What should always be free in Onshape?

3dcad

Currently, free account has all the same features as Pro. Maybe this is something Onshape want's to keep forever but if not, what should be free in your opinion? (please think for a moment before writing 'everything' - the truth is: nothing is free, it's just about who is paying)

I think having the exactly same set is good because they don't need trials or other hassle for new users. But I also think free account is too tempting at the moment and when having the tool set comparable to say SW it will be too good to be true. I really hope Ons will get a good share of paid users to keep it going in a long run..

When it's necessary, I wouldn't mind if there was some advanced features existing only in pro, but for collaboration it's essential to have same tool set. Maybe Ons could make it so that if one of the collaborators have Pro, those documents would appear with full set..? 
Or like mobile apps run currently on newest features, you can edit but not create.

A question for us / those having a Pro version already: Why did you upgrade at so early stage?

My reason was simple, I'm (pretty) sure Ons will be our main package because they have addressed all our main needs (in future updates) and collaboration is just as easy as it needs to be with non-cad or just-a-little-cad colleagues. And I wan't to be able to learn how to manage all the documents without having limitations. 
Also some other things to mention:
- multi-part studios with reusable sketches makes things so simple that it is already faster than our current familiar cad when starting from scratch
- Onshape people seem to have a pretty good sense on how to handle request or feedback - no overlooking or ignoring in that area. They have made me believe that they will fix also small things after big things have been implemented.  

Any thoughts?

3dexter

I think the free version will continue to exist even after Onshape out of beta.

But will rely only on basic resources like we have today, no more than a basic module drawing, this last'm not so sure and limitations of 5 active documents and 5GB of space!

Now Sheet Metal tools, Weldments, Mold, Free Form, Advanced Surfaces, Render, Animation, CAM, CAE, import other native CAD files ... only in Pro versions through acquisition modules!

When Onshape begin offering advanced tools, I intend to become a Pro user and try implant in the company where I work, but I think it will take about 5 years at minimum.

That's what I think!

The Free plan is an excellent basic CAD solution!

Congratulations to Onshape team.

andrew_troup

One possibility, it occurs to me, would be to offer the same functionality in the free package, but to significantly enhance the productivity in the pro package. (It's already of concern to me that large models are so slow to load, and even lightweight ones take longer than I would wish)

Perhaps partly by allocation of more server resources, improvements to caching on the local machine (to assist models to load more quickly after their first exposure to that machine, as only changes by others would need to load), partly by enhanced customisation options, but mostly by making extra-clever "front end" stuff available like (shudder! I hate the name) "wizards", for labour-intensive jobs, including multiple hole creation, multiple planes from a single command (for setting up lofts) and suchlike ... in other words, just offering pro subscribers faster or easier ways to arrive at an identical model.

I support the idea of the free version because a lingua franca is close to my heart, and that needs universal access. What's more, major commercial success requires major scale ... but I chose to upgrade to Pro because I have been waiting for years for someone to come up with a business model which solves the horrible upgrade treadmill with the associated inter-version communications blockages, and the plagues of new bugs with each new cycle.
Now that someone is doing it, I want to put my shoulder to that wheel in every way I can --
particularly given that Onshape also look set to solve many other stumbling blocks with state-of-art solid MCAD (in-context difficulties, mating laboriousness, and undue reliance on fussy, high cost and short-lived hardware/OS combos) 

Furthermore, it is important that there be a healthy income stream, to enable injecting more resources to close the considerable gap between Onshape and the current heavy hitters. Those of us who come on board for commercial use are hitching our business, in the shape of ongoing access to our models, to Onshape's continued success, and that requires lots of pro users, each paying non-negligible subs.

I further believe that, to provide future-proof security, Onshape will have to come up with some form of defined "devolution" mechanism, set in place and perhaps administered by a separate trust, with a binding commitment to hand over (to Pro subscribers) an enduring, standalone modelling capability, along with live model files, in the event of Onshape having to shut down their online facility at some future date. 

david_sohlstrom

I am a hobby user and at $100 per month for a Pro sub way more than my present yearly maintenance. I would hate to see any change that cripples my ability to produce the best model I can. I also know with talking with sales that changes to the free sub are in the works. If the changes they talked about take effect that will be a game killer for me. If they had a semi pro sub that did not exceed $300 per year I would be OK with that.

Dave

michael3424

Like a couple of other respondents here I'm presently using GeoMagic Design and paying $400 per year for maintenance.  My usage is both as a hobbyist and occasionally for professional work.  As such it is difficult for me to justify $1200 per year for a Pro Onshape license though it is far more likely that I'd pay $100 per month for a couple months at a time when a paying project comes along that could can justify that expense.  At present that is a couple times a year.  If my free license were to be limited to a subset of the Pro features that did not include some critical-to-me features like drawings, hole tools, and configurations among others I'd probably stop using Onshape and stick with GeoMagic or find something else.  

Now if Onshape were to add feature-rich CAM with continuous 4th axis capability at that $100/month price point, I'd give serious consideration to paying the Pro license fees on an on-going basis.

pete_yodis

michael3424 said:

Like a couple of other respondents here I'm presently using GeoMagic Design and paying $400 per year for maintenance.  My usage is both as a hobbyist and occasionally for professional work.  As such it is difficult for me to justify $1200 per year for a Pro Onshape license though it is far more likely that I'd pay $100 per month for a couple months at a time when a paying project comes along that could can justify that expense.  At present that is a couple times a year.  If my free license were to be limited to a subset of the Pro features that did not include some critical-to-me features like drawings, hole tools, and configurations among others I'd probably stop using Onshape and stick with GeoMagic or find something else.  

Now if Onshape were to add feature-rich CAM with continuous 4th axis capability at that $100/month price point, I'd give serious consideration to paying the Pro license fees on an on-going basis.

@michael3424 Would there be any downside to switching back and forth between a Pro account and the free account in Onshape as the paying work waxes and wanes?

michael3424

@pete_yodis - that's what I was trying to say.  I'd be willing to pay the Pro fee a few months a year when paying work justifies it and then revert back to the free version when work slacks off.

pete_yodis

michael3424 said:

@pete_yodis - that's what I was trying to say.  I'd be willing to pay the Pro fee a few months a year when paying work justifies it and then revert back to the free version when work slacks off.

@michael3424

Got it.  So I think you are saying that Onshape is really setup well for this.  I would agree.

3dcad

@pete_yodis  What do you think of the topic?

pete_yodis

3dcad said:

@pete_yodis  What do you think of the topic?

@3dcad Not sure yet.  I think what Onshape has currently is pretty darn close to what will be needed long term.

Skippy

Removing collaboration for free users would be better than removing tools in my opinion. 

_Ðave_

I hope to use Onshape to collaborate with my clients and vendors and I'm fairly certain that they won't be willing to pay to collaborate with me. For me free collaboration is a priority.  

Skippy

dave_petit said:

I hope to use Onshape to collaborate with my clients and vendors and I'm fairly certain that they won't be willing to pay to collaborate with me. For me free collaboration is a priority.  

That is a very good point, I hadn't thought of it being used in that way by pros and I can see why that would be a priority for you. I was just trying to think of ways to differentiate the free and pro tiers without crippling free users. Surely the new 100mb limit for free users will be a potential problem for your intended usage? it seems very easy to go above that limit with a single model. 

It is very a tricky thing to balance, obviously onshape have to make money so the free tier can't be too good, but on the other hand making it good enough it opens up a whole world of possibilities and future customers. 

_Ðave_

I too believe that 100mb is a bit limiting and I'm sure Onshape is currently evaluating. If heard that limit mentioned also but don't believe that it is set in stone.

Skippy

dave_petit said:

I too believe that 100mb is a bit limiting and I'm sure Onshape is currently evaluating. If heard that limit mentioned also but don't believe that it is set in stone.

Im glad to hear its not set in stone and still being considered

Hakro

I also believe that the limit of 100mb is too low for the Free Plan. The limit should be at least 1gb.

3dcad

What about adding some advertising to free version? This should be pretty common way to finance free stuff on the web.. 

If it was made in an elegant way, I probably wouldn't mind. But I would still like to have that free 100mb account for showing stuff to customers without adverts.

michael3424

For me, 100 MB storage limit would be OK for simple little projects with one or two parts but projects with 25+ parts really need at least 1 GB.  If storage is a significant expense for Onshape, perhaps an adder per GB of storage would make sense in the free or low level tier.

juan_aviles

I would rather see a "Pay as you go" policy instead of a flat $100 a month.  Not everyone is busy enough to justify $100 a month, every month.  For the free version, keep the 5 project cap like it is already with all the tools available to everyone.  If you need more than 5, you either upgrade or pay for each project above 5.  Not sure what price point would work but maybe something like $25 per project?  Maybe only one extra over 5 at a time?  I'm not sure what the answer is, but I just don't think limiting tools or collaboration is a good idea.    

andrew_troup

I would hate to see advertising. If someone else needs to pay the cost of "free"  (or subsidise a charge pitched lower than cost), for those attempting to make their way into engineering with some prospect of future earning, I would rather it was the Pro user.

Because in the long term, products get shaped towards the needs of those who pay for them, and I don't want to say any hint of Onshape accommodating the needs of commercial concerns, or anyone other than MCAD users.

ryan_blackwood

juan_aviles said:

I would rather see a "Pay as you go" policy instead of a flat $100 a month.  Not everyone is busy enough to justify $100 a month, every month.  For the free version, keep the 5 project cap like it is already with all the tools available to everyone.  If you need more than 5, you either upgrade or pay for each project above 5.  Not sure what price point would work but maybe something like $25 per project?  Maybe only one extra over 5 at a time?  I'm not sure what the answer is, but I just don't think limiting tools or collaboration is a good idea.    

I agree that a tiered storage and resource plan is a good way to set up OnShape, or better yet, an a la carte system (i.e. $5 monthly access + $10 for 3 extra documents +$5 for a little extra resources +$5 for animation = $25/mo. Or $5 access + $10 for 3 extra documents + $20 for full resources + $20 for CAM = $55/mo. Etc). 

Like those above, I think the lowest tier should be at least 1Gb of storage, and the next tier above that should be significantly less than $100/mo.  I personally would probably pay $25/mo for my current hobbyist/moderate professional use of OnShape, and $50-100/mo for heavier professional use; depending on what features I need (like i don't really need Sheet Metal, Weldments, Mold, CAM, or CAE; and I could see how some of those could garnish more premium prices than something like Animation, which I think a vast majority of lower level users would use).

Also, you could possibly go to 2 active documents at a time for free accounts, and go up by 3's or 5's from there.  Right now I'm using 1 Document for all of my different Hobby stuff (getting a little crowded with all of the tabs, but worth it, and I'm hoping for some kind of folder structure in the future), and using 2 documents for my professional stuff.  If we get the ability to create a folder like structure inside the document, I could easily stay with 2-3 documents for the near future.  And would be willing to pay a little more when I need more documents.

shashank_aarya

I think for free plan, collaboration can be limited to 2-3 users, data storage can be limited to 1 Gb, maximum limit of document creation can be 10 and there should not be any restrictions for features.
Whenever any advanced modules such as sheet metal, piping, mold design etc. gets included in Onshape, it should not be under free plan. But still tutorials for advance modules can be included in the free plan so that users will definitely get attracted to pay for it.

Skippy

shashank_aarya said:

I think for free plan, collaboration can be limited to 2-3 users, data storage can be limited to 1 Gb, maximum limit of document creation can be 10 and there should not be any restrictions for features.
Whenever any advanced modules such as sheet metal, piping, mold design etc. gets included in Onshape, it should not be under free plan. But still tutorials for advance modules can be included in the free plan so that users will definitely get attracted to pay for it.

Features like sheet metal would be very useful for makers and hobbyists. I would be very sad to see those kinds of features excluded in future. If they go ahead with 100mb of storage for 10 private docs and 5gb for public docs then I feel thats already a large and fair restriction on free users with plenty of incentive to upgrade to pro. 

andrew_troup

I don't think it is a good idea to limit access to "advanced" functionality.

A cornerstone of Onshape is the ability to collaborate with as many people as possible, and this means those people need to be fluent in the package as a whole, not just in a dumbed-down subset.

To be fluent in feature editing, they need to be able to incorporate those features in their own models, and unfamiliarity with tools is a stumbling block for creativity.