> > URRRG...Altium has taken the final steps of as assimilation into pricing > > software like Cadence and the competition. I can't get a straight answer > > from Altium how much this snake oil software will cost me without all the > > bells and whistles. All I need is PCB and Schematic. The upgrade costs > > from my current SP4 is about 3K and will climb from there. Speaking to > > several of you on this forum...it seams like we all pay different prices > > for upgrades. > > > > I am using AD6 along with SP4. Since I am in the middle of a tight > > schedule with a complicated design, I had to scrap any plans of using AD6. > > The program has crashed, needed re-installation, and did not import DXF > > files without a lot of experimentation. It would crash 100 percent of the > > time when I used a third party netlist. I have little confidence in this > > product. My policy with Altium ( was Protel) is never, never pay for the > > first major release upgrade. They have been consistent with bad releases > > with Versions 3.x, 99, DXP, and now AD6. Wait until at least two - three > > service packs before upgrading. > > > > Mike Reagan > > Mike, > > I totally agree with you on all counts. With regard to the latest version of > pricing I was told $3500 w/ a mandatory annual maintenance of $1500. Too > rich for me currently, the surprise release of AD 6 when I was expecting SP5 > was another shocker. To the usability of AD 6 I'll not comment as I believe > they had to get 3 updates out on it already, I'm not privy to exactly what > that implies, however you probably hit the nail on the head. In any case > most of my workload has shifted to other tools and for the current time I'll > just hold and see how things go. > > Joe Sapienza
I am really amazed at what Joe had to say in his message, as that is the *first* time that I have ever heard of users being *required* to pay any annual fee. So if you'll bear with me, I'll pass on my thoughts about paying for Altium's products. I know that an option had previously been provided for users to pay an annual fee and ostensibly receive a superior level of support in exchange for that additional outlay - but before now, any such fees, or any other fees of a "maintenance" nature, have *not* been compulsory. As many (if not all) users now know though, those users who were naive enough to surmise that paying that annual (subscription) fee would result in them being provided with a CD-ROM (containing AD6) *before* any other users (who had *not* been paying such fees) eventually found out that they didn't receive their CD-ROMs until *after* "first time" users (who had never owned any earlier version) and the *other* (upgrading but *non*-"subscribing") users had received theirs. >From what I, and others, have surmised, there was an unexpectedly large number of "first time" users purchasing AD6, and the (initial) number of CD-ROMs prepared was insufficient to supply all of the "first time" users *and* all of the "upgrading" users. While the "right thing" for Altium to have done in the circumstances would have been to have prepared yet more CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis, it would seem that additional CD-ROMs were prepared on a distinctly "non-ASAP" basis instead (and presumably to minimise the outlay associated with preparing those additional CD-ROMs). Presumably a decision was made to provide the "first time" users with their CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis to prevent them from wondering whether Altium was a "take their money and run" trader - but the "subscribing" users still had to wait until after everyone else had received their CD-ROMs. As there was an unexpectedly large number of "first time" users purchasing AD6 though, that would have resulted in "windfall" profits for Altium - so it was not as if they were so hard up that they had to prepare additional CD-ROMs on an "as cheap as possible" basis; even if their directors had had to use their houses (and/or other possessions) as security for a loan, they still could, and should, have prepared additional CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis instead. However, it would seem that they were quite happy to accept the additional fees paid by their "subscribing" users, but then treat them as "second class" customers - whereas those users (and most other people) would not unreasonably have expected that paying the additional fees would have resulted in them being treated as "first class" customers instead. But as I said earlier though, Joe's message is the first time that I have heard of users now being required to pay any annual fee. So what is supposed to happen to any users who *don't* pay that fee; will they (just) lose the ability to download the latest SPs, or will their licence expire (as well)? *If* users' licences expired, that would effectively mean that users would now be *leasing* AD6 rather than purchasing it "outright" / "in perpetuity" (as *has* been the case with all earlier versions); that would be a *significant* change in licensing conditions, which all users *should* accordingly be fully alerted to!!!! Having said that, I currently surmise that not paying the maintenance fee would (merely) result in users losing the ability to download the latest SPs. That type of change would, of course, *not* be as drastic as changing to leased licences - but for all that, I still consider that most (if not all) users would believe that if they purchase an application which is of a buggy nature, then they are entitled to be provided with *free* SPs to rectify its bugs, or at least the most "offensive" of those bugs. For some time though, SPs have contained a mix of bug fixes and new features (and the new features haven't always been bug free - and typically are buggy). It would be one thing to effectively pay for new SPs if the application was bug-free, so that the SPs subsequently contained *just* new features - but most of us know that Altium's products (like most applications for that matter) are *not* like that (i.e. bug-free). While new SPs customarily contain *some* bug fixes, there is nothing atypical about bugs of a truly serious and/or obnoxious nature (such as those impacting upon output generation and DRC checking) "enduring" for SP after SP after SP - and even after succeeding new (major) versions. And to make matters even worse, SPs have sometimes been "regressive" to some extent, in that bugs which *had* been fixed in a previous SP have sometimes been "reincarnated" in a following SP, or else functionality which had previously been provided has sometimes been "down-graded", or "broken", or otherwise gone "missing in action", in a following SP. IMO, to expect users to pay for such "service" would be adding insult to injury. (Or should that be vice versa?) So perhaps somebody in Altium has (since) figured out that seeking to impose a maintenance fee upon users would not be a good idea, and it has since been dropped. If, however, that fee is for real, then I think that users would have a very good reason to resist it - and even that they *should* make every effort to oppose it. So does anyone else have anything to say about this matter? (For the record, I currently have a licence for AD4 (SP4), but don't have a licence for AD6, and I'm not currently intending to upgrade.) Regards, Geoff Harland. [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]
