Just a quick word and I really will leave this alone. My analysis is that the pricing model Altium use is woefully wrong. If thay can charge A$10,000 (approx) for each new release and this is their major income, then to generate turnover, their greatest interest must be to keep rolling out new releases and the devil take the hindmost.
In my opinion a much improved model is leasing. The annual cost of the lease pays for the software *and the maintenance.* If the annual lease is the eqivalent of A$800 (e.g. Tsien Boardmaker), then it will take nearly 10 years of ownership to generate the same income as an outright sale. If the software still has major bugs within that time scale then their customer base will disappear. Their greatest interest is in maintaining the software. PCB software varies a lot and we may not quite be looking at like for like, however, to be fit for commercial applications it must satisfy a testing set of criteria. For instance, I don't need FPGA or C-simulation facilities which is one of the reasons I have stayed with Protel. I use other, purpose made, packages for these. With a leasing model the software and its maintenance becomes affordable for the whole community and cracked licences become a non-issue. In the case of Tsien Boardmaker you can pay for only one years lease and then use the software in perpetuity. You lose the commercial licence and you don't get any more maintenance or bug-fixes. If you go back into maintenance you pay the back instalments and get all the updates. I run a small business and I have had some very hairy times with Protel. I believe I know it well enough now to get a good result every time but I am looking at my turnover against the risk of running Protel and I find it increasingly hard to justify. This wasn't meant to be a "puff" for any particular brand of software but I think Altium have lost the plot in the interest of short term profits. Robert Gillatt R'theta Electronics -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Harland Sent: 28 January 2008 05:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEDA] More SPs for older major versions? Mira wrote: > If the price is high or getting higher, there is a 90% probability > that the software will be cracked. Some companies tolerate this > because it gives the users a chance to view its capabilities. > If they keep control on who is using the software, > they'll loose. > It's easy these days to get a free license for some > time and get a feeling of what this software does but > it was impossible to do this in the past. > > I don't believe that any company is interested in > supporting the old versions of their software. These > are generally companies, which don't pay maintenance > and therefore they don't get upgrades or don't want to > pay for upgrades. > Who would invest in activity, which is not funded. Sigh. (I apologise to everyone on this list who has got the gist of what I have had to say on his matter in previous messages which I have sent here, but it seems that not everyone here has actually managed that so far.) I don't know how much clearer I can be in saying why I consider that Altium *should* be prepared to continue issuing SPs for major versions of their software, even after a newer major version has been released. It would be even more profitable for Altium if they were to collect money from their customers, but give them *nothing* in return; they wouldn't have to shell out any money hiring any programmers (to write any code for any application). But apart from having no "return" customers in the event that they were to opt for such a business plan, they would also find themselves in court for taking money from their customers under false pretences. I am *not* suggesting that Altium has ever done that, and I also regard it as very unlikely that they ever would. That said, all of their major versions of Protel / DXP /AD up unto (and including) AD2004 have incorporated defects which result in files created from PCB files being of a defective nature. Gerber files in which pads having an Octagonal shape are not correctly depicted. And thermal relief patterns (associated with through-hole pads and vias) on Internal Plane layers always have four openings, and regardless of whether users specified four openings or just two openings for each pad and via within the file. And "blowout patterns" not being provided on Internal Plane layers when pads on (external) Signal layers incorporate a hole. (Pads incorporating holes should thus *always* reside on the MultiLayer layer instead, but it still doesn't change the fact that either holes should be always be "prohibited" for any pads which are *not* on the ML layer, or else "blowout patterns" should *always* be provided on Internal Plane layers for *any* pad which incorporates a hole.) And "blowout patterns" not being provided *by default* (on Internal Plane layers) for *unplated* pads, even when they are on the ML layer. (A Design Rule can be defined to implement that outcome, but having to do that still *shouldn't* be necessary.) There are also some outstanding issues with printouts from PCB files, such as vias of a "blind" or "buried" nature not being depicted on copper layers which are located "between" the via's "Start" layer and "End" layer. And if the option of Colored printouts (and also Gray printouts? is selected, then some objects are depicted in the wrong color (such as "renderings" of pads or vias on layers other than the layer on which the pad or via concerned actually resides). I am not prepared to vouch that all other aspects of output files are fully satisfactory, but the defects which I have listed still *shouldn't* "feature" within the application. And although sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable users can "manage" those defects, the fact still remains that they *shouldn't have to*. Even if the application is not totally defect-free (which I consider really would be difficult to achieve), it still shouldn't "bite" less-experienced users in the way which it definitely can. So the point is that the earlier versions contain *serious* defects which can result in mis-manufactured PCBs. Most products for sale in the marketplace can potentially be subjected to a "product recall" if they are of a seriously defective design, and/or if they fail to implement their mooted functionality to at least a satisfactory standard. I fully concur that continuing to issue SPs for any earlier version would require an outlay of expenditure by Altium. And to the extent that they should do so for ethical/moral reasons, it is immaterial as to how many customers might opt to subsequently upgrade to the prevailing version (when they would otherwise have opted *not* to do so). I don't believe for one minute that every customer who owns an earlier version would subsequently update to the prevailing version if Altium were to release yet another SP to rectify at least the serious defects still remaining within the earlier version. That said, I am still picking that there probably still would be at least *some* customers who *would* subsequently upgrade, when they wouldn't *otherwise* do so - and the reason why they would be prepared to upgrade in such circumstances (- and *only* in such circumstances) would be because of the "message" sent to them by Altium that they were taking their customers' interests seriously, rather than treating them as suckers. (Will such defects be rectified in the next major version? Purchase it, and *if* your lucky number comes up, then *maybe* some of them will be rectified...) The upshot of *some* of their customers subsequently deciding to upgrade, *when they would not have done so otherwise*, would be to reduce the *net* outlay required to issue such a followup SP. If enough customers decided to subsequently upgrade (when they would not have done so otherwise), they could even end up *improving* their bottom line as a consequence of issuing that SP. But even if the number of customers who subsequently upgraded (when they would not have done so otherwise) was not sufficient to cover the costs associated with issuing the following SP, there would still be ethical/moral reasons for issuing a followup SP for at least AD2004 (and a reduction in the probability of having a class action lawsuit issued against them by customers upset by the application not implementing "core" functionality to a satisfactory standard). In reality, I'm not holding my breath waiting for any additional SPs to be issued for any of their earlier major versions. It is not at all implausible (and probably even almost certain) that Altium's management have assessed that the number of customers who would be prepared to upgrade (when they would not have done so otherwise) in the event that they did issue any more SPs for any earlier major versions would not be sufficient to recoup the associated outlay required. Then again, there could be yet other reasons why they have opted not to issue any more SPs for any earlier versions, but if that really is the case, I don't see too much profit or merit in contemplating what those reasons could be. > I'm sure that Altium is reading all bug reports but > they decide which one to fix based on the weather that > day. Altium have claimed that they have "eaten their own dog food", and as such, they *should* have a better handle on which defects are obnoxious from their customers' point of view, and of which defects are of a truly serious nature. > They sure haven't found a way to get the maximum from > the people who are testing the software. > > Mira I think that a lot of the software which they have "shipped" is so buggy that it shouldn't even be seen by any of their external beta testers, let alone by their end customers. So raising the quality of their software to an extent that their beta testers are subsequently provided with software of a higher quality than what their end customers have been provided with to date (or at least prior to the release of AD2006) would be a good starting point. Although there could well be many people on this list who think that Altium's software is of a "relatively high" quality, the fact still remains that it *shouldn't* contain any defects which can "bite" unwary customers - and in the event that any such defects actually are "shipped", then they *should* be rectified ASAP. I am sure that most people on this list at least understand the gist of what I am saying, and have in fact done so for some time. But if there is anyone here who *still* doesn't do so, then I honestly don't know what I could possibly say that actually would "get through" to them. However I will still try and refrain from commenting further on such matters. Regards, Geoff. Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
