Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
OnShape Sku’s – Round Two
Round one of this discussion was here:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/5070/changes-to-onshapes-plans/p1
That thread consisted mostly of disappointed users that realized they needed to move on and find something else – a lot of complaints, and rightfully so.
This new thread is not a rant-fest to re-open this topic. It is a genuine plea for OnShape to further consider options that are mutually beneficial to them and their potential customers.
This thread might attract complaints, but I’d really like to keep it to honest insights & perspectives, factors, considerations, and comparisons to other skus and business models in the industry.
OnShape kinda had it (almost) right, from launch, but they botched it at the end of 2016 when private documents were made available only to $1200/year customers. I can’t help but to think perhaps it was some investor type that forced those decisions, rather than a real analyst in the company.
Let’s have a look…
Onboarding is important, and free is key
But that word (free) does not mean what you think it means.
Based on my experience*, OnShape didn’t make a mistake, they made a decision. They decided to position themselves (oddly, IMO) for established companies with a budget of at least $1200/year/person for this software. Even the company I currently work for, huge and well funded, considers $1200 a huge expense. I’m lucky to get a $50 one-time app purchase approved most days. If it is key to my daily work, they are willing to spend a couple hundred, but start to cringe at $500+ (per year).
Regardless, even for companies that can afford it (which there are), OnShape has intentionally cut out a significant segment of potential customers.
“But they have a free version for open source hobbyists", you say. Yep, but that doesn’t mean they’ve covered a full spectrum of potential customers.
When I worked at Microsoft, *I worked on marketing and positioning for Visual Studio - a very expensive tool for the world’s most pro developer audience… and yes, VS has a free (community) edition. Why? Because we wanted to be sure people can “grow up” using and learning Visual Studio, even from as early as elementary age (yes, kids are coding). There is a FULL SPECTRUM of users of VS, from kids, to students, to startups, to Independents, to small biz and huge enterprise. As you can imagine, there is a “long tail” of free users, and the revenue comes primarily from medium to large business. So here is an example, not unlike any CAD software, where a software tool is designed to target industry pros (independents, small, medium and large and enterprise), and yet successfully reaches out to onboard ALL walks of life. Does Microsoft force the community (using the free edition) to make all their source code open source? No. Resoundingly No! Nobody would use it (read: grow up using it, onboard with it, and thus become a future paying customer). In fact, you can even make a COMMERCIAL product using VS Community. What you will lack are some of the team-oriented features and productivity, etc (you will build apps a little slower, not have access to as many resources, etc).
Visual Studio alone is a $1B business (with a “B”) for Microsoft, and if they can do it with as generous an offer to the free community and independent creators, OnShape (as a tool for pros) can at least do better with their skus and strategy than present day. This is a successful, proven model. OnShape apparently didn’t get the memo, but now you have it, you’re welcome.
OnShape seems to believe that the free-but-public edition of OS is sufficient for on boarding, and getting people ready to up-sell later. I mean, look at the gallery of public projects showing up daily. And certainly they have a “long tail” of free users, right? The problem (and difference I am pointing out with Visual Studio as my example) is that they botched the spectrum. They arguably will attract the freebie tinkerers (maybe kids too? certainly open source hobbyists), but before you can get to the part of the spectrum where people are paying $1200/year, you SKIP a HUGE and CRITICAL segment of the spectrum: namely independent designers, and startups. They need free or low cost, but they need privacy too. And they can get that today using FreeCAD, Fusion 360, etc.
And if you feel my analogy with VS (an app for coders) is not analogous to CAD, then lets look at a tool for designers, like perhaps the Adobe crowd. Lots of enterprise users, but also TONS (and tons and tons) of independent designers that can afford $10/mo or so for their Adobe tool of choice, but no way on this green earth would fork over $100/mo - and again, they likewise are NOT interested in all their designs being PUBLIC.
So again, free does not mean what you think. Having a free sku doesn’t mean you’ve established an onboarding path, unless it is done right!
Read: OnShape, you need another plan, between public and pro. All of the above was just a longer version of saying that.
OnShape pricing is better than competition
This is true for established companies that are not lost/stuck somewhere between “public” and “pro” plans. If your company is at pro-level and revenue positive, OnShape is the BEST**, hands down (IMO).
To their credit, OnShape has really nailed the pricing for establish companies. $100 is way better than $300 (eh hem, Fusion). Kudos to OS here, you will indeed give cause for the established industry to consider switching on this merit alone, not to mention your incredibly **excellent UX (such a fantastically useable product, why can’t all CAD software be this way?!!)
Why do private docs matter?
Specifically, of course, for the free or low-cost (less than pro) user?
>To avoid Junk: The public gallery is chalk full of partial projects - no way to know what is considered “complete”. I can start a File/New OnShape right now, barely finish anything, and save… publicly. You are creating the worlds largest CAD junkbin. If you think this has value, good luck with that. But a much higher value library of user generated parts would be one of completed projects that the author at least deems useable to whatever extent, like we find on Thingverse.
On the free plan, how does one work on a project, for days or weeks, but not save it to the public before it’s ready? They don’t. Because they have no private workspace.
“But you should have others help you with open source designs”, you say. Sure, in some cases. My guess is that in the MAJORITY of cases (for independents, and even hobbyists/tinkerers, etc) this is not true. People need to tinker if for none other than just to learn for themselves, and we don’t need all that junk publically – it’s not fair to the community, nor the user, to incentivize such behavior. And no, a 21 day trial is not how we address this – insufficient for reasons too many to list.
>To onboard startups: get them using OnShape while they spend who knows how long perfecting their prototypes where “open” is NOT appropriate. Instead, today, they have NO choice but to go use a competitor product, at which point why should they suddenly jump aboard OnShape now that they are ready to launch and have all this time invested learning a different tool? I don’t need to elaborate further, do I? Really?
How will a new sku increase revenue?
The independents and prosumers are willing to give you $, but are not making enough money or value from their projects to justify $1200/year… capture them! Don’t kick them to the curb! If it means limiting features (shriek), or limiting docs (annoying if too small), or limiting tinker time (rather than space, less time spent is seen as less value to the user, less reason to spend $$$ monthly), or limiting business/revenue size (yes, think outside the box here!) for commercial productions from this audience on this proposed sku, this is the way to do it. If you do it right it will not cannibalize your key revenue generator – the point is, you CAN do this right.
To all you OnShape pro subscribers, please don't jump into this thread and defend the $1200 spend because you can afford it, therefore everyone can. You are just fine, you are a target customer that things are working well for, congrats. But you are not the audience I am talking about, or talking to. Not everyone is you.
Conclusion
I’m proposing a sku between public and pro.
By no means have I analyzed every factor in making this decision. I’m sure there are counter factors to what I shared, but lets not let that overshadow the whole. I spent hours just reading through the thread I linked above – those are your customers. Have you guys sat down and analyzed that? Everything your customers told you there, I probably captured in some way or another above. I simply don’t have the time, and already spent too much time evaluating and even writing this post already, and I’m not a paid product manager for you, OnShape (though I might entertain that idea). But I do think I raised some really valid points, and it warrants a deeper, sincere look.
Thank you
Comments
I'm working on a prototype for a startup I'm trying to put together. I initially chose OnShape because it fit perfectly with our (now very common) paradigm of a distributed team working on a Linux platform. But I don't want our pre-patent designs exposed publicly any more than I want to pay 2 x $100 per month before we have any revenues or investment.
Before the removal of private documents from the free plan, I had already worked OnShape licensing costs into our cost projections. Now I've removed that line item and have started migrating to Fusion 360. It's possible that we'll move back when it's time to start paying for Fusion 360, but we'll be so far down the road that it's highly unlikely. And another once enthusiastic about-to-be-paying customer walks away...