Free Altium is Coming

[tautech]

Altium did stop and re-think their whole direction based on my video and the community response to that. And they will almost certainly be willing to do so again with the product once it's in beta. If you want to shape this tool, join the beta program and provide feedback.

So as the video was nearly 12 months ago, best we do not hold our breaths while waiting for a finalized version.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-527-altium-entry-level-pcb-tool-rant/msg297282/#msg297282

[zapta]

Maybe it'll be awesome. Maybe it'll be a catalyst that kick starts some better development in kicad or eagle or your favorite tool.  Who knows?  Until we get our hands on it we are all just talking out of our asses.

We got some information and we process and react to it in good faith. I don't see anything wrong.

[ehughes]

I get the very clear impression that Altium do want to do this right, and they genuinely want people to tell them what they want. But if everyone goes in and just says "I hate this and that", I refuse to use it, or whatever, then it's not going to go anywhere.

Atlium did stop and re-think their whole direction based on my video and the community response to that. And they will almost certainly be willing to do so again with the product once it's in beta. If you want to shape this tool, join the beta program and provide feedback.

I for one will one will hope to try to make it better.   More free/low cost tools makes for a better ecosystem.     I use Altium at my day job,   have a copy for my "side" business and will plan on purchasing the hobby version.         

I just hope the 10% who want to bitch for the sake of bitching don't ruin it for everyone.     If they are honestly trying, I feel that people should be constructive.       After all look at KiCad,  it is free and it's developers simply don't care about what people think.

The day I got shot down for having the audacity for suggesting a release strategy that ensures file level compatibility across versions,  I got "What your too stupid to compile sources yourself and then writing custom programs to translate between versions?"    That pretty much told me everything I needed to know about that effort!

I truly hope this works out as it will be better everybody,  even you don't want use it.   Choice is a good thing and forces the players to produce a better product.



   

[ehughes]

People will survive just fine without push'n'shove in the low end package.

I understand your point.    I know I been really spoiled by it!

[DerekG]

but this will alienate Defence, Banking, Medical, and all other industries that need to restrict access to their data.

Fully agree. Many in these industries did not renew their Altium licences once Altium moved their HQ to China.

If Microsoft force this onto end users

I wonder what the break up of sales is for:

A/ Microsoft's Office package that runs forever and

B/ Microsoft Office 365 which just runs for a year at a time (you need to pay again for another year's access).

It would also be interesting to know what percentage of Altium's customers continue to pay for annual maintenance. I no longer do as I don't consider it good value. This decision is probably tainted as I don't like Altium the Company.

I never used the Altium forum & have a copy of the publicly available Altium 10 Frozen Library, making my own library parts when needed (which is quick & easy).

Using micros these days, most boards I design are under 200 components & production costs are minimised if I can stick to 2 layers. I've found DipTrace to be a very productive tool & prefer it it many ways (but not all) to Altium.

Proteus is pretty nice too.

With Altium's cloud saving I think they will have a very hard time convincing Eagle users to move over, particularly when Eagle users already get the autorouter (for small boards) for US$69/$169. I doubt Altium will supply their's for much under US$1K.

[ludzinc]

I'm both for and against the open community libraries.

It's great to have a starting reference, and lord knows I've grabbed an open source project to get a 'known working' footprint or two.

*but*

If I'm milling my board, I add extra length to pads to enable easier soldering.

If I'm reflowing, smaller pads, and wave soldering (yes, people still do this - my old boss has a wave soldering machine in his workshop!) has it's own requirements again.

One size fits all footprints will not work - and I feel sorry for the noobs who use a library that's great for reflow and find they can't hand solder their new boards....

[Bud]

...
What matters to me is the EULA.  If Altium claim ownership of everything I do

It does not matter EULA or not, you lose control over your data, it is not yours if it is on the cloud, many people are going to learn this hard way.

[GK]

You'll get no argument from me.
I'm just saying that Altium are differentiating the low end package by removing some design efficiency tools you take for granted in the full AD package.
And that is Altium's big problem, they have an existing $70M in sales to protect, they are a one-product company.
If the low end package is as efficient to use as the full package then there is no differentiator and many professionals won't have an incentive to upgrade.
People will survive just fine without push'n'shove in the low end package.

Altium isn’t a charitable institution, they are seeking a way to both milk some bucks from the lower rungs of the EDA ladder and increase their company and product exposure. Every potential hobbyist or “maker” that winds up using their “free” software to “share” an identifiably Altium-produced schematic or PCB layout with the on-line “community” is effectively an advertising agent to this end. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure that this reality is the impetus behind the whole sharing and restrictive cloud storage nonsense.

Altium Designer is a powerful package that generally is not bought by hobbyists or “makers” for laying out their typical PCB’s of a few square inches with limited net lists. Putting reasonable restrictions on these aspects alone would be sufficient to protect their professional market share whilst keeping 99% of those hobbyists happy.

However, a cloud-only storage restriction is just going to make the package on offer a non-consideration for a large number of people, particularly semi-professionals who are the ones most likely to occasionally take advantage of the facility for renting expanded features for a limited duration of time. Seriously, saying that the package can be used unrestricted for commercial purposes but disallowing local storage is just a joke.

I guess it’s up to Altium to ultimately decide which aspect is going to potentially reap the greatest long-term dividend, and subsequently which group of users they wish to alienate the least, and that is fair enough and entirely their right. Thought for as long as they persist with the cloud only storage concept, I reserve the right to say that is just crap and not for me.

[etzz]

My 2cents,

Altium already has so much to work on with their current product, but in standard Altium fashion, they go chase the "next big thing".   This time its some odd-ball online free-bee.

At least they are always consistent (consistently disappointing).  Honestly, I think Altium is one of the luckiest companies I know of.  If they had not hit a home run with their product and timing in the late 90's, I think they would have gone out of business long ago.
Eric

[zapta]

People will survive just fine without push'n'shove in the low end package.

I understand your point.    I know I been really spoiled by it!

This is what I miss the most in Eagle. Altium could have a clear advantage here.

[EEVblog]

Altium Designer is a powerful package that generally is not bought by hobbyists or “makers” for laying out their typical PCB’s of a few square inches with limited net lists. Putting reasonable restrictions on these aspects alone would be sufficient to protect their professional market share whilst keeping 99% of those hobbyists happy.

I agree, that is entirely adequate and what everyone was expected.
Also limiting the "productivity" stuff in AD is a good step too most would be quite happy with.

However, a cloud-only storage restriction is just going to make the package on offer a non-consideration for a large number of people, particularly semi-professionals who are the ones most likely to occasionally take advantage of the facility for renting expanded features for a limited duration of time. Seriously, saying that the package can be used unrestricted for commercial purposes but disallowing local storage is just a joke.

Also agreed, they have failed here. And it only has downsides, it was not a sensible decision from almost any view point when logically thought through and with a knowledge of the industry. There are ways to have the best of both worlds here and I hope they realise that.

[tautech]

Altium Designer is a powerful package that generally is not bought by hobbyists or “makers” for laying out their typical PCB’s of a few square inches with limited net lists. Putting reasonable restrictions on these aspects alone would be sufficient to protect their professional market share whilst keeping 99% of those hobbyists happy.

I agree, that is entirely adequate and what everyone was expected.
Also limiting the "productivity" stuff in AD is a good step too most would be quite happy with.

However, a cloud-only storage restriction is just going to make the package on offer a non-consideration for a large number of people, particularly semi-professionals who are the ones most likely to occasionally take advantage of the facility for renting expanded features for a limited duration of time. Seriously, saying that the package can be used unrestricted for commercial purposes but disallowing local storage is just a joke.

Also agreed, they have failed here. And it only has downsides, it was not a sensible decision from almost any view point when logically thought through and with a knowledge of the industry. There are ways to have the best of both worlds here and I hope they realise that.

So with your intimate relationship with Altium  , and your extensive knowledge of AD, how would you advise them to proceed?
Minimum functionality required? Additional for a fee?
Ditch the Cloud? Local storage option for a fee?
Libraries available online at extra cost? Permanent or temporary? Logged in access only?

Belt us out your "wish list" Dave.

[tautech]

Belt us out your "wish list" Dave.

Go back to look at video #527 it might answer some questions.

A year has passed and how many hundred posts ?
Also some up to date information from Altium through Dave.

And all that might not have influenced Dave's thinking?

[EEVblog]

So with your intimate relationship with Altium  , and your extensive knowledge of AD, how would you advise them to proceed?
Minimum functionality required? Additional for a fee?
Ditch the Cloud? Local storage option for a fee?
Libraries available online at extra cost? Permanent or temporary? Logged in access only?
Belt us out your "wish list" Dave.

I certainly understand their desire to protect their one and only product and it's $70M income.
But clearly the odds of this being a success without off-line mode operation and local saving are very low. So obviously this needs to change otherwise the company is just going to piss away money and resources that can be better spent on AD.

So they must allow both of these things, either outright, or via a paid option.
But I think that to gain traction, not only for the program, but more importantly for the community ecosystem they need behind it, it's very important that the free version works offline and saves locally, otherwise a huge percentage simply will refuse to try it.

So my advice is to allow local saving and work off-line outright for all versions, and figure out a way to protect their high end product.
Good news is that they have already figured out that way and it's present in the product already - restrict the productivity of the low end software.
That is good solution and will work. And then you have the
And because it's a separate program, they don't have to worry about people hacking the extra productivity features, because they simply don't exist in the low cost software.

To me it's a total no brainer. If you want to play and win in this space (which I think this product can) then they have to take that leap of faith that allowing off-line mode is not going to erode the AD user base. And it won't to any huge degree. It will to some degree, but that is manageable, and likely calculable. And you pick up the limitless potential on the low end side.

The product as it stands might eek out a bit of the market, but their aim to dominate it, and I think it's clear this limitation will all but stop that dead.

And no, don't ditch the cloud, that's a good option for those who want it. And I also like the look of the community features and supplier library integration they are going to have in this. I'd definitely keep all that.

[neslekkim]

Atlium did stop and re-think their whole direction based on my video and the community response to that. And they will almost certainly be willing to do so again with the product once it's in beta. If you want to shape this tool, join the beta program and provide feedback.

Anywhere to register for the beta?

Cloud based would be nice, since you can contintue your project from other locations without bringing your computer.
Cloud should also be easy to implement with built in versioncontrol so users don't need to figure out git or similar.
Shared libraries, if verified for bad part design, would be nice, if implemented correctly, should'nt be an issue to cache those locally for fast access?
Sharing designs, what about just give OSH or Seeed your projectlink, and they take it directly?, that would be nice.

I think this could be an good tool, if done properly.

[ElektroQuark]

Quote from: neslekkim on Today at 05:30:32 PM

Anywhere to register for the beta?



Not yet. CLICK!

[neslekkim]

The $42,000 question to Altium: How do we get to beta test it?

They will have limited early sign-up, just ask. Website with signup coming very shortly.

Quote from: neslekkim on Today at 05:30:32 PM

Anywhere to register for the beta?

Not yet. CLICK!

Just ask it says there.. I asked... Here.. 

[AlfBaz]

To me it's a total no brainer. If you want to play and win in this space (which I think this product can) then they have to take that leap of faith that allowing off-line mode is not going to erode the AD user base. And it won't to any huge degree. It will to some degree, but that is manageable, and likely calculable. And you pick up the limitless potential on the low end side.

Given they have been pushing this cloud integration crap with AD for some time, is it possible protecting AD is not the main reason for having to use their servers?

[mikeselectricstuff]

If I'm milling my board, I add extra length to pads to enable easier soldering.

If I'm reflowing, smaller pads, and wave soldering (yes, people still do this - my old boss has a wave soldering machine in his workshop!) has it's own requirements again.

One size fits all footprints will not work - and I feel sorry for the noobs who use a library that's great for reflow and find they can't hand solder their new boards....

Who said anything about one size fits all footprints? No reason you can't have multiple versions, and be able to alter pad styles on an existing footprint without creating a new part

A problem I can see with "community" libraries is quality & consistency, even things like naming conventions. But conversely you can't really impose standards or any review process as you will restrict what people can do.
Probably the best you can do is have a means by which users can rate library items. 
For example can I create a PCB footprint without bothering to create and map it to a corresponding schematic symbol because it's a simple quick 1-off job?
If I'm only using 30 pins on a 100 pin FPGA, why bother taking time to put all 100 pins on the schematic symbol.
Someone mentioned the issue of schematic symbols with pins in the right place, but I'd hope that it would be possible to move pins around on an existing symbol without creating a new one

[ludzinc]

If I'm milling my board, I add extra length to pads to enable easier soldering.

If I'm reflowing, smaller pads, and wave soldering (yes, people still do this - my old boss has a wave soldering machine in his workshop!) has it's own requirements again.

One size fits all footprints will not work - and I feel sorry for the noobs who use a library that's great for reflow and find they can't hand solder their new boards....

Who said anything about one size fits all footprints? No reason you can't have multiple versions, and be able to alter pad styles on an existing footprint without creating a new part

A problem I can see with "community" libraries is quality & consistency, even things like naming conventions. But conversely you can't really impose standards or any review process as you will restrict what people can do.
Probably the best you can do is have a means by which users can rate library items. 
For example can I create a PCB footprint without bothering to create and map it to a corresponding schematic symbol because it's a simple quick 1-off job?
If I'm only using 30 pins on a 100 pin FPGA, why bother taking time to put all 100 pins on the schematic symbol.
Someone mentioned the issue of schematic symbols with pins in the right place, but I'd hope that it would be possible to move pins around on an existing symbol without creating a new one

+1

[GK]

I use AD13 at work and Protel 99SE at home. Sure you can modify the pads of a PCB component when laying out a board, but unless you rename the modified footprint and save it to the library, the next time you click "update PCB footprint(s)" when making other changes in the library, you'll loose the modifications made on the board. Have been caught out by that one a couple of times now. It's easy to forget such changes made when revisiting an old design. The other danger is that if you generate a unique library for a specific PCB layout which features a modified component, you will then have two separate libraries, each with a different version of the one footprint, but both having the same name. You then run the risk some time in the future of inadvertently applying that modified footprint to all currently opened PCB layouts. The only way to avoid these issues is to build and maintain your own library containing multiple versions of the same footprint.

I've never liked the way Protel and now Altium handles both schematic components and PCB footprint libraries. The inability to comprehensively modify schematic symbols on the open sheet has always been a pain. Consider a basic IC symbol which is just a rectangle with pins around the perimeter. I'd like to be able to select which pins I'd like hidden and which I'd like visible. I'd also like the ability to move the pins around the perimeter of the rectangle to any suitable position and also the ability to resize the rectangle to suit. This is essentially what I do through the symbol editor/generator, as components can't be edited on the schematic sheet, but I have to maintain a separate schematic library for each project containing each variation of the customized component(s).
However with all of this the same danger as per the PCB footprint management crops up. If I ever have more than one project open it's possible to apply/substitute any variant of a schematic symbol to every similarly named instance of that part in every currently opened schematic, as the software does not associate schematic library files to the schematic pages that they were generated from, but applies them universally.
     


 

[Agent86]

If they had not hit a home run with their product and timing in the late 90's, I think they would have gone out of business long ago.

That's probably true of a great many companies.

*cough*Apple*cough*

LOL!

And in other news, it looks like Cadsoft (EAGLE) is looking for a new Sales Manager for the Americas...

[DerekG]

I've never liked the way Protel and now Altium handles both schematic components and PCB footprint libraries. The inability to comprehensively modify schematic symbols on the open sheet has always been a pain.

+1 (& probably +20,000)

In the early days of Protel, you could actually modify a footprint in your design (from an existing one), select it (by simply drawing a rectangle box around it) & then save it back to the library with a new name.

I believe that quite a few things in Protel/Altium have gone backwards over the past 10 years.

Now, don't get me on the database system that first came out with Protel 98/99. Pure cr*p I reckon.

[zapta]

Dave, do you know if will money be the only way to unlock features (e.g. downloading my design files) or will they also have a contribution based privileges scheme (e.g. having sufficient contribution or recognition by other users)?.

BTW, I find it interesting that they want to build a maker 'community' but restrict it to Windows users only. Definitely not a good start. ;-)

[free_electron]

Someone mentioned the issue of schematic symbols with pins in the right place, but I'd hope that it would be possible to move pins around on an existing symbol without creating a new one

if they can;t be moved i won't even use it. i HATE integrated circuits that are drawn as a rectangle with the pins in sequence order. it makes wiring a mess.