EEVblog #527 - Altium Entry Level PCB Tool Rant

[EEVblog]

What is particularly irksome is companies who fix bugs as new versions of the software.  If a piece of software has an acknowledged bug, it ought to be fixed for free in an update - as it was something sold that was not delivered. 

Altium take that approach (and still do?).
If you buy the "perpetual" license, without the subscription, then you are stuck with whatever version you happen to get given at the time you buy it, complete with bugs, or in some cases, simply not usable as has happened to some people. You only get bug fixes as part of the subscription service.

[EEVblog]

I don't see why a "You may not commercially* distribute derived works without a commercial <insert required licences> license" clause wouldn't protect the original developer.  If Eagle went after the original developer, I don't see Eagle having much of a case and even if they did, the original developer has a case against whoever commercialized the product since whoever commercialized it agreed to the non-commercial provisions simply by using it.

As almost always is the case, there is no real threat of lawsuits here, it's all pretty academic.
But people get quite uptight about this sort of stuff, hence why there has been some serious discussion on it.
People want to do the right thing and operate within the right framework.

It's a similar condition for the "unwritten" nature of old school magazine projects for example. They were effectively "open source hardware" long before OSHW ever came about. But a lot of the modern OSHW purists will argue that they aren't open source, and neither is anything else like public domain, or just someones personal declaration on website etc. Unless the author uses an iron clad tested in court covers all bases super duper legal license, expanding on such work is to be avoided.
I think they need to get outside and get some fresh air 

[nowlan]

If you buy the "perpetual" license, without the subscription, then you are stuck with whatever version you happen to get given at the time you buy it, complete with bugs, or in some cases, simply not usable as has happened to some people. You only get bug fixes as part of the subscription service.

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

[rolfo]

Completely agree with the: "junk the FPGA-tool dream - never going to work". Same for trying to be an embedded software tool etc.

I didn't understand if Altium were going to get their act together on "Signal Integrity"? They had something in the tool last time I tried it, but it was pretty useless (did a few blog posts on that a while back - http://www.ee-training.dk/tip/altium-signal-integrity-tool-part-i.htm).

SI is another one of these: "Either go all the way - or just junk it". But unlike the FPGA-tool, this has at least SOME place in a tool like Altium.

If I were to run Altium's SI-effort (would be fun btw), I would:

Step 1: Switch off the old SI features and just make sure the PCB tool had the best possible UI and features for "rule based layout".

Step 2: Build the SI tool to beat Hyperlynx, focusing on pre-layout ONLY. And make it really affordable.

Notice that a good affordable SI tool is still not available - a huge void in the market that someone could fill. And Altium looks like a great candidate to be that someone.

[mikeselectricstuff]

..and limiting people to 2L will help improve layout skills! 4L makes it too easy!
I've done many hundreds of PCBs over the years and maybe only a dozen or so needed 4 layers.

I guess you've enjoyed the challenges then, Mike?  

Though it's a while since I did volume production  stuff, I just hate waste - not using 2 parts when 1 would do etc.
Early on I did a LOT of single-layer boards, which is a very good learning process for top +groundplane 2L boards. 
It's also not uncommon for me to do PCBs on a same-day turnround, which isn't possible for 4L due to the lamination process.
 

[mikeselectricstuff]

While there is nothing inherently disastrous about a good (!) online tool

Yes there is - your workflow becomes entirely dependent on a fast, reliable internet connection and servers at the other end. Either falls over and you are completely screwed and absolutely nothing you can do about it.
I really can't see why anyone would think online design tools are a good idea. File-sharing, collaboration - fine, but having to be online during an actual design/layout process, hell no. 

[IanJ]

Altium, know you are watching..............please add an option to change the mouse controls so they are same zoom/pan as Eagle (and AutoCad)..........you'll capture the Eagle users more readily.

Ian.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Altium, know you are watching..............please add an option to change the mouse controls so they are same zoom/pan as Eagle (and AutoCad)..........you'll capture the Eagle users more readily.

Ian.

There is no excuse for any software to NOT have the ability to remap all key and mouse functions.

[David_AVD]

If you buy the "perpetual" license, without the subscription, then you are stuck with whatever version you happen to get given at the time you buy it, complete with bugs, or in some cases, simply not usable as has happened to some people. You only get bug fixes as part of the subscription service.

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

I believe that's what we got when we upgraded our Altium licence last time.

[EEVblog]

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

Nope. To get updates you had to be on subscription. And the bug fixes were in the updates. They switched from a deliberate major release patch based system to a subscription update system.
Or at least that's how it was at one stage.
They may have offered a bonus 12 month subscription to some people or something, but that is a different thing.

[elgonzo]

While there is nothing inherently disastrous about a good (!) online tool

Yes there is - your workflow becomes entirely dependent on a fast, reliable internet connection and servers at the other end. Either falls over and you are completely screwed and absolutely nothing you can do about it.
I really can't see why anyone would think online design tools are a good idea. File-sharing, collaboration - fine, but having to be online during an actual design/layout process, hell no.

We perhaps have a different understanding of what or where the "disaster" is.

If you need a tool with a high and/or long-term availability (which in a business case you usually do) and you go for an online application (whose availability depend on more factors than just the presence of a power outlet), the disaster is you. If you go for an online application which does not allow you to do export/backup according to your requirements, the disaster is you.

Yes, i agree that desktop applications are preferable over online applications, because in my case (and in many other cases, i believe) they are better suited to my requirements. Also, especially businesses might have to consider non-disclosure/confidentiality aspects of their projects, which alone could make online applications a no-go.

But that doesn't make the online application disastrous -- unless you are forced to use them despite the fact that they do not suit your requirements. Are you/will you be forced?

[JoannaK]

For the record.. Cadstar people send me e-mail reply and I got the password for the Express version installation. Apparently their website indeed have some issues at the moment.

For what I have seen so far. It seems to be a bit more difficult to jump in than DipTrace .. GUI is definitely not as newbie-friedly, but there could be some real prower under the bonnet.

 

[elgonzo]

I think you may have missed the thread there.  The original point was a response to the question of why layout vendors limit their versions based on a particular board size in linear measurements as a rectangle... and the question was asking whether it made sense to do it by area instead.  I say yes, it does make sense to do that rather than say "160mm x 100mm" or some other arbitrary linear measurement.

Yes, it seems i missed the context indeed. I understood your question as asking for such a feature aside from being a means to diversify your product range. My bad...

How long has this industry been this way?  How long would you want it to stay that way?  And can you imagine the possibility of something different?

I can. 

As silly as it may sound, a company's purpose is to monetize whatever products/services/brands/etc. they offer.
I think what we see is the effect of an expansion of a traditionally low volume/high margin industry into a high(er) volume/low(er) margin market.

If you are a vendor in a low volume/high margin market, your business operation is very sensitive to the well-being and success of your small customer base. Naturally, if you see a feasible chance to expand into a market with higher volume, you want to do it because it promises to make your own business more stable. However, while expanding into the new market, you might still behave somewhat like being in your original low volume/high margin market. It will take time - or a "friendly" nudge from your competition - to change your business behaviour (to make it more exciting, add company-internal politics to this )

[elgonzo]

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

Nope. To get updates you had to be on subscription. And the bug fixes were in the updates. They switched from a deliberate major release patch based system to a subscription update system.
Or at least that's how it was at one stage.
They may have offered a bonus 12 month subscription to some people or something, but that is a different thing.

You gotta love monopolist attitude...

[Fsck]

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

Nope. To get updates you had to be on subscription. And the bug fixes were in the updates. They switched from a deliberate major release patch based system to a subscription update system.
Or at least that's how it was at one stage.
They may have offered a bonus 12 month subscription to some people or something, but that is a different thing.

You gotta love monopolist attitude...

mathematica and matlab have similar schemes.

[M. András]

So... you don't want to pay forever... how about updates ? how about mayor new versions.

when an application goes from 3.0 to 4.0 it is normal to pay upgrade fee.
with the sas system there is no upgrade fee. you are always up to date.
pick your poison : 250$ every few years for a major update or 10$ a month over 2 years and always up to date with new features release on a monthly basis ?
same price in the end. i'd rather not have to wait for 2 years before i get some new tool...

I find that when people are forced to pay for upgrades, they tend to evaluate whether they actually need them.

There are a lot of people still running XP because it does what they need it to do.  I am the same with SolidWorks and MasterCAM.  Both packages are expensive to upgrade, and when they introduce new features as upgrades, I like to know what exactly those features are and consider whether I need them.  A lot of people have this idea that they just 'should' have the latest version of software - they don't know why, other than "it's the newest one".  But it's sort of like cars... do you need a new car, or do you just want one?

What is particularly irksome is companies who fix bugs as new versions of the software.  If a piece of software has an acknowledged bug, it ought to be fixed for free in an update - as it was something sold that was not delivered. 

But SAAS - no way.  I am tired of every other company we do business with hoping to get a piece of our bottom line.  I don't like renting.  Imagine if everything worked that way... you could only lease computers, could only lease OS's, only lease cars, clothes, watches, eyeglasses.  That's what companies want but I don't think it is in the best interests of the consumer.  In every implementation I have seen, it's a money grab by the software company.  For example, Adobe might charge $600 for Photoshop and have a new version ever 2 years.  So they will charge $40/mo for a subscription.  Now you are paying $960 every 2 years, regardless of whether you needed the features in the upgrade or not.  It removes choice.

my problem with the upgrade scheme of solidworks they fuck up something always with the files it generates to force you to upgrade your version otherwise you cannot read the files from a newer version. i would gladly buy the tool for a normal price like the students gets it in the usa. as for altium still a decent priced model without the fpga, and the compilers in it or the vault system i dont need that at all its a damn good intuitive program got a "free" copy from it a few weeks ago its not that hard to learn use and learn circuit design with it but of course the patch is bugged as hell and crashes the program or parts not working like the integrated library making on the 13.2.5 version from the net. both of these programs are in the 5k+ usd range out of way for everyone who doesnt work with it for making money or gets it from his company. non commercial license or limited is pretty fine for me and i think most of the hobbiest peeps with the solidworks i could create what i wanted within a few weeks. on the altium it took 2 days of bitching with the program and getting the parts from the library to make a simple 5x5cm double sided board

[Rasz]

Surely, you get 12 mo of updates, while they work out any immediate bugs?

Nope. To get updates you had to be on subscription. And the bug fixes were in the updates. They switched from a deliberate major release patch based system to a subscription update system.
Or at least that's how it was at one stage.
They may have offered a bonus 12 month subscription to some people or something, but that is a different thing.

You gotta love monopolist attitude...

mathematica and matlab have similar schemes.

and this is why people use Maxima/Sage and Octave (octave becoming standard in MOOCs due to matlab cost and great compatibility)

[walshms]

..and limiting people to 2L will help improve layout skills! 4L makes it too easy!
I've done many hundreds of PCBs over the years and maybe only a dozen or so needed 4 layers.

I guess you've enjoyed the challenges then, Mike?  

Though it's a while since I did volume production  stuff, I just hate waste - not using 2 parts when 1 would do etc.
Early on I did a LOT of single-layer boards, which is a very good learning process for top +groundplane 2L boards. 
It's also not uncommon for me to do PCBs on a same-day turnround, which isn't possible for 4L due to the lamination process.

Same day?  I've never done that.  I guess you did the whole process yourself then.  It's been ages since I'd done the whole process on a board myself... I probably couldn't do it well at all today.  Fortunately, I haven't found myself in a position to need to do that.

My early boards were also all two-layer, with ground plane and a very few traces on the bottom.  I got better at routing with lots of practice, and still find myself changing my mind frequently even today though generally I feel like I get it right the first time more often than not.  In fact, it's when I start second guessing myself that I wind up getting into trouble.

[walshms]

How long has this industry been this way?  How long would you want it to stay that way?  And can you imagine the possibility of something different?

I can. 

As silly as it may sound, a company's purpose is to monetize whatever products/services/brands/etc. they offer.

Silly?  No, I wouldn't say that, but I know it well.  I own my own business, and it is indeed a low volume business -- margins aren't terribly high, but high enough that I'm doing fine.  There's no possibility, since there's no "product" other than knowledge and expertise, that it could be a high-volume business so I can't personally speak to it other than to say that it certainly seems clear that a product business can succeed this way.  There are certainly enough examples of that.

...
However, while expanding into the new market, you might still behave somewhat like being in your original low volume/high margin market. It will take time - or a "friendly" nudge from your competition - to change your business behaviour (to make it more exciting, add company-internal politics to this )

Yes, that's the tough part for many.  It's a mindset that needs to be overcome, and it's very hard for a lot of the old-school business types to think in terms of winning through volume instead of higher margins.  Even those nudges will fail more often than they will succeed in my experience.  However -- those who "get it" and manage a swift transition when the time comes capture markets if their timing is as good as their ability to react.

Can Altium do that?  I certainly hope so.  Having a new CEO might help, especially if the new CEO can see the way clear to making it happen.  There's certainly a need, and I think a pent-up desire in the community, for a tool set that doesn't distract from the work at hand.

[MacAttak]

This will probably make a few eyes roll (I know how much some folks here dislike the two companies), but I was watching a recent "Ask an Engineer" video where Limor had a few Sparkfun people on for an hour of interviews.



Skip to 57:00 for the relevant part (it's very short, only 2 or 3 minutes). Keep in mind that the weight these two companies carry in the hobbyist/maker market.

I think they nail it right on the head.

If Altium seriously wants to compete in the space they need to pay close attention to what these folks are saying.

And they need to make absolutely sure that every engineer at both of those companies has access to and is educated on how to use their products once they enter the low-cost market, and that they are fully educated on how to use them. It would probably be smart to offer to send a product engineer or two to train them for free for a week or so.

[EEVblog]

It's also not uncommon for me to do PCBs on a same-day turnround, which isn't possible for 4L due to the lamination process.

We used to get 8 layers with all the bells and whistles regularly turned around in 24 hours in Taiwan.
Cost a butt load of course, but possible. Some poor bastard works all night on it and they dedicate a line to it.
With Fedex priority/super duper emergency service you could have the thing in your hands in 2 days depending upon what hour you ordered it.

[walshms]

It's also not uncommon for me to do PCBs on a same-day turnround, which isn't possible for 4L due to the lamination process.

We used to get 8 layers with all the bells and whistles regularly turned around in 24 hours in Taiwan.
Cost a butt load of course, but possible. Some poor bastard works all night on it and they dedicate a line to it.
With Fedex priority/super duper emergency service you could have the thing in your hands in 2 days depending upon what hour you ordered it.

Buttload is right.  You're basically tying up a huge number of resources for a period of time, and whatever else they had in the queue sits, or bringing in people to work spare capacity.  That's got to be hugely expensive.

These were prototypes, I guess?  What was the rush?  Deadlines?

[MacAttak]

Also, if the target is Eagle, they are not sitting on their hands either. Anyhow, it probably makes sense to consider what their own plans are if you want to compete with them on their home field:

http://www.open-electronics.org/eagle-pcb-design-software-and-its-legacy-in-the-open-hardware-community-an-interview/

[EEVblog]

Yes, that's the tough part for many.  It's a mindset that needs to be overcome, and it's very hard for a lot of the old-school business types to think in terms of winning through volume instead of higher margins.

Just remember, this isn't a race to the bottom. Altium will not win anything much on volume alone here. What it is is actually a crawl to the top, by virtue of being a major player at bottom. It's all about enticing customers up the food chain into your higher end products. To do that you need large volume (but not necessarily large income) in the bottom end. Because it all comes down to statistics. The more customers you have at the bottom end, the more on average you can entire to your higher end products.
Altium now know this.

Even if you make $100 profit on a $100 low end product (possible if you do it right and fully automate it, and assume your high end pays for the little upkeep required), that's still not serious income. For Altium to double their yearly income of $69M at that level, they would have to sell 690,000 seats. Even a massive figure like 100,000 seats would only bring them in a lousy $10M extra income, which isn't much for a company like Altium.
So they will be looking well beyond that, and at the bigger picture of general market domination.

[EEVblog]

Buttload is right.  You're basically tying up a huge number of resources for a period of time, and whatever else they had in the queue sits, or bringing in people to work spare capacity.  That's got to be hugely expensive.

Yes, it was well into the 4 figures for a couple of boards

These were prototypes, I guess?  What was the rush?  Deadlines?

Yes, prototypes, which were a slightly inferior quality than their usual production stuff, presumably because they rush it and take much less care than usual.
Yep, when it's Wednesday morning, and a certain person in the company has a new idea, and expects to have a board to take home and play with on the weekend, you are expected to pull out all the stops. Get the layout done by lunchtime, email it off and get them to start work making it within the hour, and all thing going well you'd have it Friday afternoon. Then it would be a late nighter if you had to assemble it, which you already go the parts from Farnell at top dollar.
It becomes the norm when no one cares how much money you spend.