all support (i have to specify this was over distributor, not NI directly, i've never used direct NI support) and one update a year is a bit much.

0 Kudos
Message 16 of 58
(1,358 Views)

Bert,

 

Its a one stop shop for the Debug (and deployment) licenses:  https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/documentation/supplemental/09/deployment-and-debug-licenses-for-ni-...

 

That page has been there a long time.

 

We are also working to add them directly to the individual product pages to make them easier to find.

Eric Reffett | Director, Product Management | 1.512.683.5858 | ni.com
0 Kudos
Message 17 of 58
(1,318 Views)

@EricR wrote:
Moved to another board

Bad idea Eric! Now MY input is unimportant?  Or should I move this to the round table and petition to allow you temporary access?


"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
0 Kudos
Message 18 of 58
(1,276 Views)

@EricR wrote:
Moved to another board

Let the voices be silent, we do what we want and care not for your petty concerns. Be gone now but don't forget to pay your subscriptions. 

0 Kudos
Message 19 of 58
(1,259 Views)

I'm going to ask Intaris to reply here.  This was moved at his request.  He posted to the wrong forum. 

Eric Reffett | Director, Product Management | 1.512.683.5858 | ni.com
0 Kudos
Message 20 of 58
(1,250 Views)