Of course in a way Rhino is a subscription model, just on a very irregular schedule, by the time a new release is officially out and the WIPs expire, you’ve already been using them for 2 years and have to pony up to keep working.
As Pascal said, never say never but a change would probably annoy a lot of users. I mean I don’t grumble about paying Adobe’s monthly tax even though I make minimal use of their stuff, or Office 365, or Netflix, but the more people come asking for a monthly 20 or 50 bucks the more irritating each additional request gets.
It would just be nice if new releases were every 3 years instead of 6… Customers would still be happy to pay the upgrades for the same price at that interval, and that would quasi-double revenue from upgrade sales…
I agree with the 3 year update profile. As for subscription based software; if one believes that a company whose business plan has successfully been in place for decades would wish to change from a purchase plan to a subscription plan, then I guess I really don’t understand McN and Associates. I’ve been using and appreciating Rhino since it was in early beta as a free download and like the gradual improvements that have taken place. Each release is a great improvement upon that last and bug fixes and improvements arrive as needed. Besides, do I want to interrupt my work schedule on a monthly basis to learn new tricks and treats to be found in what has been suggested? NO!
My current wish has more to do with Flamingo than Rhino. I would love to see Flamingo catch up a bit with other rendering packages though I still use it with great success.
I use two software packages that do similar things in another area of business and pay an annual fee for each. One has no plugins and follows the agile model of releasing new versions at frequent intervals. So far I have liked the results. The other has lots of plugins and has a much more long-term major and short-term minor release strategy. So far I have liked the results, but each year the decision to invest is a much harder one.
As a software developer I understand the drivers that have led to similar tools following different approaches. Plugin developers are typically small enterprises (often a lone enthusiast). If the product environment is in a constant state of flux too much of their scarce resource will have to be dedicated to maintaining compatibility rather than improving their plugin and the plugin will die (look at Food for Rhino and see what a small percentage of products progress beyond beta status already).
So a critical consideration is: how much does the Rhino user base (not just you, or me) value plugins?
For myself, I like the Rhino business model: sooner or later (actually, later or even later) I pick up the WIP and start to use the new features. By the time the next release comes out I can’t do without this or that and so I quickly stump up for it. McNeel have convinced me in the easiest way possible that its a good investment.
Paying upfront is a harder decision, so I might be more inclined to quit.
@Robb. I find the last argument actually quite surprising. Let’s say the release cycle would be every three months. If this were the case, the amount of new features would not be very many, lets just assume one for every month. So every three months you would have to review around three new features and determine if they would fit in your workflow. Realistically how long would that take you? 15 minutes, 30 minutes. Seems pretty easy to deal with to me. Quite frankly one of the reasons upgrading a version is a big deal now is that your have to learn many, many new features and enhancements.
If you like gradual improvements, a quartely release schedule with just a handful of features would be much more gradual than a heap of new features every 5 or 6 years. Anyway, that’s how I would look at that.
I also never said it would be a subscription only based model. I suggested it would be an optional choice for customers. I you want it you get it, if you don’t want don’t get it. Up to the user.
Ares has had this for years and I choose to renew with them every year, just because I believe they are a good company that does good work. It’s not mandatory. I can choose not to renew and use my installed version of Ares as long as I deem necessary. No strings attached.
@JimCarruthers I have said right from the beginning and will state this again. It would be completely 100% optional for the user. If you don’t want to be on subscription, just purchase Rhino install it and be on your way.
Anyway, I was trying to think of a way that would benefit McNeel and consequently it would benefit the users. They have proven year after year that they care about their user base, which would lead me to believe if McNeel would do better it would consequently also be better for us, the users.
After starting this thread, I realize that this was a mistake, I did not anticipate it would stir this much resistance from the users. I’ll let it go.
I still perceive your central aim to be: Pay more, in exchange for VSR like tools, native SubD, better fillets. In short - modeling improvement (or native replacements for losses.)
Correct or incorrect?
If correct, the next logical question centers on feasibility, and thereafter, marketability.
To a degree sure. If money is what’s holding back faster development of modeling improvements, I would be more than willing to support the effort by paying extra.
As I mentioned earlier the cost of Rhino is roughly $65 per year for me, which is an absolute steal to me.
I would be willing to pay a lot more than that, but from the resistance this is getting I realize so far I seem to be the only one. So, I’ll let it go and focus on modeling. Thanks for pitching in.
Not necessarily. In some ways, and in a vacuum, and excluding those who don’t need it; what’s the difference between a Rhino license, plus this and that paid plugin - vs - revenue driven, extra resource derived, increased functionality.
It’s likely more about feasibility, rather than desirability or intent. But hey, I could be wrong…
You are wrong. If you compare Rhino 5 with Rhino 6, there is about one dozen new commands and over one hundred minor improvements of old commands. Most of the minor improvements are not documented. The only way to find them is to read the entire documentation and to thoroughly test all Rhino commands.
@Andrew_Nowicki Actually, I believe we are saying the same thing. when Rhino 6 is released there’s about one dozen new commands and hundreds of minor improvements. I totally agree with you. If you get a release every six years, there’s many many new things to learn and this takes a lot of time and can be overwhelming.
By following your logic, if the release cycle was every three months you would get maybe one or two new features and a few improvements of old commands. This would be both easy to document for McNeel since it would only be a few things they would need to document and it would be easy for users to learn since it would only be a small amount of new things, rather than a dozen new features and over one hundred improvements that may or may not be documented.
I have installed V6 and there’s some really nice new enhancements, but I have no idea what all the improvements are, there’s simply too many. It’s hard for me to set aside a week or more to try and learn all of this, but if it was an easily manageable one or two features and a few improvements that would be much less time consuming, and I would set aside the time and explore them properly.
This is actually how Rhino’s own training works. If you look at the level I training, they don’t start you off with a hyper complex class A single span surface model of a car with Grasshopper definitions and complicated render settings. There would be way too much new information to comprehend.
The first chapter is simply navigating the Rhino environment/interface, chapter two is creating and editing some simple geometry, followed by creating a little more complicated geometry. Small amounts of new information are added every step along the way. a release cycle of three months would give us exactly that. Small amounts of new information that would be easy to digest and learn.
I think for one group of people subscription makes the most sense. For another group of people is a terrible idea. I’ll call these groups of people User-Group1 and User-Group2.
I think McNeel, being a customer focused company. should listen seriously to the needs of User-Group1 and User-Group2.
What User-Group1 thinks about the preferred licensing model for User-Group2 is absolutely irrelevant for User-Group1, therefore it should be irrelevant and completely ignored by McNeel.
What User-Group2 thinks about the preferred licensing model for User-Group1 is absolutely irrelevant for User-Group2, therefore it should be irrelevant and completely ignored by McNeel.
Just like car companies figured that many people want cars and some prefer buying out right, some financing and some leasing; McNeel once they have their more modern online licensing system in place should take a closer look off all the various needs of many types of users and buyers.
@gustojunk Thank you, I totally agree with that as I have mentioned all along, make it optional. I for one would support the option of the annual license system, other users may not. If they give me the option to be on annual subscription I would support it because I believe they deserve it.
If Rhino goes subscription, I will drop as fast as I dropped Adobe, and I will avoid it, giving it a breadth as wide as I do any program with a USB dongle.
Versioned software places pressure on the creator to reach milestones, improve the product, clearly define feature sets, and have some responsibility to release product with minimal bugs.
The reason I purchased Rhino is because of it’s competition-worthy quality at the price of owning without strings attached for a budget expense. If it’s fast maintenance and updates that matter to me then I would probably have much more business. With so much business comes (or it should be) money. With more money, I’d go with software with higher production value like Fusion or Solidworks. Rhino is great for solo freelancers. Subscription based software fits companies who have higher work output.
There’s more profit in catering to companies so I suppose what I’m saying is… just wait for it dude. No need to rush it. It will happen. Let us have our fun for now.
Hi Michael, I’ve seen many companies in many industries, regardless of size and budget, using Rhino. They use other tools too of course, but by no means Rhino is a tool for solo freelancers only. That market alone would be too small to keep McNeel in business.
