I'm going to disagree with you on this one.
As a *regular* user (and I'm talking nearly daily here even though I don't do PCB layout for a living per-se), there is a *huge* amount of usability improvements that Eagle can most definitely use which would improve the experience in it for both new *and* existing users.
So ... ongoing development of PCB software is something that *is* needed. Take the most obvious example ... Auto-routers - there is not a single vendor on the planet that has got that one even close to right (some are considerably better than others, but when you get down to it ... pretty much all of them are "meh").
... and this is for *all* packages, not just Eagle (I'm talking Altium, KiCAD and so on).
I don't get your point. You have NOT gotten any of those improvements from Eagle for the last 6 years or so, still you stayed, proof that you do not need those improvements which was our point.
Not true. Credit (albeit very limited) where it is due, CadSOFT did improve Eagle over time, but it has been at a glacial pace so you could very rightly assume that nothing was ever done.
The module stuff introduced in 7.x (I think ... my memory is getting bad now from when they actually introduced that) was something that absolutely *needed* to be added for anything even remotely complex.
The auto router, while still mediocre at best, has improved in v7 from say v6.
So ... it *has* improved, but nowhere near at the rate at which KiCAD has improved in the last 5 years - and I've been watching that one closely.
Second you want autorouter improvements but make the point yourself no-one has it or can deliver. We probably have to wait for AI to improve and be integrated in cad packages for that to happen.
So what you will end up is, a steep monthly licensing bill with some but without the real improvements you want, or seek, well good luck to you. You might consider switching to Altium and you will have all the improvements starting tomorrow, with the same monthly bill ofcourse.
... and you are completely missing *my* point.
All products can do with development, and it is in the interests of *EVERYONE* that there is a rich and vibrant development on them all so that there is competition and that they are all forced to get better.
If Eagle stays stagnant for too long ... it dies. Same applies to Altium, KiCAD and so froth.
That means as the users we have "choice".
The development does however mean that someone actually has to do the work ... and they need to EAT and LIVE. A roof over your head, a bed to sleep in, a meal in front of you - that means money.
So how do you fund that?
For a commerical product, a subscription model is *one* way of funding that (it isn't the only way), and even a subscription model can be implemented in a number of different ways. Subscriptions are not inherently evil ... it's
how they are implemented that can either make them evil (or not).
Now, the problem with EDA tools is that they really are specialist, and unlike say MS Word, you really don't get truly productive with them until you expend a *lot* of time with them so every vendor always has the benefit of inertia that a user has to overcome with changing a tool. The longer the user has been using it, the larger the libraries, the more ingrained the work flows, and therefore the less likely the user is to change.
That said, if there is choice, if a vendor really does screw up well and truly, they should be *terrified* that their user base will go to their competition because once a user switches, it is very unlikely that they will *ever* come back.
I'm all in favour of a sustainable cost model for EDA tools. Software devs need to eat - that is a simple fact of life.
I am
*NOT* in favour of a subscription *only* model and definitely not one that is "forced" onto the existing user base and basically *abusing* the inertia that the users need to overcome in order to switch.
Am I being unreasonable?
/BGM