Introducing LabVIEW 2009

[hecmar.arreola]

@ Dennis - You are probably right in that it may not be that much.  I think the principle of the matter is what irks me the most.  From my standpoint NI would have been in a better position to raise the cost of SSP a little and say it was due to the increase in operational costs or something.  In fact, if they had done that I doubt very many people would have even noticed.  Taking a feature away and trying to sell it back isn't good for PR.

[kmcdevitt]

---

Dennis Knutson wrote:

Am I misunderstanding Jeffrey's statement or did you fail to read it all:

Jeffrey P wrote: 

We realized that many of our existing customers would be put off by this decision, so we implemented a "grandfather" clause of sorts.  Any existing LabVIEW user current on their SSP contract (including single-seat, Developer Suite, or VLA) can "purchase" the new LabVIEW MathScript RT Module for $0.  This purchase will include one year of service, and at the conclusion of that year, you will only be expected to pay the renewal price to stay current with the Module.  As a Developer Suite customer, that renewal price is even lower than with a single-seat contact.  You can contact your local Sales Engineer or call into NI, as the systems are in place to handle this order.

It would seem to me that you just need to make a phone call. And if you want to continue after a year, you pay a renewal fee and that would appear to be some fraction of the full license fee. While I can sympathize, I don't think it's correct to say that 2009 actually removed anything. Not if you can get the functionality be making a call.

---

Dennis,

The SN that goes with the SSP defines what we are entitled to.  When we are on active current SSP we are paying for, and are entitled to the upgrades, new releases, and support.  This is "The Promise".  National Instruments has chosen to not honor and break The Promise.  It is inherently unfair.  The have done it before, they are doing it now, and they will do it again and again if it makes sense for their business model.  Its their bottom line.

Back to the SN.  It defines what we are entitled to.  New purchases, presumably with new SNs, could be charged the additional incremental cost.  Meanwhile, our existing SNs on existing SSPs should be respected.  National Instruments will have the opportunity at the end of each of our individual SSP terms to apply whatever increase they desire to the cost of future SSPs.  We can all then decide which of the toolkits and modules we want to maintain on active SSP.

It can and should be handled with their existing SN, Licensing, Activation scheme for future purchases.  The Promise really needs to be honored.  Looking forward, NI may choose to make a different promise.  We pay for The Promise.  Just let us know what it is, then honor it.

It is an undue burdon to have to Opt In for things that we are entitled to and have been paying for.  Time goes by, and it may be literally years before some new potential users of MathScript Classic or MathScript RT get arround to taking atvantage of MathScript.  At that time, good luck trying to Opt In.  You'll have missed the boat, so get out your wallet, and hope for mercy when you need to purchase a life vest while treading water in open seas.

Kevin.

Message Edited by kmcdevitt on 08-12-2009 05:06 PM

Message Edited by kmcdevitt on 08-12-2009 05:08 PM

[Magma]

My MathScript RT module licence is in the mail (at a cost of $0.00), and the 30 day trial activation period should cover any test work I do with LV2009 in the interim. I assume this will be an option for anyone with a current SSP.

As a beginner to LabVIEW I was also a bit concerned about VI Analyzer - some items on the website and in the release documentation seem to imply it has to be purchased as part of a separate toolkit (Software Validation Tools Option) but it activated normally with a developer suite licence.

Unfortunate that this has distracted from new features, bug fixes, etc.

[Ironman99]

Sorry for the tone of my previous post, but I got so angry when I discovered that my brand new and interesting LW2009 do not contains all what I am entitled to have...

In any case things are not so easy as they could seem.. I read about the 0$ offer. But I work for a big company and what I have to do, even if the cost is nothing, is to call my purchasing department, ask them to call NI for an offer, wait for the NI offer, then fill in lots of forms, have my boss approval trying to convice him that it is for free... knowing that next year this will be not still the truth. This is a vacation period and I can imagine that all this procedure, if successful, will not be finished before the end of september. If successful. And probably it will not.

It would have been easer if NI put the serial number of my LW into a list of LW entitled to activate MathScript toolkit. I tried to download the toolkit but I can't activate it. I can imagine that NI needs a "selling evidence" (even if for 0$), for adding somethingh new into the list of parts componing my bundle.

So, by now, my feeling is still that something that I had is lost.

[hecmar.arreola]

I read about the 0$ offer. But I work for a big company and what I have to do, even if the cost is nothing

Time costs money.  Having to take the time to call NI to get this thing sorted out is very expensive for NI customers.  People should be outraged.

[Dennis_Knutson]

---

Nickerbocker wrote:
@ Dennis - You are probably right in that it may not be that much.  I think the principle of the matter is what irks me the most.  From my standpoint NI would have been in a better position to raise the cost of SSP a little and say it was due to the increase in operational costs or something.  In fact, if they had done that I doubt very many people would have even noticed.  Taking a feature away and trying to sell it back isn't good for PR.

---

That might have been reasonable but on the other hand, judging by the small number of posts to the Mathscript board and the relatively few number of complaints, there would have been a lot of LabVIEW users that would be paying for something they never used and never will use.

I'll also admit that it's only the brand new version of Matscript that has me interested. My small experiments in the past did not convince me to switch from native LabVIEW functions for the math I did. When I get the license for the new Mathscript, I'll see if there is any reason to switch.

[Intaris]

I have never once used Mathscript but if a customer ever requires something in that direction I now have to fork out for it first.  An annoyance but nothing too serious.

I think what has people most worried is whether this is a sign of things to come or not.  If this happens to something I use heavily I'll be very unhappy.

Time will tell.

Shane.

PS I didn't notice the part about not being able to run OLD code with mathscript without having a licence in future.  Try explaining that to a customer who wants to upgrade a system to a newer LV version.  Why do they suddenly require a licence they didn't require before?

Message Edited by Intaris on 08-12-2009 05:21 PM

[hecmar.arreola]

@ Intaris -

VI Analyzer was removed from LabVIEW and put into its own module earlier this year.  Now it has happened with MathScript.  What next?  We can start placing bets on what NI will take out of LabVIEW and repackage to sell back to us.  Ummm... Conditional Structures?  Event Structures?  No one really uses Arrays or Clusters anyway... So far the logic has been anything that is not used 100% by LabVIEW users is up on the chopping block.  Older versions of LabVIEW will have more features than newer versions of LabVIEW.  The whole world has gone mad :P.

[kmcdevitt]

 

---

Jeffrey P wrote: 

I would also like to emphasize that this is not a trend that is forming with the LabVIEW product.  We are not going to be productizing and removing other features of the LabVIEW Core environment.  This was a one-off decision made with special circumstances.

---

---

Intaris wrote:

I have never once used Mathscript but if a customer ever requires something in that direction I now have to fork out for it first.  An annoyance but nothing too serious.

I think what has people most worried is whether this is a sign of things to come or not.  If this happens to something I use heavily I'll be very unhappy.

Time will tell.

Shane. 

---

Shane,

I think you have cause to worry.  Each of our usage of the individual module and toolkits varies tremendously.  Someone else's annoyance could spell big trouble for you and vise versus.  Today it may not be one of your heavily used modules or toolkits.  But their are others that will feel the pain.  And what about next time.  Maybe they will take away one of your bread and butter components.

For me, this is one of the upgrades that I have been waiting for at least two long anticipatory years.  We have 10 copies of LabVIEW Dev. Suite on current active SSP in our group.  10 Copies for really only two heavy active developers.  All just to be legal with NI at our many deployed sites.  Paying to be legal all this time just so that we would get that promised MathScript capability on RT.  Then to have that just swooped away.

This is most definitely a trend and not a one-off.

LabVIEW.  Pay for it once.  Then pay for it again in Real Time.  Pay for it again on BlackFin.  Pay for it again on ARM Microcontrollers.  Pay for it again on PDAs.  Pay for it again on Touch Panels.

LabVIEW Real Time.  Pay for it once.  Pay for it again on RTX.  Pay for it again on Hypervisor.  Pay for it again on cRIO.  Pay for it again in FPGA.

VI Analyzer.  Pay for it once.  Pay for it again when they take it away.

Execution Trace Toolkit.  Pay for it once.  Pay for it again on Desktop.

MathScript.  Pay for it once.  Have it ripped out of Dev Suite.  Pay for it again.  Pay for it again in RT.

Kevin. 

Message Edited by kmcdevitt on 08-12-2009 06:05 PM

[kmcdevitt]

---

Nickerbocker wrote:

@ Intaris -

VI Analyzer was removed from LabVIEW and put into its own module earlier this year.  Now it has happened with MathScript.  What next?  We can start placing bets on what NI will take out of LabVIEW and repackage to sell back to us.  Ummm... Conditional Structures?  Event Structures?  No one really uses Arrays or Clusters anyway... So far the logic has been anything that is not used 100% by LabVIEW users is up on the chopping block.  Older versions of LabVIEW will have more features than newer versions of LabVIEW.  The whole world has gone mad :P.

---

Nickerbocker,

I never really liked this toolkit and module mentality.  Certainly, in my oppinion, being on The Customer side of the fence, I believe that NI is headed in the wrong dirrection.  They should be dropping tool kits and and modules and making the features part of the core language.  OK, charge for them separately for a few years when they are new to recoup the R&D costs.  Then just include it in the core package.

Take for example the Internet Toolkit.  When the internet was something new, I could understand the extra cost for some time.  However, that some time has now turned into over a decade.  I don't see how sending a few characters over enet needs to cost extra over RS232 or GPIB.  Its not like much has been added to the Toolkit in function or performance.  FTP, part of the Internet Toolkit, still gets beet by both the turtle and the snail.

Hey did you know there is a Nickerbocker Drive in Sunnyvale?

Kevin.