I think the only link allowed to Autodesk on the forum should be the Alias Golden Rules.
Anything else could lead to a non-trivial risk of insipid infection of us all, by subscription virus.
2 Likes
and we can just replace the golden rules with a link to Sky Greenawaldts incredible primary surfacing video series (link below)
But I digress…
2 Likes
I think there is a gotcha here, as Sky’s video advises the Alias Golden Rules, if I recall.
you are correct…
Thank you Japhy, it is $28 for a simple single task with no possibility of refund.
Screenshot from my Revit Model , It costs $3 per token.
I think the next decade will be the years of Rhino, Things works well without Gimmicks.
2 Likes
Personally, I prefer the purchase model, but we’re literally here in a thread in which a long term user described a valid and common use case and his desire to continue to be a paying customer: people are trying to tell him that servicing his use case is a bad thing and not about providing value to the customer.
I totally respect the “That’s not our company’s philosophy and we’re not doing it.” answers, but some of the other ones have me scratching my head.
2 Likes
we all end up at that point at least once or twice in our life where we simply dont understand whats going on… scratching did not help me there unfortunately, only scars outside, did not get through to the inside
All I can add here is the development of a monthly licensing model would very likely be a huge development effort. It’s not something we can just “turn on”.
I think our current licensing system could be expanded to include this option, but I have no idea how much work it would be, or if it would be worth the time and effort.
Those decisions and that development are above my pay grade.
1 Like
The situation is the other way around.
I guarantee you that there are a number of business owners watching this thread doing figurative facepalms as they observe a customer being told that his common, reasonable use case is a bad thing that he shouldn’t want.
I’m unusual, so I actually find it somewhat reassuring because it means the engineers are in charge 
Hi,
I can rent you one of my 4 Rhino licenses
It will cost you €150,00 per month.
Send me a pvt msg.
Best
Riccardo.
1 Like
Well, a reasonable use case cannot, in itself, make it make sense for us. You’ve heard from us any number of times about perfectly reasonable say, modeling requests, being back-burnered or effectively ignored because of so many other factors besides what might be a good thing for some users. I do not think anyone here is saying the OP should not want what he’s askling for, the problem is providing it.
-Pascal
1 Like
I’d think that is a mix though.
Some of those same business owners would be doing the same facepalm when the inevitable happens whenever anything goes to subscription:
Year 1: $20 p/m (This is tolerable, but some users cannot afford this anymore).
Year 2: $50 p/m (Yuk, instantly lost many hobby users now, who went to Blender, better make an indie license. Who cares about hobby users anyway?).
Year 3: $70 p/m (Hmmm, okay, we are back to annualised retail price of Rhino).
Year 4: $90 p/m (This is now for rich people).
Year 5: $120 p/m (It now costs a small mortgage, when you have finished with your Rhino, renderer, plug-ins and hardware refresh).
Year 6: #VALUE! It is now so expensive, we have now invented our own token currency, to try and distract away from the actual unit of measurement. Only Dreamworks and Disney can afford to create a single-span surface.
3 Likes
in addition, most subscription models are locking you into annual contracts. since it is counter productive for the companies to bill and support monthly.
so don’t expect a “Pay as you need” per Month.
1 Like
Like I said, I totally respect the “That’s not our company philosophy and we’re not doing it.” answers. Like any other client request, some happen and some don’t. Openness about that is good.
The “No, no, no” meme. The response saying that a subscription model isn’t about value to the customer but about corps trying to maximize shareholder profits: it’s directly arguing with the customer about what would be helpful to him. On what planet is that a good direction to take a public discussion with a client? Etc.
Again, being an engineer myself I like the idea of a pack of engineers succeeding as a company but sometimes on the PR side (see also: release date and “what if I buy the week before?” discussions) there seem to be a few rough edges.
Bolding mine.
I didn’t say McNeel should go to subscription. I said that I was a bit disappointed with the phrasing of the responses to a polite request for a way to accommodate a perfectly reasonable use case.
I was attempting a response while maintaining context. However, I do see your point here.
Rhino feels like one of the last bastions of “you can own something, and be happy”. I would absolutely advocate an easier gateway to commercial version access, if that took the form of rent-to-own/hire purchase.
But even that is just a slippery slope to endless subscriptions, hideously complex license models, and “oops, you didn’t pay for the DLC _Inset function, you can subscribe to that as an add on”.
Perhaps there is a nicer case here for a more affordable entry route; just not one where you never own the perpetual license.
I don’t know where you live, but I bought my Rhino license when I was in a similar situation freelancing between gigs. It was the one thing I purchased as a business expense and I was able to write it off on my taxes. This could actually be the perfect window of opportunity to invest in your own license.
There are plenty of other reasons to buy and upgrade a Rhino license even when your employer provides you one:
- I never want to have to explain why I’m using company resources for external projects. Having my own license solves this.
- Uninterrupted access if your situation changes.
- Real time WIP/BETA access. We never get the new stuff right away at work. It’s usually months before they vet a new service release. They also don’t allow WIP software and I use my personal license to test it on my home PC.
7 Likes
There are a lot of issues at play here. Probably the biggest issue is we are laser focused on delivering Rhino 8 at the moment and inventing alternate pricing models are not where we need to put our effort in the immediate future.
Another issue here is a cultural one. Even if we provided both the current you buy it you own it option as well as a subscription option there will be a certain percentage of skeptical users who think we are heading toward 100% subscription because they’ve seen it happen before.
12 Likes
or maybe not. that might be the point where you started scratching your head
I’d just like to add that a subscription model mustn’t exceptionally be a bad thing. The previously mentioned examples of competitors locking customers into yearly subscriptions is such an example where companies try to max their profits with complete disregard for smaller customers. With the Rhino user base in mind, such a model would hurt McNeel, I assume.
Though I think it’s possible to come up with a subscription model that is fair. That’s just my opinion. I’m absolutely fine with McNeels current licensing model but if they would ever decide to go that route I wouldn’t be categorically against it.
For me the current model is a huge win. I started with a student license (don’t remember if that was rhino 4 or 5) and then got the early update at reduced price with every new version. Now I almost feel like I’m robbing McNeel. 
1 Like
As per @skysurfer 's response above, one other possibility:
- Find a reliable local reseller who is open to new possibilities
- Agree on a monthly rental price for Rhino
- Have them create a new Cloud Zoo team, deliver one of the commercial licenses that they have in stock to themselves, then put it in the team area
- Wait for your first monthly payment to arrive
- They then invite you to be member of the team
- Upon acceptance you can use that license
- If a rental period goes by and you have not renewed the monthly payment, they remove you from the team (you lose license access)
Note that this would be a completely private deal that involves two parties - the renter and the reseller. It has nothing to do with McNeel, and any conflicts that might arise must be settled between the reseller and the rental client.
It’s a great deal for the reseller (if they are willing to accept the additional bookkeeping) as they can make money from stock that’s just sitting in their inventory. There is absolutely no risk to them. OTOH, the renter is just paying for access and the money spent does not go towards purchase of the software - just like a subscription model. But if that is what is desired, it can work.
I think the hardest part would be step 1 above.
(hope I haven’t violated any company policies by outlining the above)
2 Likes