LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

NI's move to subscription software


@EricR wrote:

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.


I know that list is there. It's not at all what I meant though. I can't see prices there, and if I type in that part number to the quote generator it says I can't buy it online. I have no idea how much it costs to do a debug/deploy license nor do I know how to order or implement one.

Message 21 of 58
(1,668 Views)

Yes. Guys, calm down.

 

One post I made earlier was not meant for this forum. It contained a previous post from a restricted Forum, and it was only when someone replied to it that I realised my mistake. For those of us with access to that restricted forum, the post is there.

 

This was my mistake, not Eric's or NIs. Blame me.

0 Kudos
Message 22 of 58
(1,652 Views)

Bert,

 

You are correct.  I'm working on fixing that. 

 

Eric Reffett | Director, Product Management | 1.512.683.5858 | ni.com
0 Kudos
Message 23 of 58
(1,653 Views)

@Jay14159265 wrote:

@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. 


Not so. Don't get me wrong, I understand the situation. But there was some things in my post which were from a restricted forum, and I had no right posting that here. My only issue with the way it was handled is that it a) took me too long to realise my mistake and I couldn't edit my post any more and b) it took NI some hours to delete it.

 

As soon as I realised my mistake, I flagged the moderators to remove it, but things take time.

 

I contacted NI and Eric directly to remove it, I was not asked to do so.

 

To paraphrase so that the general context may be preserved:

 

I was simply pointing out that the current heated situation we find ourselves in seems to be the logical consequence of many years of a gradual shift in NI's focus. I had been pointing this out for many years, and my cross-post of a very critical message from 2017 (which again contained some info not designated for this forum) was supposed to highlight that this phenomenon is not new. It may be becoming larger, but it's not new. So I am, and have been for some time, a critical voice, but I'm very much in favour of getting things fixed. It's hard to keep calm and focus on solutions when we feel we're not being heard, but it's also not going to help if we lose our cool.

 

On the other hand, it's also important to offer the counter position. That we (the users) have been mentioning these issues for some time, yet it hasn't (to the outsider looking in) had much impact, if any at all. And this is coming from someone who has never held back from offering their honest opinion. Direct and unsweetened. This is, I believe, part of the problem we are finding ourselves in here. And it's a big problem. For those of us with significant reliance on LabVIEW, it's starting to feel like an existential problem. It needs to be taken seriously, not only by us, but also by NI. There are some who have reservations as to whether NI recognises the seriousness of the situation. For some of us who have gone through product cycles like this in the past, the signs seem ominous, and we really want to avoid what seems to be the further logical consequences of that.

 

I have been vocal enough on my position through the years, and somehow, I'm still not being silenced.

Message 24 of 58
(1,649 Views)

@Intaris wrote:

I have been vocal enough on my position through the years, and somehow, I'm still not being silenced.


If NI just ignores the concerns of their community, does it make a qualitative difference as to whether or not they are actively being silenced or not?  I'd argue it's effectively the same thing.

 

Reminds me of the old philosophical question:  "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

0 Kudos
Message 25 of 58
(1,614 Views)

@Intaris wrote:

Yes. Guys, calm down.

 

One post I made earlier was not meant for this forum. It contained a previous post from a restricted Forum, and it was only when someone replied to it that I realised my mistake. For those of us with access to that restricted forum, the post is there.

 

This was my mistake, not Eric's or NIs. Blame me.


I apologize for going off half cocked.

 

As the only poster here that actually supports the move and agrees it may be a path to AID LabVIEW adoption I didn't want to miss out expressing the dissenting view.

 

I'll reiterate.  Moving the License cost to operating budget rather than depending on Capital budget surplus is a benefit to small businesses.   As an Alliance Partner and certified LabVIEW Consultant, I've been under a Software Reference Library Lease for about a decade.

 

My opinion of the replacement product should be discussed elsewhere (4× the cost and reduced product access = disappointing Value)

 

The only barrier to obtaining access to that SRL Lease was demonstrated proficiency with some NI Software Product.  

 

This move removes any barrier to leasing an IDE and delivering solutions.  However, with the improvements in online training, the overall quality of the solutions provided in LabVIEW SHOULD BE successful enough to engage continued use. ( note my sig line)


"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
0 Kudos
Message 26 of 58
(1,603 Views)

@JÞB wrote:

As the only poster here that actually supports the move


I don't think anyone objects to having a subscription option. What people are complaining about is the removal of the perpetual options, as well as the increase in price (particularly when it comes with worse functionality). If NI just offered a cheaper subscription option which you could pay extra to upgrade to a perpetual license, I don't think you would see people complaining.


___________________
Try to take over the world!
Message 27 of 58
(1,415 Views)

Another view from a long-term SSP user.

Especially Erics point 2


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.

sounds like pure marketing talk to me, turning the facts around to sound good. With a subscription model you basically lock users in your ecosystem. With an SSP you needed to deliver recurring value, otherwise we would just stop the SSP and make use of the perpetual license. With subscription, once you started a project using LabVIEW, you can't just stop the subscription obviously. You're locked in, no matter if NI provides recurring value or not.

 

Our company uses LabVIEW to develop a product, not single (short) projects. We've been SSP users for >15 years. So for us, the change just means significantly higher costs, and knowing we're tied to the subscription model with no way out (if we stop the subscription, we can't continue development). No added value that I could see.

 

Your promise of the "ongoing dialog and relationship" sounds like with an SSP you don't care about the users demands. While sometimes we felt this to be the case (some examples: incorrect Real-Time deploys since several LV releases; no real improvement to UI design tools; bad user experience with NI Linux RT), we doubt the move to subscription will change this significantly.

 

Regarding expense control: Our costs were controllable just fine with the SSP model. We kept resuming the SSP and paid the yearly costs. We basically planned like if it was a subscription - just for the lower price. And knowing we can keep what we have (and continue development) even if we stop the SSP.

 

 

Message 28 of 58
(1,340 Views)

@tst wrote:


I don't think anyone objects to having a subscription option. What people are complaining about is


+ I am frustrated that something like Eric described has yet to come out as an official NI announcement.

Many users don't visit COMMUNITY often, so they don't know the background, etc.

I don't think it is the job of those of us who specialize in LabVIEW to explain the subscription benefit.

Certified LabVIEW Developer
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions

GCentral
0 Kudos
Message 29 of 58
(1,274 Views)

I'm building out an Electronic Engineering lab and searching for software now. The move to subscription licensing is a deal breaker for me. I'm searching for a permanent LabView license while looking at competing alternatives for LabView.

 

LabView is a useful product but...

1. Price is too expensive. My previous employers (Micel, Applied Materials) agree. This is a factor in my hesitancy to buy and their decisions not to renew. The permanent license is about $7k/seat/OS. A three OS set is about $21k. About a third of this is my threshold of pain.

2. Subscription licensing is unacceptable. If something happens (Economic downturn cuts my budget, Putin bombs Austin Texas, whatever), ability to develop mission critical lab software is lost.

3. NI never fixes the primary problem I encounter in LabView which is that the Development IDE drawing environment slows down as projects and VIs grow in complexity. This is a major source of suffering when working on big, complex projects under tight development schedules. I don't feel I'm getting my money's worth from ongoing subscription or renewal fees because this problem is not fixed.

 

Within about two weeks. I'm going to make a business decision what software to buy. After investment in coding begins, there will be no going back.

 

 

 

Message 30 of 58
(930 Views)