Nitty Gritty details of free plan.

michael3424

andrew_troup said:

@david_sohlstrom
I'm not sure that a group such as you describe can look to outsiders to make all their problems go away. This applies particularly to such problems as "inability to get along"  ...

Unless you develop a serious interest in Onshape's problems with a "middle tier", it might be a bit unrealistic to expect a reciprocal interest in the detailed problems you describe above.

Just one of those Onshape problems, it seems to me, is probably a show-stopper on its own: how to devise a pricing tier (or other rescue remedy) to meet the diverse needs of hobbyists in such a way it would not also be perfectly viable for many businesses - including toolmakers, small engineering shops, and jobbing/contract operations generally - who do not require simultaneous access to a large amount of private data.

Such businesses are also much less likely than major players to be put off by questions of long term custody and access to IP, because their input to a given project or product is short and finite. 

Those small businesses are currently paying a lot more for the likes of Solidworks than they would for an Onshape Pro subscription. Onshape which will suit their needs much better in every respect, so it seems to me they're a shoo-in as paying clients at the full rate.

It would, however, become an instant no-brainer for them to opt instead for the middle tier which you advocate, slashing Onshape's revenue to a third or a quarter, for one of the most promising market segments

This seems to me particularly problematic for cash flow in the crucial early phase after launch, when Onshape does not yet have the chops, or the perceived solidity, for the big boys.

If Onshape cannot generate that cashflow, it will cease to be available to anyone. Are the needs of the niche players you advocate for, comparable in priority to that "greater good"?

I'm in much the same boat (pun intended) as @david_sohlstrom and hoping that Onshape will see a place for a middle tier once the product is established financially.  Onshape will get used for small throwaway projects until then and my license of Geomagic Design will get relied on for the larger projects.

3dcad

Just as a note, if you consider cad to be worth $400/year business wise, you could have pro for 4 months. If you do larger profitable modeling work for more than 4 months / year - you should make small improvements on your marketing plan and make it a real business.

And another note, I truly understand if you shun the idea of bouncing between pro/free - Geomagic has currently better tool set and works like a charm installed locally. I don't like the 'new' GD on/off licensing system, but I completely understand why they don't give 3 or 5 licenses anymore - it's because users betrayed them by not keeping licenses personal as they were intended. This is why I don't believe in the idea that companies would have more licenses if they were cheaper.

andrew_troup

matthew_menard said:

andrew_troup said:

@david_sohlstrom

It would, however, become an instant no-brainer for them to opt instead for the middle tier which you advocate, slashing Onshape's revenue to a third or a quarter, for one of the most promising market segments

I feel that this is ignoring those who wouldn't pay for the pro license at all though.  You would be slashing revenue by 1/2-2/3 with a middle tier only if 100% of your customers went from the pro to a middle tier.  There are a number of users who are priced out of the Pro subscription that still want to give Onshape their money.  ....

You misunderstand me. I'm not ignoring them at all, and it would be hard to, given the dozens of contributors who have presented their case cogently and persuasively and plausibly on this forum.

The part of my quote after the last comma is intended to restrict the scope of the hypothetical revenue contraction to a specific group of businesses, not described in the quote, but described in the post the quote is drawn from.

I'm trying to present a counterargument to the one which you make afresh on behalf of those who "wouldn't pay for the pro license at all", because (if correct) it presents a serious stumbling block, which (I'm suggesting) cannot simply be wished away, but must instead be addressed if there's to be any hope of persuading Onshape of the merits of your case.

matthew_menard

I didn't intend on trying to misrepresent your argument, sorry if it seemed that way.  Like I said, my opinions are merely off the cuff based on what would seem to be the success of other pay as you go software packages from other large, well established software companies.  Fusion 360, Adobe Creative Suite, and Office 365 may all be fairly different programs, but they all seem to be attempting to make themselves as low cost as possible to generate the largest pool of users.  If OnShape's business strategy isn't compatible with offering a lower price option, or if their status as a start up doesn't give them the leverage of some of the big players, then so be it.  I know that my business sense may not be the greatest, so your points could easily more realistic than mine.  Ultimately, I want OnShape to succeed, and that means making money.  However they end up doing that, as long as it means they don't price themselves out of existence (too high or too low), I'm fine with.

leon_goldman

I would agree with the need for a "hobby" level plan. Also that the 100Mb limit is strange, especially with the stated total limit of 5Gb. What is the 5Gb for? It seems to be a joke as it is unclear what one can store in there. Public documents are "free" so what get stored in the 101Mb-5Gb range?

jakeramsley

leon_goldman said:

I would agree with the need for a "hobby" level plan. Also that the 100Mb limit is strange, especially with the stated total limit of 5Gb. What is the 5Gb for? It seems to be a joke as it is unclear what one can store in there. Public documents are "free" so what get stored in the 101Mb-5Gb range?

Documents that you own that are public count against the total storage but not the private storage.

don_howe

I have to admit $1200/year is a lot, but probably no more than some of us pay for utilities, cable or cell phone plans if we bothered to check. It's certainly less than paying for a SW license and support fees. Being on a fixed budget, I have concerns too about forking out another $100/mo for unlimited usage. Perhaps if it were in the $50/mo or $60/mo  range it would be more palatable.