Agreed - I’d never buy a subscription for software if there is an alternative product available.
2 Likes
Rob, although I agree very much so with a lot of the suggestions on the new paid product (am also against subscription-based software) and believe it’s needed, I feel some attention needs to be paid to the outstanding issues with the existing version of Carbide Create that comes with the machine. A lot of these issues shouldn’t be issues given the maturity of the existing software and machines, are so extremely basic in nature and resolve yet seem to still persist in even the unstable versions you’re releasing so I just don’t get it. Now a paid version to draw attention away from the free version leaves me scratching my head at some decision making. Not my company though, just my .02.
2 Likes
I think a lot of people miss how subscription-based models are extremely attractive to companies. It takes the risk off the company and puts it on the user. No longer do they need to budget out the initial cost into how long they can support a product but instead they know that people continue to pay for updates and support so it makes the company’s income much more stable.
I think what that means is that perhaps a more realistic scenario that ensures Carbide3D can make money to pay people to develop the software is that there should be a subscription option but that the way we pay for it can vary. I think a 1/3/6/12 month license option would work well. Allow people to pay per month if they want or per year for a discount. Then, if you buy the yearly subscription, you feel less stressed to use it every month since some months work and travel and family might be big. However, you could also buy a month, use it, stop for a month because you’re going to Europe to visit @Julien for 3 weeks, and then start it again when you get back.
The concept of paying for updates will be hard for Carbide3D to navigate without people at times arguing they are doing a money grab. Release 3 updates in 2 months and charge $5 each for them = people upset. It’s a better cycle if they can release bug fixes and new features while they make them.
Another side aspect is that people forget that subscription models also allow high end software for low end recurring prices. There is no way I will ever shell out the money Vectric charges for their software but if they switched to $20 or less per month, I might check it out for a few months and see if it is worth it.
5 Likes
Well written, @The_real_janderson, and I concur with it all with respect to the company’s perspective. I certainly understand how the more stable, more predictable revenue stream of a subscription model makes it highly desirable, which is why I felt consideration of a non-subscription option needed to have a clear justification.
What I might suggest is that the primary model could (should?) certainly be a subscription model, but a non-subscription alternative could be made available. Price it so the subscription model is a clear winner in terms of cost, with the non-subscription option coming it at a premium sufficient to justify having to support two licensing options on the business side. Most users should clearly prefer the subscription model due to its lower cost, continuous updates, and worry-free billing. On the other hand, those who have sufficient reason to pay the premium for the non-subscription option could choose to do so.
The real difficulty, however, with such a split licensing concept is that you need to have “major version” upgrades to make it viable. If you charge for every minor patch, that’s basically just subscription-by-parts, which is a headache for both the user and the business. On the other hand, charging only for “major version” upgrades can add undesirable constraints on the development side, as you need to be able to bundle enough significant changes to “justify” a “major version” upgrade. Maintaining two gradually-diverging forks between “major version” upgrades (a subscription fork getting everything as it comes, with new features being held back in the non-subscription fork) is a headache that would need to be justifiable.
If developing Carbide Create Pro were compatible with a subscription/“major version” two-option licensing scheme, the hypothetical $20/month subscription would basically be a $1200 “major version” upgrade every five years – or a $480 one every two years. (The “major version” cadence is a significant factor in the math.) The initial license would, of course, be significantly higher than that (to help the business case of maintaining two forks, to tilt the field toward the subscription model, and to make the future “major upgrade” fee not look like a full-price purchase). Obviously, Adobe decided to abandon that model and go all-in on subscriptions, but perhaps the calculus might not quite be the same here.
Of course, this is all philosophical discourse based on imaginary scenarios, since we have no actual numbers or anything. We shouldn’t run completely off into the weeds (at least not yet, eh?). Please accept my apologetic shrug (complete with sheepish grin), and do understand that I absolutely do want a Carbide Create Pro to become a successful, ongoing thing.
4 Likes
I feel like the subscription issue for the hobbyist is dramatically influenced by the price point. I currently use Solidworks + hsmworks and vectric aspire for my modelling, and between those two option I have pretty well every design covered. If CCpro came in at US$50-75 / year with most of the features mentioned in this thread then it is something I’d definitely consider, but once we’re past $100/year then I think I’d find something else…
For a perpetual license with 3-5 years of updates I’d pay US$300-400
2 Likes
I’ll go out on a limb here and using my mind-reading powers conclude that many people, like myself, have reached their personal subscription-saturation limit. It’s not so much a specific subscription but the fact that our monthly statements are littered with $5/$10/$15 charges.
I absolutely love the Fabber SU add-in because I’m an old SU guy, it gets me from 3D model to SVG fast then I can deal with CAM elsewhere. I was part of the beta and signed up when it went paid. After a few months of paying I haven’t needed it yet so I feel like I’ve wasted the $10-$15 spent even though when I do finally need it again I would have been okay paying $$ for it annually. It may sound weird but I’m more open to an annual subscription rather than monthly.
Just my 2 pesos.
RMW
1 Like
Thanks for the compliment and the addition! Excellent comments yourself.
A lot of this just comes down to price. If Carbide3D comes out and says it will cost $1/month, everyone will sign up and no one will bat an eye that it is subscription for the cost of 4 gumballs a month. Now, that’s probably not viable for Carbide3D but what if it is $5/month? $10/month? It’s all a supply and demand curve with the demand curve being shaped oddly because as many people have mentioned in this thread, they don’t want a subscription model. The odd thing is that no one has really mentioned why. Why don’t they like the concept of paying $10/month for an all-you-can-eat-software-buffet? Is it financial? Is it emotional? Heck, @DAH even said it might be irrational that he doesn’t want one. What is it that makes this group of people say those things? This is what @robgrz is up against with trying to figure out how they will offer this.
This will all come down to Carbide3D seeing how much it will cost to offer this and how they can offer that on to us, the users and beneficiaries of this work.
1 Like
Well, I wouldn’t say no one has mentioned why. 
Cutting down my earlier post (in which I originated the reference to perhaps irrational but nevertheless extant feelings) to its core:
5 Likes
Being a software developer (although mainly mobile) and formerly extensive Adobe Illustrator user there are a few things that drive me nuts that are simple, but imperative.
- Ability to zoom without mouse on Windows whether drag window or +/-.
- Ruler layout on the outside of the visible work area. (At the very least the location that the cursor is)
- Ability to start shape from corner.
- If making a curved line, the line always extends past and requires straight work if trying to do a 90 angle off of the node after the curve.
- Better handling of tool definitions and have a custom global definition with speeds. It kind of does now, but is clunky and confusing.
1 Like
Side note: anyone wanting a sneak peek at some Pro functionality, checkout this other thread I started.
1 Like
Two things that are not in CC currently that seem like no brainers are:
1 - the ability to move an object around by using the arrow keys instead of having to use the mouse or type in a numerical figure
2 - The ability to align one object to the stock center without having to create a second dummy object.
These are things I would use pretty much every session.
6 Likes
Not to pile on but the subscription model is a non starter for me. I can see paying a flat price for a year of upgrades, but if I don’t need the new features that come out after that, why do I keep paying? I get why companies do it, but I don’t see the advantage for individual humans.
5 Likes
Here’s where our internal pricing discussion went:
Vectric Aspire is in the $2000 range plus $400 per update which is every year or two. We’d like to get close to Aspire in terms of features but realistically, that will take some time.
For now we’d like to target a “price” of around $750 for Carbide Create Pro, or about a third of Aspire. We do not like the versioned releases with costs to update (V1, V2, V3…) so a subscription works better for us.
Based on almost everything we’ve seen other companies do when they switch to a subscription model, the annual cost of a subscription is about a third of the single-license cost, which would put Carbide Create Pro in the $250 per year range if it’s $750 to start with.
At $250 per year, it’s the cheapest thing out there for this kind of 3d relief modeling. (Aspire, Enroute, Carveco/Artcam, Type3). For our professional user base (the for-profit group) this price shouldn’t be a big deal but it could be significant for a home user.
We decided that $120 / year is where we’d like to be. Again, it’s cheaper than anything else out there and you’d have to pay for 6 years before it’s “break even” with the single license cost alone.
Based on this thread we came up with an addition to the subscription model, which turned out to be close to the Jet Brains model:
Buy a license for $360 and you’ll get one year of updates. You can continue to use the last version available during your update period forever. If you want to continue getting updates, it’s $120 per year.
So you’d have two options, a subscription at $120 per year or a permanent license at $360 + an optional $120/yr.
Finally, it’ll probably be free-to-use for a while as we get the feature set worked out so there’s plenty of time to decide if it’s right for you.
Thoughts?
8 Likes
That sounds reasonable. I am looking forward to fiddling around with it.
We just fixed the one-object-align problem. It’ll be in 404 when it’s released.
3 Likes
That sounds to me like a perfectly justifiable subscription fee. It also sounds like a cromulent permanent license cost and upgrade path. I would be more than happy with those options, and I’d probably go with the $120 subscription, billed annually. (Strangely, if it were $10 billed monthly, I would be much more conflicted. 
)
Are you sure you don’t want to skip right to 405? I mean, how will people ever find 404? 
3 Likes
Why are you using words I have to Google? (Pretend I have the vocabulary of a 5th grader)
I don’t see us having a monthly subscription, it’ll be annual or permanent.
…and good call on 404, that would just be bad luck somehow.
3 Likes
Hi.
PCB Milling, please … !!
You can include enhanced (dedicated) capabilities.
Carbide Copper can be better; maybe this is an opportunity and it is something that several of us would pay for, if it is well developed.
Finally that is 2D Milling.
Give us your requests at:
1 Like
Awesome, thank you so much! Is the “move object with keys” doable in the future? It would be SO helpful.
Also, i think the $120 per or the $360 buyout with optional updates sounds reasonable. Appreciate you asking for feedback instead of just plunging ahead.
2 Likes