There was a previous posting "Free Version of SketchUp" on 4/27;
however, I'm starting a new thread because I think woodworkers who have
any experience with diagramming software or CAD may not have realized
the significance of the event: Google making available a free version of
SketchUp and the fact that Google is behind it. (Maybe there always has
been a free version and it just didn't catch my attention? Any rate,
with Google associated with it, this is going to have some staying power.)
I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may
be possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one
of those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this newsgroup
are actually interested in using SketchUp and collaborating on building
some common components. By collaborating, I'm thinking of things such
as have small components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to create
models from. One project that comes to mind very quickly is taking a
lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and having the final cut pieces
automatically generated in SketchUp for assembly; and possibly,
vice-versa -- design the components/model and then export them to Excel
for a cut list.
If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing in it,
would you please email me with the subject line: "SketchUp
rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your impressions with SketchUp
and if you do any programming and would be interested in discussing what
stuff could be created that caters to woodworkers. I'd really like to
know if there are only a handful of people whom this might interest, or
if the numbers go into the tens, or even possibly hundreds. I'll reply
post to this thread with a count of responses as may be appropriate.
Please ignore this request after June 30, 2006.
Email to: [email protected] subject line: SketchUp rec.woodworking
Hope I'm not alone in being excited about this significant event, I've
been thinking about a software package to design with, I used several in
the early 1990s and just found them to be too cumbersome, so this was a
welcomed "freebie", especially since I can collaborate.
John Poole
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure doesn't seem to fall under the "do no evil" code by which Google
> supposedly lives.
It's not "do no evil", it's "don't be evil".
Pop wrote:
>
> I downloaded and played with it, and I agree it's darned good as
> a freebie and a fully capable piece of softare w/r to doing what
> it says it will do. I'm actually impressed with many of its
> features and although it's no full blown CADD, it is indeed
> capable of almost all woodworking chores what would be required
> of it.
I've been using it for about a year, and I'm still finding out stuff
about it. It truly is a piece of beautiful software. The interface is
very clean with relatively few buttons and functions apparent, but a
lot of power hides underneath it. There's an amazing group of people
on the Sketchup forums that are incredibly helpful and are constantly
improving its functionality by writing Ruby scripts. It's in the
middle ground of open source and proprietary software.
> However, I'm not inclined to e-mail the poster, nor do I think
> it's wise to put all my eggs into that basket for the following
> reasons:
> -- I don't e-mail strangers I don't know, nor do I give out
> personal info of any kind online; all for obvious reasons. I
> might however be tempted to do so anonymously on a web site.
> -- At $500 a pop for retail, that's way over the top. The
> freebie version is obviously a great idea IFF it's not used as a
> bait & switch down the road, which is where I think it's headed.
$500 is way over the top? I guess you aren't familiar with Autodesk
products.
> -- I don't see the freebie version lasting much longer. If an
> installed base can be confirmed, then the freebie will go to a
> pay-for version. So if you really like the freebie version,
> archive it for the future or you may be sorry.
That's one scenario. A more likely scenario is trying to find a way to
take a chunk out of the Autocad pie. Autocad is the industry standard
in many industries. Trying to work your way from the top down is
tough. Starting a grassroots campaign and work your way up is a lot
easier.
> -- It's only an opinion, but I think it's being used as a puller
> and if enough people can be talked into creating design works in
> a proprietary format, they will be forced to either abandon those
> designs or spend the money to upgrade to the $495 full version.
> I saw some hype that claims it exports to common CADD formats,
> but I don't see anything in the freebie version. IF it's there,
> I haven't found it yet. Maybe I just missed it? Don't think so,
> but I've done stupid things like that before. The only export
> I've found is to .PNG graphic format.
You didn't miss it. The export functions and saving in different
formats is in the pro version.
> -- Another thing that bothers me is I get a Firewall alert every
> time I use it where it's trying to call home - I don't know what
> that's about. Maybe it's just trying for update info - but I
> don't -know- that.
>
> -- All that said, I do have to admit that it's a pretty darned
> good implementation and so far bug free.
>
> The above are some of the issues I'd have to see addressed before
> I'd seriously doing anything but playing with it.
People have no problem dropping a few hundred on a good tool. This is
a good tool.
R
CW wrote:
> I doubt seriously that the developers of Sketchup had any ideas of
> trying to compete with Autocad. There is no comparison. Sketchup, as it's
> name suggests, is meant for quick concept and presentation drawings. It has
> no facility to do the detail drafting needed for construction plans.
It is capable of doing detail drafting. I'm not designing space
shuttles, but I use Sketchup for residential design drawings. The
dimensioning and annotation capabilities are not as refined as some
other programs, but the tradeoff is often worth it. With more complex
drawings I export the Sketchup design and refine it in another program.
Sketchup already has a plugin that lets the SU design be ported into
Architectural Desktop (ADT).
ADT is a powerful tool, but it's ridiculously complex for the vast
majority of users. My ADT installation, which I have refined over a
number of years, has something like 100 buttons visible, and that's not
including flyouts. SU uses far fewer buttons with far greater effect.
Autodesk is pissing off a lot of users by constantly updating the
program, and many times to little real benefit. Hang out sometime in
the alt.architecure newsgroup and see if you can find any fans of ACAD
or ADT. They use it, because they've been using it, and because it's
pretty much industry standard. When a competitor pops up with an
easier to use interface, with nearly all of the functionality, and
virutally unlimited money behind the development, it's doubtful that
any
designer/programmer/internet-search-behemoth-with-world-domination-intentions
would stop at that point and say - okay, that's enough.
R
Pop wrote:
>
> Well, it's not really a "real" CAD(D) program, either. It's a
> pretty good conept, and though it can do a lot, Pro and freebie
> both, it is not a full blown CAD application for where those
> strengths would be required.
Such as...?
> Maybe someday it WILL be, but ... you can pretty much bet that
> the price will more than double if/when it gets to that point,
> and it will begin to stumble all over itself as any complex
> application does.
It is a complex application - it just has a simple interface. I
believe it started life as a Mac program. It has a similarly simple
interface and is surprisingly stable.
> From what I read that you get with the "Pro" $495 version, you
> aren't gaining much except the ability to actually use some real
> world (as in compatability with) importing/exporting and a few
> esoteric functions that may or may not be of value. The freebie,
> good as it is, is actually IMO nothing more than a good morphing
> engine with a couple of decent libraries tagged onto it.
Morphing engine? I don't follow - what does that mean?
As far as the Pro version having only a limited number of additional
features, I'd think that would you make you more impressed with the
free version. As far as the Pro version being worth the five bills,
visit the Sketchup forums and see what people have to say. The only
people that seem to have issues with it are people who are used to
kludgy, grown-from-DOS CAD programs - and that because they don't
understand some areas where Sketchup varies from most CAD program
interfaces.
Those few additional esoteric functions provide export/import features,
landscape tools, and the ability to create video. The first video I
did for a client paid for the program and shut up the neighbor (who was
talking to her lawyer about how the planned project would decrease her
property value). I emailed the video to the client, she burned a CD,
handed it to the neighbor who then promptly decided that the
improvement was an improvement and stopped talking to the lawyer.
What's that worth?
> I AM surprised at the omission of real bugs in it though! If
> they continued with THAT history, user groups aside, they would
> definitely command a unique place in the market! But right now,
> it's my opinion that the $500 is way too high for what it does;
> they're ahead of themselves in that I see no use of the freebie
> version other than as a demo, which they aren't claiming it to
> be. Or even a Beta, for that matter.
It is an amazingly bug free program. I think it's crashed on me once
in a year of use, and that was because I'd seriously overextended my
system resources.
> I don't know that I'd use it for ground to sky design of a
> house or anything larger, but it really is a pretty good
> woodworking tool and this will get them noticed. I admit that.
> Add to this my previous comments and I still feel pretty sure of
> my stance on it.
>
{snip}
>
> No, I actually think it's a form of bait & switch. It likely is
> headed for a $1200 or higher price tag, and if they can keep it
> rolling for one or two years they'll be able to, as they are
> presently attempting, build a fair installed base of their
> software. In a couple of years, things are goign to look awfully
> different, and if you are sufficiently embroiled in their app,
> you'll almost have to buy their product or go through a large
> investment to sidestep it. To me, that's not acceptable, and
> that's also why I think it should be calling the freebie a demo
> or Beta version; it is not what they want to sell, but they are
> working at getting people to become vested in the software.
> Today's CAD packages, and CADD packages, are all sufficiently
> skilled at reading each other's works where I suspect a lot of
> proprietory control is SU's future.
> I also suspect that Google may well sell it off again in a few
> years; they are good at the spin & collect operations there.
>
> >
> >> -- I don't see the freebie version lasting much longer. If
> >> an
> >> installed base can be confirmed, then the freebie will go to a
> >> pay-for version. So if you really like the freebie version,
> >> archive it for the future or you may be sorry.
> >
> > Good advice. There probably will be a time when it's no longer
> > free.
>
> Yeah, like I said, it actually is a pretty good app for personal
> work, and not too hard a learning curve. They did do some
> thinking outside the box, that's for certain.
>
> >
> >> -- It's only an opinion, but I think it's being used as a
> >> puller
> >> and if enough people can be talked into creating design works
> >> in
> >> a proprietary format, they will be forced to either abandon
> >> those
> >> designs or spend the money to upgrade to the $495 full
> >> version.
> >
> > Definatly. Several years ago, one of the major cad companies
> > put out a very
> > good, functional freeby. I messed around with it a bit but
> > never used it for
> > much as I knew that they were just trying to get you on the
> > hook. It had to
> > be registered on a regular basis or it would not run.
> > Registration was free
> > but I knew that a time would come when it quite working and
> > they would say
> > you had to buy the full version. The price was in the several
> > thousand
> > dollar range. No way.
>
> Hmm, I missed that one. My route was Generic CAD, then AutoCad
> and then for personal use TurboCad, which seems to interface
> nicely with everyone else, at least in the instances where i
> needed it to. I stopped at TC 7 though, finding the following
> versions to be more fluff than meat, and then retired. So, 7 it
> is, for me! I had a chance at Acad cheap, but passed on it, as I
> did with the dBCAD for modelling when they were trying to push
> it.
I agree with the sentiment on the present state of current CAD
programs' "improvements". Autodesk takes the cake. More expensive,
and more frequent, "upgrades".
If you've ever searched the internet for a CAD detail drawing, you can
obviously see the benefit of having a free, searchable online database.
It seems to me that is the real value of the whole Sketchup/Google
collaboration.
> Anyway, them's my musings fer tadoy, sich 'sitis. For a $199
> full blown Pro version and three free upgrades to the freebie, a
> bit more internal visibility without giving away the store, I'd
> be able to get a lot more behind them. From a lifetime of work,
> I can say this one thing with confidence: Beware the
> entrepreneur - 99% of them are a flash in the pan and missing a
> grounding in reality. The real trick's to support them to the
> hilt, and then bail just before they do and you'll make a buck;
> but don't follow them too far! Of course, I missed out once, big
> time, and tried to get back in too late! Ouch! <G> But the
> other times worked out well enough.
I suppose you could classify Google as a flash in the pan - but it's an
awfully big flash in a stunningly large pan. Sketchup has also been
around for a number of years and is on its fifth version. In that time
they've attracted a loyal following and garnered enough attention of
one of the 900 pound gorillas of the computer world to be bought out.
Google isn't Microsoft who buys competitors to reduce competition (can
anyone say Stanley Tools?). I don't know that Google is so
short-sighted as to feel that they'd need to resort to what you call
bait and switch. More likely they'd have a business model like Google
Earth. A free version and a more powerful version available for sale
or, more likely, subscription.
But be that as it may, I for one am not against someone making a profit
as long as they provide value or a service. Sketchup is a valuable
tool and tied into Google Earth is an incredible service. You are
free, or course, to be skeptical of Google's motives and the value of
the software. In the same way that I will let people know if I like or
dislike a tool or technique, I'm just pointing out that there's a lot
of value and power behind the tool in question - whether it's free or
purchased.
R
D Smith wrote:
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Autodesk is pissing off a lot of users by constantly updating the
> >program, and many times to little real benefit.
>
> As often seems the case with "mature" software, creaping featuritis
> seems to part of the whole marketing ploy to entice people to upgrade. The
> features that get added don't add much benefit to most users. Once a
> software vendor dominates are market, their main competitor becomes the
> old versions of their own software - not different software packages. The
> revenue source depends on replacement of previous versions, not new users.
>
> At least Autodesk doesn't also control the OS. :-)
You just sent shivers down my spine. I hope no one was listening!
R
John L. Poole wrote:
> I then uninstalled the
> older version to see what configuration files, if any, might be left in
> the directory ...\Program Files\Google\SketchUp: there were no files
> that suggested there were settings or configurations. I did this in
> case there was a software design "oversight" which cached a possible
> election to automatically upgrade. I also checked my ...\Program
> Files\Google\SketchUp directory for any configuration files I might edit
> and found none.
The application is not entirely contained in folder(s). The Registry
is where most of the stuff you're seeking would be located and it's not
a place you want to mess around unless you know exactly what you're
doing.
R
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>First, I don't agree that the software expired. It forced an upgrade to
>keep working.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who had gotten
a copy of google sketchup that worked like that. Either everyone
else's copy, other than yours and mine, is expiring, or else most
participants in this thread do not have a copy, and are just reacting
to what someone said they thought was happening.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On Mon, 01 May 2006 03:18:43 GMT, "John L. Poole"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
>hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may
>be possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
>offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
>computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one
>of those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
>something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
>available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
I played with it a bit. I got stuck trying to figure out how to get a
profile to wrap around 4 sides of an object. Ie, I wanted to put a
roundover on all edges. After the first side I couldn't drag the
profile all the way to the edge. There must be a way around that but
I couldn't figure it out in the time I spent.
Plus it doesn't seem to like working with anything less than 1/4".
It'll do it, but you have to correct everything typing it in.
-Leuf
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> writes:
>Autodesk is pissing off a lot of users by constantly updating the
>program, and many times to little real benefit.
As often seems the case with "mature" software, creaping featuritis
seems to part of the whole marketing ploy to entice people to upgrade. The
features that get added don't add much benefit to most users. Once a
software vendor dominates are market, their main competitor becomes the
old versions of their own software - not different software packages. The
revenue source depends on replacement of previous versions, not new users.
At least Autodesk doesn't also control the OS. :-)
"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Ouch!
>
>When I went to start up Sketchup yesterday, I received a dialog box
>titled "Google Sketchup Update Service" that contained the following
>text: "Your version of Google SketchUp has expired. Please upgrade
>now." with a single button "Download Now". There was no "Cancel" button.
> If I clicked the "Download Now" button, Sketchup would close and my
>default browser would be taken to SketchUp's download site.
>
>I launched SketchUp again hoping I could bypass the dialog box and just
>run SketchUp... even if my software was not current, I wanted to run it
>rather than go through the process of downloading a new version. I
>clicked the upper right "X" corner of the window. The dialog box
>closed... and so did SketchUp.
Similar experience here when I tried to use my old install file on a
new PC.
>My conclusion based on these two scenarios is that SketchUp was
>automatically crippled based on my computer time/date.
I don't think so. I think it was just based on version.
>When I downloaded Sketchup back in April, there was no indication that
>this software would expire on a date certain. Their current download
>does not disclose such now.
And I don't think it does. This is a new paradigm of "connected
software," which has its advantages and disadvantages (from the user's
standpoint).
Remember that licensing agreement that you said you read and agreed to
before installing?<g> You probably forgot about reading this
paragraph:
:4. AUTOMATIC UPDATES
:The Software may communicate with Google servers from time to time to
:check for available updates to the Software, such as bug fixes, patches,
:enhanced functions, missing plug-ins and new versions (collectively,
:"Updates"). By installing the Software, you agree to automatically
:"request and receive Updates.
>This kind of date-activate auto-crippling leaves the possibility that
>your inventory of designs is usable at the pleasure of the licensor who
>may determine that it is time for you to pay some sort of license fee.
I think that is a legitimate concern. Of course, that would be
massively stupid on google's part--the ill will they would earn would
be very damaging, IMHO.
> They could also decide that they no longer want to offer what they
>label as a "Free" version, leaving only their commercial version for
>those who wish to use SketchUp or access work product saved in the
>SketchUp proprietary format. The industry practice for offering
>software that has a limited time running ability is to disclose that it
>operates for a limited time, e.g. "Expires after 30 days". No such
>disclosure was, or is being made, here. Why is that?
Because it doesn't expire?
>A better design approach would be for their software to advise that the
>current version may be out of date, but let the user continue working.
No question that there are advantages to that approach. There are also
advantages to the approach they have chosen. E.g., if they want to add
a feature that requires a change to the data structure, they can do
so, and provide any samples and libraries only with the new data
structure, since everyone is using the same version.
>Let the users decide if they want to upgrade, don't render their work
>product inaccessible by some undisclosed time limitation.
I agree; would be nice to allow a totally disconnected version, even
with a warning that new versions would not be backward compatible to
your old files, or that you may have to pay for a file conversion
utility to update to new free versions in the future.
>
>I've learned now that "Free" from Google should prompt the immediate
>response of "For how long?" at the minimum.
A wise and heathy skepticism.
> I feel misled by Google and
>that they have played fast and loose with the term "Free."
You're jumping the gun there--nothing to indicate that they are
playing fast and loose with "free"
>I still believe SketchUp to be a great product.
Agreed, and I am excited to have this free version for hobbyists like
me, who cannot justify the cost of the commercial version.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't see where there's a
> problem with that as long as the product continues to be free.
>
John L. Poole wrote:
> Pop wrote:
> <snip>
>
> (Pop: I'd have sent this privately, but it looks like the
> only way to reach you is to post publicly; I acknowledge
> this is getting far from the topic of woodworking.)
Not a problem; that's by design, in fact.
I prefer to avoid direct contacts not due to the people I meet
online but rather the ones I don't meet; namely, email address
scraping robots. Likewise I don't contact people in groups
either without first asking permission. It's almost always
preferable to have one's thoughts in the clear anyway so
everyhone may benefit in case a snippet of good infor sneaks
in<g>, IMO, and if it's something you don't want noted for
prosperity the "X-no archive..." attribute gives it at least a
sense of a short life in archives<g>. I don't use that either
unless I'm just "gabbing", which isn't too often.
And, I don't really find it off topic, though others may
disagree. I'm usually easy to get along with<g>.
Regards,
Pop`
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:00:14 GMT, "John L. Poole"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Serve02> 3.
Sketchup 3D 1.2.41
:: [
Serial
: BA-001-10158-AWE ]
<Serve02> 4.
Sketchup 3D 1.1
:: [
Serial
: BA-001-10158-AWE ]
<Serve02> 5.
Sketchup 3D 1.2.41
:: [
Serial
: BA-001-10158-AWE ]
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:OTOrg.116838
>[email protected]:
>
><snip>
>
>Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google Sketchup download page says
>new version, but it appears still free. Of course they would like you to
>buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear to be required.
>
>Have you tried using the new version on old files?
As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new free version does
work. However, this should be a real red flag to those taking advantage of
the "free" version. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the new
version is also dated to expire at some future date. It is also not beyond
the realm of possibility that in the future, after people have invested
considerable time and effort in the creation of various files and
projects, that the "free" version could go away, leaving the only [legal
according to the DMCA] options available to either pay for the professional
version in order to liberate one's files or to abandon those files and the
accompanying work.
Sure doesn't seem to fall under the "do no evil" code by which Google
supposedly lives. At a minimum, the fact that the software will expire at
a future date should be disclosed.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> version is also dated to expire at some future date. It is also not
beyond
> the realm of possibility that in the future, after people have invested
> considerable time and effort in the creation of various files and
> projects, that the "free" version could go away
It's also within the realm of possibility that in the near future they might
be planning to release some serious enhancements or an upgrade that makes
the free version trifling in comparison. It might also be expected that many
of the users of the free version would pay for this "upgrade".
Han wrote:
> "John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:OTOrg.116838
> [email protected]:
>
> <snip>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google Sketchup download page says
> new version, but it appears still free. Of course they would like you to
> buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear to be required.
>
> Have you tried using the new version on old files?
Yes, and the new version worked with my file.
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pop wrote:
>>
>> Well, it's not really a "real" CAD(D) program, either. It's a
>> pretty good conept, and though it can do a lot, Pro and
>> freebie
>> both, it is not a full blown CAD application for where those
>> strengths would be required.
>
> Such as...?
I's a little lengthy and since you indicated, I think, you're
familiar with the workings of AutoCad et al, I'm sure you're
probably aware.
That said, if you're really curious and I've misread your
expertise, let me know the area/s you're intrested in and we can
discuss capabilities, or lack thereof, that way. However if all
you're interested in is a challenge to see if you can figure out
how to do everything another program can do, I don't consider
that productive. So I'll leave the choice up to you at this
point.
What I will say, and I think they pulled off quite a coupe
with it, is they managed to take many of the steps of most CAD
programs, and combine things so it's very easy to initiate a 3-D
model and manipulate it. I've mentioned it to a few friends and
they think the freebie is just great, and I'd have to agree with
them. In my case, I like the way they've handled the Z axis and
how easy it is to manipulate it fairly accurately; it's a short
learning curve and almost intuitive where it isn't on the other
CADs until you get used to them.
So, don't say I'm wrong; I'm not saying it's no good; it
definitely is a good program. The point I want to make though,
is simply reality; and those are the points I've made.
...
>
> Morphing engine? I don't follow - what does that mean?
Sorry; Morphing is simply the ability to distort something either
randomly or accurately, usually with the mouse. Technically
"morph" means various distinct forms of an organism or species,
but in sofware it has come to mean the ability to morph shapes
into different shapes.
>
...
>
> It is an amazingly bug free program. I think it's crashed on
> me once
> in a year of use, and that was because I'd seriously
> overextended my
> system resources.
Yeah, I have to agree on that one; very unusual in this day and
age. If they can keep that up, they'd sell product almost based
on just that one piece of information!
...
>
> I agree with the sentiment on the present state of current CAD
> programs' "improvements". Autodesk takes the cake. More
> expensive,
> and more frequent, "upgrades".
>
> If you've ever searched the internet for a CAD detail drawing,
> you can
> obviously see the benefit of having a free, searchable online
> database.
> It seems to me that is the real value of the whole
> Sketchup/Google
> collaboration.
I'm not sure I understand that comment. There is a huge amount
of CAD detail drawings spread all over the net and there has been
for a long time, at least a decade in my experience. Same for
converters, which work to varying degrees as I found out on one
particular project <g>. Collaboration is good sometimes, and
valuable occasionally, I agree. But, there is a plethora of
"stuff" already out there. I didn't look beyond the first page
of results, but using cad +symbols +download +free at
Google got many many pages of hits for free symbols and
libraries, which I assume are what you mean by detail drawings.
A symbol is nothing but a CAD drawing for re-use. Often they are
very, very detailed drawings.
...
>
> I suppose you could classify Google as a flash in the pan - but
> it's an
> awfully big flash in a stunningly large pan.
Lol, no, I wouldn't consider Google a flash in the pan but that's
an interesting description! They've been around quite awhile and
I don't mind them making money - for the most part they've done
it right.
Sketchup has also been
> around for a number of years and is on its fifth version.
That I didn't know. It looks like it came from Paintlib, or
something like that, back in the late 90's, but I never heard of
that either. I DID just notice the Title line says "Beta" which
I also didn't notice before; wish I had. THAT makes a lot of
sense and puts a lot of things into perspective. I did notice
the rev was 5.x.x.x. something though.
In that time
> they've attracted a loyal following and garnered enough
> attention of
> one of the 900 pound gorillas of the computer world to be
> bought out.
> Google isn't Microsoft who buys competitors to reduce
> competition (can
> anyone say Stanley Tools?). I don't know that Google is so
> short-sighted as to feel that they'd need to resort to what you
> call
> bait and switch. More likely they'd have a business model like
> Google
> Earth. A free version and a more powerful version available
> for sale
> or, more likely, subscription.
I've never heard of them, so I'd say they haven't attracted the
attention publicly very much but rather a (probably) lucrative
nitch.
Your keen loyalty did however cause me to do a bit of
research. going to
http://www.sketchup.com/index.php?id=1439
is a worthwhile trip and seems to give a little better, more
accurate, and better spin on things than Google has done with its
rename. There, I also found an easily visible, clear and concise
description of what the free/pro versions do.
If you haven't already, check it out; it's worth reading.
There are all the answers to all the questions I had about the
program. If they're on Google (and I don't doubt they are),
they're hard to find compared to the single-click it took me to
go to it at the link above.
This freebie version appears to be the first "full blown"
freebie, and it came about as a result of the Google purchase.
Now, being Google, who "doesn't do cad", I had to wonder at
their intentions, vs the stated intentions of the original
programmers. Good money was paid for it by Google, and an even
larger return is expected. I would even go so far as to label
the freebie version a Very Good. But, it's a bait & switch in
that it's not going to remain free, Betas in the future revs
won't go out in very large numbers, the Beta's aren't going to be
updateable, may ot even be worth a discounted upgrade price, and
the idea is to create an installed base which will in turn switch
to the retail version. I also suspect their target audience is
not aware of that, and thus my view of the bait & switch arena.
This isn' the first time that's been done and it won't be the
last, either. My only real objection is that whatever the future
plans are, their audience (installing base) is not being advised
of that. Reading Google gives me no comfort in the future for
the application.
All that said, if I'm wrong, the people WILL speak, and the
owners of the Pro versions, having spent their money, will make
the noises that decides a lot of purchases and a lot of the
future reputation of hte product.
>
> But be that as it may, I for one am not against someone making
> a profit
> as long as they provide value or a service.
Agreed, definitely. Deserved profits can never be a problem in
most cases.
Sketchup is a valuable
> tool and tied into Google Earth is an incredible service. You
> are
Well, "valuable tool" by itself, is a little wide of a paint
brush there IMO. I DO believe they've indentified an excellent
niche market for those wishing to get into semi-serious
space-modeling (3-D modelling) without knowing what it is or even
what it's called; especiallly those not realizing the difference
between CAD and CADD, or even in recognizing when they are
misused.
CADD is defined, in our use here:
Computer-Aided Design & Drafting
While CAD is defined as EITHER Computer Aided Drafting (usual
use) OR, Computer Aided Design. Which is applicable and which
context to use is dependent on the context, so most people get
pretty well lost in it and consider them the same thing.
> free, or course, to be skeptical of Google's motives and the
> value of
> the software.
No problem; everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I can
see you're loyal to the product, which also is not a problem.
In the same way that I will let people know if I like or
> dislike a tool or technique, I'm just pointing out that there's
> a lot
> of value and power behind the tool in question - whether it's
> free or
> purchased.
And I'm simply taking it one step further since value and power
are so often time dependent and rely on tomorrow still needing
the particular power/value w/r to the cost; "cost" meaning the
overall, not just the dollars and cents.
I'm not trying to change your mind at all, you know.
Actually, I've found this little "debate" or exchange of ideas,
whatever you wish to call it, a pleasant and mind-invoking
pleasure.
It's great mental exercise for me too, as I'm still recovering
from a serious brain concussion about 5 years ago and have a
pretty serious learning ability so discussions such as this go a
long ways toward helping me recover. It's been about 5 years
now and I'm finally beginning to get almost back to normal, at
least with the written word, and as I see it<G>: ymmv of course!
...
Regards,
Pop
Perfect. I was unaware of sketchucation.com. The woodworking forum
therein is very much what I was contemplating. And they have a Ruby
forum under the Pro Users forum.
Peter, thank you.
Peter Bogiatzidis wrote:
> John,
>
> FYI.
>
> I don't know if you saw the following links from within the SketchUp
> website, so here they are:
>
> http://www.sketchucation.com/index.htm and http://www.sketchup.com/?sid=38
> Scroll down to find Woodworking info in each link.
>
> They also have their own forums there as well. Hope this helps.
>
> Peter.
>
> "John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
<snip>
John L. Poole wrote:
> As I prepared this posting, I uninstalled the new version and
> reinstalled the older version. When I launched the reinstalled older
> version, I was immediately met with the same scenario: I could not get
> SketchUp to run other than to inform me the software was out of date.
> I did this reinstall to see if maybe an election I may have had made
> to keep the software current might be at play. I then uninstalled the
> older version to see what configuration files, if any, might be left
> in the directory ...\Program Files\Google\SketchUp: there were no
> files that suggested there were settings or configurations.
Check C:\Windows\system for...
allfsaf4a.ocx
machnm1.exe
mfc42u.dll
mpiwin32.dll
All are added by the install. If left, the time thing may be in one (didn't
see any in registry but there are a ton & I didn't peruse them carefully).
There are also a number of files in Program Files\InstallShield Installation
Information\{9421EB49-B1C8-496F-A307-FF0E4F43E6F5} In particular, there is
apparently license info in the cab file...at least, such is referenced by
layout.bin. The cab file isn't readable with normal zip compression
programs - Winrar & PowerArchiver at least.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
no(SPAM)vasys" <"no(SPAM)vasys wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> > As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new free
> > version does work. However, this should be a real red
> > flag to those taking advantage of the "free" version. It
> > is not beyond the realm of possibility that the new
> > version is also dated to expire at some future date. It
> > is also not beyond the realm of possibility that in the
> > future, after people have invested considerable time and
> > effort in the creation of various files and projects,
> > that the "free" version could go away, leaving the only
> > [legal according to the DMCA] options available to either
> > pay for the professional version in order to liberate
> > one's files or to abandon those files and the
> > accompanying work.
>
> IIRC SketchUp is offered by Google as an adjunct to "Google
> Earth" in hopes that users will populate the "Google Earth"
> database with 3D drawings of the buildings in the users'
> respective area.
Good catch: I'd forgotten that one. Another good way to judge
the acceptance of a BETA software, I'd think, and get some PR at
the same time. they obvious have some fairly big plans for it.
Pop
alexy wrote:
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't see
> > > where there's a problem with that as long as the
> > > product continues to be free.
> > >
> >
>
> If the "we" was a typo, you are wrong. The window title for
> google sketchup very clearly says "beta", at least on mine.
>
> If the "no" was supposed to be "know", I don't get your
> point. And it is not time limited--it just requires
> updating to latest version to keep working.
I don't think I'd depend on that policy being permanent - I said
in June it was going to be a baiting effort; I still think it is.
They just want a well entrenched user base before they end the
freebie.
So, if you're playing with it, great; but do NOT depend on it
if you don't plan to eventually pay for it. You'll likely end up
with orphaned dwgs or looking for crackers.
Also, look for a big drop in the Pro pricetag when the freebie
ends, purportedly to make it easier on those who are "hooked" on
it. Maybe in the form of a "special deal" for Beta testing.
AVOID EVER DEPENDING ON A BETA FOR ANY REASON!!
Pop
John,
FYI.
I don't know if you saw the following links from within the SketchUp
website, so here they are:
http://www.sketchucation.com/index.htm and http://www.sketchup.com/?sid=38
Scroll down to find Woodworking info in each link.
They also have their own forums there as well. Hope this helps.
Peter.
"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There was a previous posting "Free Version of SketchUp" on 4/27; however,
> I'm starting a new thread because I think woodworkers who have any
> experience with diagramming software or CAD may not have realized the
> significance of the event: Google making available a free version of
> SketchUp and the fact that Google is behind it. (Maybe there always has
> been a free version and it just didn't catch my attention? Any rate, with
> Google associated with it, this is going to have some staying power.)
>
> I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
> hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may be
> possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
> offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
> computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one of
> those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
> something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
> available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
>
> What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this newsgroup
> are actually interested in using SketchUp and collaborating on building
> some common components. By collaborating, I'm thinking of things such as
> have small components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
> profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to create
> models from. One project that comes to mind very quickly is taking a
> lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and having the final cut pieces
> automatically generated in SketchUp for assembly; and possibly,
> vice-versa -- design the components/model and then export them to Excel
> for a cut list.
>
> If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing in it,
> would you please email me with the subject line: "SketchUp
> rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your impressions with SketchUp and
> if you do any programming and would be interested in discussing what stuff
> could be created that caters to woodworkers. I'd really like to know if
> there are only a handful of people whom this might interest, or if the
> numbers go into the tens, or even possibly hundreds. I'll reply post to
> this thread with a count of responses as may be appropriate. Please ignore
> this request after June 30, 2006.
>
> Email to: [email protected] subject line: SketchUp rec.woodworking
>
> Hope I'm not alone in being excited about this significant event, I've
> been thinking about a software package to design with, I used several in
> the early 1990s and just found them to be too cumbersome, so this was a
> welcomed "freebie", especially since I can collaborate.
>
> John Poole
In a prior posting, John L. Poole wrote with the subject "Google's New
Free CAD software: Want to Collaborate?":
> There was a previous posting "Free Version of SketchUp" on 4/27;
> however, I'm starting a new thread because I think woodworkers who have
> any experience with diagramming software or CAD may not have realized
> the significance of the event: Google making available a free version of
> SketchUp and the fact that Google is behind it. (Maybe there always has
> been a free version and it just didn't catch my attention? Any rate,
> with Google associated with it, this is going to have some staying power.)
>
> I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
> hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may
> be possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
> offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
> computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one
> of those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
> something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
> available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
>
> What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this newsgroup
> are actually interested in using SketchUp and collaborating on building
> some common components. By collaborating, I'm thinking of things such
> as have small components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
> profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to create
> models from. One project that comes to mind very quickly is taking a
> lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and having the final cut pieces
> automatically generated in SketchUp for assembly; and possibly,
> vice-versa -- design the components/model and then export them to Excel
> for a cut list.
>
> If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing in it,
> would you please email me with the subject line: "SketchUp
> rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your impressions with SketchUp
> and if you do any programming and would be interested in discussing what
> stuff could be created that caters to woodworkers. I'd really like to
> know if there are only a handful of people whom this might interest, or
> if the numbers go into the tens, or even possibly hundreds. I'll reply
> post to this thread with a count of responses as may be appropriate.
> Please ignore this request after June 30, 2006.
>
> Email to: [email protected] subject line: SketchUp rec.woodworking
>
> Hope I'm not alone in being excited about this significant event, I've
> been thinking about a software package to design with, I used several in
> the early 1990s and just found them to be too cumbersome, so this was a
> welcomed "freebie", especially since I can collaborate.
>
> John Poole
Ouch!
When I went to start up Sketchup yesterday, I received a dialog box
titled "Google Sketchup Update Service" that contained the following
text: "Your version of Google SketchUp has expired. Please upgrade
now." with a single button "Download Now". There was no "Cancel" button.
If I clicked the "Download Now" button, Sketchup would close and my
default browser would be taken to SketchUp's download site.
I launched SketchUp again hoping I could bypass the dialog box and just
run SketchUp... even if my software was not current, I wanted to run it
rather than go through the process of downloading a new version. I
clicked the upper right "X" corner of the window. The dialog box
closed... and so did SketchUp.
My conclusion based on these two scenarios is that SketchUp was
automatically crippled based on my computer time/date. I saw one
posting referring to this as a "forced upgrade."
When I downloaded Sketchup back in April, there was no indication that
this software would expire on a date certain. Their current download
does not disclose such now.
This kind of date-activate auto-crippling leaves the possibility that
your inventory of designs is usable at the pleasure of the licensor who
may determine that it is time for you to pay some sort of license fee.
They could also decide that they no longer want to offer what they
label as a "Free" version, leaving only their commercial version for
those who wish to use SketchUp or access work product saved in the
SketchUp proprietary format. The industry practice for offering
software that has a limited time running ability is to disclose that it
operates for a limited time, e.g. "Expires after 30 days". No such
disclosure was, or is being made, here. Why is that?
Since I wanted to continue work on my current drawing, I downloaded the
newer beta version. When I did, I recalled seeing something on the
download page to the effect of "If you enjoyed the Free version of
Sketchup, then consider buying the professional version". I just
visited the download page now (hours later) and do not find that cheeky
suggestion.
As I prepared this posting, I uninstalled the new version and
reinstalled the older version. When I launched the reinstalled older
version, I was immediately met with the same scenario: I could not get
SketchUp to run other than to inform me the software was out of date. I
did this reinstall to see if maybe an election I may have had made to
keep the software current might be at play. I then uninstalled the
older version to see what configuration files, if any, might be left in
the directory ...\Program Files\Google\SketchUp: there were no files
that suggested there were settings or configurations. I did this in
case there was a software design "oversight" which cached a possible
election to automatically upgrade. I also checked my ...\Program
Files\Google\SketchUp directory for any configuration files I might edit
and found none.
A better design approach would be for their software to advise that the
current version may be out of date, but let the user continue working.
Let the users decide if they want to upgrade, don't render their work
product inaccessible by some undisclosed time limitation.
I've learned now that "Free" from Google should prompt the immediate
response of "For how long?" at the minimum. I feel misled by Google and
that they have played fast and loose with the term "Free."
I still believe SketchUp to be a great product.
John Poole
I agree that it is not off topic. Design tools are the first step in any
project, be they paper and pencil, a quick sketch on a piece of wood, or,
more and more these days, cad.
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4lXrg.355$qd3.350@trndny05...
> John L. Poole wrote:
> > Pop wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > (Pop: I'd have sent this privately, but it looks like the
> > only way to reach you is to post publicly; I acknowledge
> > this is getting far from the topic of woodworking.)
>
> Not a problem; that's by design, in fact.
> I prefer to avoid direct contacts not due to the people I meet
> online but rather the ones I don't meet; namely, email address
> scraping robots. Likewise I don't contact people in groups
> either without first asking permission. It's almost always
> preferable to have one's thoughts in the clear anyway so
> everyhone may benefit in case a snippet of good infor sneaks
> in<g>, IMO, and if it's something you don't want noted for
> prosperity the "X-no archive..." attribute gives it at least a
> sense of a short life in archives<g>. I don't use that either
> unless I'm just "gabbing", which isn't too often.
> And, I don't really find it off topic, though others may
> disagree. I'm usually easy to get along with<g>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop`
>
>
>
>
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new free version does
> work. However, this should be a real red flag to those taking advantage of
> the "free" version. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the new
> version is also dated to expire at some future date. It is also not beyond
> the realm of possibility that in the future, after people have invested
> considerable time and effort in the creation of various files and
> projects, that the "free" version could go away, leaving the only [legal
> according to the DMCA] options available to either pay for the professional
> version in order to liberate one's files or to abandon those files and the
> accompanying work.
IIRC SketchUp is offered by Google as an adjunct to "Google Earth" in
hopes that users will populate the "Google Earth" database with 3D
drawings of the buildings in the users' respective area.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)
On 4/30/06, John L. Poole wrote:
> There was a previous posting "Free Version of SketchUp" on 4/27;
> however, I'm starting a new thread because I think woodworkers who have
> any experience with diagramming software or CAD may not have realized
> the significance of the event: Google making available a free version of
> SketchUp and the fact that Google is behind it. (Maybe there always has
> been a free version and it just didn't catch my attention? Any rate,
> with Google associated with it, this is going to have some staying power.)
>
> I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
> hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may
> be possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
> offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
> computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one
> of those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
> something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
> available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
>
> What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this newsgroup
> are actually interested in using SketchUp and collaborating on building
> some common components. By collaborating, I'm thinking of things such
> as have small components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
> profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to create
> models from. One project that comes to mind very quickly is taking a
> lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and having the final cut pieces
> automatically generated in SketchUp for assembly; and possibly,
> vice-versa -- design the components/model and then export them to Excel
> for a cut list.
>
> If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing in it,
> would you please email me with the subject line: "SketchUp
> rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your impressions with SketchUp
> and if you do any programming and would be interested in discussing what
> stuff could be created that caters to woodworkers. I'd really like to
> know if there are only a handful of people whom this might interest, or
> if the numbers go into the tens, or even possibly hundreds. I'll reply
> post to this thread with a count of responses as may be appropriate.
> Please ignore this request after June 30, 2006.
>
> Email to: [email protected] subject line: SketchUp rec.woodworking
>
> Hope I'm not alone in being excited about this significant event, I've
> been thinking about a software package to design with, I used several in
> the early 1990s and just found them to be too cumbersome, so this was a
> welcomed "freebie", especially since I can collaborate.
>
> John Poole
Just an update: As of May 6 (about 7 days since the original posting) I
have had two people contact me.
In the meantime, I have verified that SketchUp (through its Ruby
Interpreter) can, with some tweaking, communicate with Microsoft Excel
(and any other OLE compliant program such as MS Word, Photoshop,
InDesign -- haven't tested the latter three, but I'm confident I can
access/manipulate these programs as may be desired). So, a Cutlist
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet based on Making a Cutlist, in the
March/April 2005 issue of Fine Woodworking (#176) downloadable at:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00166.asp
could be a source of model parts within SketchUp. Perhaps this is overkill?
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A more likely scenario is trying to find a way to
> take a chunk out of the Autocad pie. Autocad is the industry standard
> in many industries. Trying to work your way from the top down is
> tough. Starting a grassroots campaign and work your way up is a lot
> easier.
>
"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:OTOrg.116838
[email protected]:
<snip>
Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google Sketchup download page says
new version, but it appears still free. Of course they would like you to
buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear to be required.
Have you tried using the new version on old files?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:COQrg.676$2v.663
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>> Have you tried using the new version on old files?
> Yes, and the new version worked with my file.
>
That's a good thing, then!! <grin>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>First, I don't agree that the software expired. It forced an upgrade to
>>keep working.
> Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who had gotten
> a copy of google sketchup that worked like that. Either everyone
> else's copy, other than yours and mine, is expiring, or else most
> participants in this thread do not have a copy, and are just reacting
> to what someone said they thought was happening.
I will say that the message, which I don't recall verbatim, was worded in a
way that could make you think that it had time-bombed.
todd
There is ZERO confrontational attitude in any of my response;
only food for thought comments. We're all allowed our opines and
such. That said:
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:zqo7g.3059$iH5.1816@trndny07...
>> -- At $500 a pop for retail, that's way over the top.
>
> I don't know. The cad app I usually use is near double that
> though it is
> real cad.
Well, it's not really a "real" CAD(D) program, either. It's a
pretty good conept, and though it can do a lot, Pro and freebie
both, it is not a full blown CAD application for where those
strengths would be required.
Maybe someday it WILL be, but ... you can pretty much bet that
the price will more than double if/when it gets to that point,
and it will begin to stumble all over itself as any complex
application does.
From what I read that you get with the "Pro" $495 version, you
aren't gaining much except the ability to actually use some real
world (as in compatability with) importing/exporting and a few
esoteric functions that may or may not be of value. The freebie,
good as it is, is actually IMO nothing more than a good morphing
engine with a couple of decent libraries tagged onto it.
I AM surprised at the omission of real bugs in it though! If
they continued with THAT history, user groups aside, they would
definitely command a unique place in the market! But right now,
it's my opinion that the $500 is way too high for what it does;
they're ahead of themselves in that I see no use of the freebie
version other than as a demo, which they aren't claiming it to
be. Or even a Beta, for that matter.
I don't know that I'd use it for ground to sky design of a
house or anything larger, but it really is a pretty good
woodworking tool and this will get them noticed. I admit that.
Add to this my previous comments and I still feel pretty sure of
my stance on it.
>
>> The
>> freebie version is obviously a great idea IFF it's not used as
>> a
>> bait & switch down the road, which is where I think it's
>> headed.
>
> Doubt it's a bait and switch but they are trying to get you to
> buy the full
> version.
No, I actually think it's a form of bait & switch. It likely is
headed for a $1200 or higher price tag, and if they can keep it
rolling for one or two years they'll be able to, as they are
presently attempting, build a fair installed base of their
software. In a couple of years, things are goign to look awfully
different, and if you are sufficiently embroiled in their app,
you'll almost have to buy their product or go through a large
investment to sidestep it. To me, that's not acceptable, and
that's also why I think it should be calling the freebie a demo
or Beta version; it is not what they want to sell, but they are
working at getting people to become vested in the software.
Today's CAD packages, and CADD packages, are all sufficiently
skilled at reading each other's works where I suspect a lot of
proprietory control is SU's future.
I also suspect that Google may well sell it off again in a few
years; they are good at the spin & collect operations there.
>
>> -- I don't see the freebie version lasting much longer. If
>> an
>> installed base can be confirmed, then the freebie will go to a
>> pay-for version. So if you really like the freebie version,
>> archive it for the future or you may be sorry.
>
> Good advice. There probably will be a time when it's no longer
> free.
Yeah, like I said, it actually is a pretty good app for personal
work, and not too hard a learning curve. They did do some
thinking outside the box, that's for certain.
>
>> -- It's only an opinion, but I think it's being used as a
>> puller
>> and if enough people can be talked into creating design works
>> in
>> a proprietary format, they will be forced to either abandon
>> those
>> designs or spend the money to upgrade to the $495 full
>> version.
>
> Definatly. Several years ago, one of the major cad companies
> put out a very
> good, functional freeby. I messed around with it a bit but
> never used it for
> much as I knew that they were just trying to get you on the
> hook. It had to
> be registered on a regular basis or it would not run.
> Registration was free
> but I knew that a time would come when it quite working and
> they would say
> you had to buy the full version. The price was in the several
> thousand
> dollar range. No way.
Hmm, I missed that one. My route was Generic CAD, then AutoCad
and then for personal use TurboCad, which seems to interface
nicely with everyone else, at least in the instances where i
needed it to. I stopped at TC 7 though, finding the following
versions to be more fluff than meat, and then retired. So, 7 it
is, for me! I had a chance at Acad cheap, but passed on it, as I
did with the dBCAD for modelling when they were trying to push
it.
>
>
Anyway, them's my musings fer tadoy, sich 'sitis. For a $199
full blown Pro version and three free upgrades to the freebie, a
bit more internal visibility without giving away the store, I'd
be able to get a lot more behind them. From a lifetime of work,
I can say this one thing with confidence: Beware the
entrepreneur - 99% of them are a flash in the pan and missing a
grounding in reality. The real trick's to support them to the
hilt, and then bail just before they do and you'll make a buck;
but don't follow them too far! Of course, I missed out once, big
time, and tried to get back in too late! Ouch! <G> But the
other times worked out well enough.
Regards,
Pop
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>set to expire since the current version others have used were so set.
I don't think anyone has seen a version that was set to expire at a
certain time. It requires accepting updates to keep it current. Just
tried it, and it works when not connected. I don't know how long,
though--might have a requirement to check update status every so
often. Would agree that is not clearly disclosed, but it seems quite a
bit different from saying that it is "set to expire" at a certain
point.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
James E. Cannon wrote:
> I've never seen so many people bitch about something for
> which none of them has paid a dime.
I knew one of you wouild be along shortly here! Just because you
know what the processes end up being in cases like this does not
in any way mean the masses do. It's also called venting and
getting it off their chests and lots of other healthy things.
When I read your short post I thought to myself, "Well, then
why are YOU bitching about other people bitching?" But I just
thought it; I won't say it out loud. Shh, don't tell anyone!
So I says to msyelf, "Self, ... ."
Pop
John L. Poole wrote:
> In a prior posting, John L. Poole wrote with the subject "Google's New
> Free CAD software: Want to Collaborate?":
>> There was a previous posting "Free Version of SketchUp" on 4/27;
>> however, I'm starting a new thread because I think woodworkers who have
>> any experience with diagramming software or CAD may not have realized
>> the significance of the event: Google making available a free version of
>> SketchUp and the fact that Google is behind it. (Maybe there always has
>> been a free version and it just didn't catch my attention? Any rate,
>> with Google associated with it, this is going to have some staying
>> power.)
>>
>> I was unaware of SketchUp until three days ago and have spent several
>> hours exploring its capabilities and the Ruby API to determine what may
>> be possible with Google's free version. Basically, I've concluded this
>> offering by Google could be a significant event for woodworkers who are
>> computer literate and connected to the Internet. I believe this is one
>> of those programs where collaboration by woodworkers could prove to be
>> something pretty significant and give Google a "Bravo!" for making this
>> available in conjunction with a repository for sharing work.
>>
>> What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this newsgroup
>> are actually interested in using SketchUp and collaborating on building
>> some common components. By collaborating, I'm thinking of things such
>> as have small components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
>> profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to create
>> models from. One project that comes to mind very quickly is taking a
>> lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and having the final cut pieces
>> automatically generated in SketchUp for assembly; and possibly,
>> vice-versa -- design the components/model and then export them to Excel
>> for a cut list.
>>
>> If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing in it,
>> would you please email me with the subject line: "SketchUp
>> rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your impressions with SketchUp
>> and if you do any programming and would be interested in discussing what
>> stuff could be created that caters to woodworkers. I'd really like to
>> know if there are only a handful of people whom this might interest, or
>> if the numbers go into the tens, or even possibly hundreds. I'll reply
>> post to this thread with a count of responses as may be appropriate.
>> Please ignore this request after June 30, 2006.
>>
>> Email to: [email protected] subject line: SketchUp rec.woodworking
>>
>> Hope I'm not alone in being excited about this significant event, I've
>> been thinking about a software package to design with, I used several in
>> the early 1990s and just found them to be too cumbersome, so this was a
>> welcomed "freebie", especially since I can collaborate.
>>
>> John Poole
>
> Ouch!
>
> When I went to start up Sketchup yesterday, I received a dialog box
> titled "Google Sketchup Update Service" that contained the following
> text: "Your version of Google SketchUp has expired. Please upgrade
> now." with a single button "Download Now". There was no "Cancel" button.
> If I clicked the "Download Now" button, Sketchup would close and my
> default browser would be taken to SketchUp's download site.
>
> I launched SketchUp again hoping I could bypass the dialog box and just
> run SketchUp... even if my software was not current, I wanted to run it
> rather than go through the process of downloading a new version. I
> clicked the upper right "X" corner of the window. The dialog box
> closed... and so did SketchUp.
>
> My conclusion based on these two scenarios is that SketchUp was
> automatically crippled based on my computer time/date. I saw one
> posting referring to this as a "forced upgrade."
>
> When I downloaded Sketchup back in April, there was no indication that
> this software would expire on a date certain. Their current download
> does not disclose such now.
>
> This kind of date-activate auto-crippling leaves the possibility that
> your inventory of designs is usable at the pleasure of the licensor who
> may determine that it is time for you to pay some sort of license fee.
> They could also decide that they no longer want to offer what they
> label as a "Free" version, leaving only their commercial version for
> those who wish to use SketchUp or access work product saved in the
> SketchUp proprietary format. The industry practice for offering
> software that has a limited time running ability is to disclose that it
> operates for a limited time, e.g. "Expires after 30 days". No such
> disclosure was, or is being made, here. Why is that?
>
> Since I wanted to continue work on my current drawing, I downloaded the
> newer beta version. When I did, I recalled seeing something on the
> download page to the effect of "If you enjoyed the Free version of
> Sketchup, then consider buying the professional version". I just
> visited the download page now (hours later) and do not find that cheeky
> suggestion.
>
> As I prepared this posting, I uninstalled the new version and
> reinstalled the older version. When I launched the reinstalled older
> version, I was immediately met with the same scenario: I could not get
> SketchUp to run other than to inform me the software was out of date. I
> did this reinstall to see if maybe an election I may have had made to
> keep the software current might be at play. I then uninstalled the
> older version to see what configuration files, if any, might be left in
> the directory ...\Program Files\Google\SketchUp: there were no files
> that suggested there were settings or configurations. I did this in
> case there was a software design "oversight" which cached a possible
> election to automatically upgrade. I also checked my ...\Program
> Files\Google\SketchUp directory for any configuration files I might edit
> and found none.
>
> A better design approach would be for their software to advise that the
> current version may be out of date, but let the user continue working.
> Let the users decide if they want to upgrade, don't render their work
> product inaccessible by some undisclosed time limitation.
>
> I've learned now that "Free" from Google should prompt the immediate
> response of "For how long?" at the minimum. I feel misled by Google and
> that they have played fast and loose with the term "Free."
It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't see where there's a
problem with that as long as the product continues to be free.
> I still believe SketchUp to be a great product.
>
> John Poole
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zqo7g.3059$iH5.1816@trndny07...
> -- At $500 a pop for retail, that's way over the top.
I don't know. The cad app I usually use is near double that though it is
real cad.
> The
> freebie version is obviously a great idea IFF it's not used as a
> bait & switch down the road, which is where I think it's headed.
Doubt it's a bait and switch but they are trying to get you to buy the full
version.
> -- I don't see the freebie version lasting much longer. If an
> installed base can be confirmed, then the freebie will go to a
> pay-for version. So if you really like the freebie version,
> archive it for the future or you may be sorry.
Good advice. There probably will be a time when it's no longer free.
> -- It's only an opinion, but I think it's being used as a puller
> and if enough people can be talked into creating design works in
> a proprietary format, they will be forced to either abandon those
> designs or spend the money to upgrade to the $495 full version.
Definatly. Several years ago, one of the major cad companies put out a very
good, functional freeby. I messed around with it a bit but never used it for
much as I knew that they were just trying to get you on the hook. It had to
be registered on a regular basis or it would not run. Registration was free
but I knew that a time would come when it quite working and they would say
you had to buy the full version. The price was in the several thousand
dollar range. No way.
> I saw some hype that claims it exports to common CADD formats,
> but I don't see anything in the freebie version. IF it's there,
> I haven't found it yet. Maybe I just missed it? Don't think so,
> but I've done stupid things like that before. The only export
> I've found is to .PNG graphic format.
I know it will export to dwg but not sure what other formats. Yes, that is
only in the pay version.
> -- Another thing that bothers me is I get a Firewall alert every
> time I use it where it's trying to call home - I don't know what
> that's about. Maybe it's just trying for update info - but I
> don't -know- that.
Yes, it has an auto update feature.
>
> -- All that said, I do have to admit that it's a pretty darned
> good implementation and so far bug free.
>
> The above are some of the issues I'd have to see addressed before
> I'd seriously doing anything but playing with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pop
>
Pop wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think I'd depend on that policy being permanent - I said
> in June it was going to be a baiting effort; I still think it is.
> They just want a well entrenched user base before they end the
> freebie.
> So, if you're playing with it, great; but do NOT depend on it
> if you don't plan to eventually pay for it. You'll likely end up
> with orphaned dwgs or looking for crackers.
> Also, look for a big drop in the Pro pricetag when the freebie
> ends, purportedly to make it easier on those who are "hooked" on
> it. Maybe in the form of a "special deal" for Beta testing.
> AVOID EVER DEPENDING ON A BETA FOR ANY REASON!!
>
> Pop
>
>
Your prophetic June posting echoed in the back of my mind as I wrote
today's posting. I remember reading it and thinking, well maybe in this
case, Google might be different. Wishful thinking -- they're a publicly
traded company who are going to have to answer to Wall Street's demand
of continually maximizing profits, and your outline/predictions do
summarize a very savvy, if not predatory, strategy to gain market share.
When the small competitors are driven out, then the resulting
oligopoly can then pluck the consumers.
(Pop: I'd have sent this privately, but it looks like the only way to
reach you is to post publicly; I acknowledge this is getting far from
the topic of woodworking.)
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote:
>lol, I hope you're right for your sake! That's a lot of trust
>for one to put into BETA software and backward compatability for
>the Released version!
None at all. I've tested it against the demo version of the commercial
software, on one of my computers. I'm not counting on some future
release.
<snip>
>BETA sofware is ONLY good for play, not for work!
Yep, and Google is pretty explicit about that--this version is for
personal non-commercial use only. For work, you should be using the
commercial version.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:OTOrg.116838
>>[email protected]:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google Sketchup download page says
>>new version, but it appears still free. Of course they would like you to
>>buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear to be required.
>>
>>Have you tried using the new version on old files?
>
> As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new free version does
>work. However, this should be a real red flag to those taking advantage of
>the "free" version. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the new
>version is also dated to expire at some future date. It is also not beyond
>the realm of possibility that in the future, after people have invested
>considerable time and effort in the creation of various files and
>projects, that the "free" version could go away, leaving the only [legal
>according to the DMCA] options available to either pay for the professional
>version in order to liberate one's files or to abandon those files and the
>accompanying work.
>
> Sure doesn't seem to fall under the "do no evil" code by which Google
>supposedly lives. At a minimum, the fact that the software will expire at
>a future date should be disclosed.
That hypothetical situation, certainly would violate a "do no evil"
code. But I've seen nothing that they have done that violates it. And
where are folks getting the idea that the software will expire at some
future date? I haven't seen anything to that effect.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote:
>alexy wrote:
>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > message news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > > It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't see
>> > > where there's a problem with that as long as the
>> > > product continues to be free.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> If the "we" was a typo, you are wrong. The window title for
>> google sketchup very clearly says "beta", at least on mine.
>>
>> If the "no" was supposed to be "know", I don't get your
>> point. And it is not time limited--it just requires
>> updating to latest version to keep working.
>
>I don't think I'd depend on that policy being permanent - I said
>in June it was going to be a baiting effort; I still think it is.
>They just want a well entrenched user base before they end the
>freebie.
I think, hope, but don't know, that you are wrong.
> So, if you're playing with it, great; but do NOT depend on it
>if you don't plan to eventually pay for it. You'll likely end up
>with orphaned dwgs or looking for crackers.
No, I have a planned "out". The full versions demo is fully file
compatible with the free version, and exports to a bunch of standard
file formats. And it runs for 8 hours of machine time, plenty of time
to export lots of files if your direst predictions come true.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't see where there's a
>> problem with that as long as the product continues to be free.
>>
>
If the "we" was a typo, you are wrong. The window title for google
sketchup very clearly says "beta", at least on mine.
If the "no" was supposed to be "know", I don't get your point. And it
is not time limited--it just requires updating to latest version to
keep working.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy wrote:
> "Pop" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > alexy wrote:
> > > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.
> > > >
> > > > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > > It's common for betas to be time bombed. I don't
> > > > > see where there's a problem with that as long as the
> > > > > product continues to be free.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the "we" was a typo, you are wrong. The window title
> > > for google sketchup very clearly says "beta", at least
> > > on mine.
> > >
> > > If the "no" was supposed to be "know", I don't get your
> > > point. And it is not time limited--it just requires
> > > updating to latest version to keep working.
> >
> > I don't think I'd depend on that policy being permanent -
> > I said in June it was going to be a baiting effort; I
> > still think it is. They just want a well entrenched user
> > base before they end the freebie.
> I think, hope, but don't know, that you are wrong.
>
> > So, if you're playing with it, great; but do NOT depend
> > on it if you don't plan to eventually pay for it. You'll
> > likely end up with orphaned dwgs or looking for crackers.
> No, I have a planned "out". The full versions demo is fully
> file compatible with the free version, and exports to a
> bunch of standard file formats. And it runs for 8 hours of
> machine time, plenty of time to export lots of files if
> your direst predictions come true.
lol, I hope you're right for your sake! That's a lot of trust
for one to put into BETA software and backward compatability for
the Released version!
If you guys really want to know, why don't you go after Google
and get the word from the horse's (whichever end you prefer
here)? They're the ones with the answers.
In fact, this might even make an interesting Google search
exercise. I'll bet they're counting and tagging posts like this.
BETA sofware is ONLY good for play, not for work!
Pop
I doubt seriously that the developers of Sketchup had any ideas of
trying to compete with Autocad. There is no comparison. Sketchup, as it's
name suggests, is meant for quick concept and presentation drawings. It has
no facility to do the detail drafting needed for construction plans.
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A more likely scenario is trying to find a way to
> take a chunk out of the Autocad pie. Autocad is the industry standard
> in many industries. Trying to work your way from the top down is
> tough. Starting a grassroots campaign and work your way up is a lot
> easier.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't disagree with the need for businesses to make money. However,
> since Google does have several revenue models that don't require purchase
> of product from Google, disclosing the fact that the software will expire
> would be a reasonable thing to do. As you indicate, best practice is to
> avoid being a guinea pig unless you understand the rewards/risks
First, I don't agree that the software expired. It forced an upgrade to
keep working. Which, by the way, is expressly stated in the license. It's
not like the license is 30 pages long, either. Its only 4 pages and the
update requirement is spelled out pretty plainly.
Now, not that I'm promoting violating the license that you all agreed to,
but I'm willing to bet that the software will run until it phones home and
finds out that there is an update. Now, if someone had a firewall and knew
enough to figure out the probable range of addresses it checks for updates
on, that someone could block access to that range. If it never hears about
an available update, I suspect it will keep running. Is there some limit to
the number of times it will run without being able to check for updates? I
don't know, but if there is, the number is more than 10 ;-).
todd
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:45:34 GMT, "Pop" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400, alexy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > > > news:OTOrg.116838
>> > > > [email protected]:
>> > > >
>> > > > <snip>
>> > > >
... snip
>> I would argue that since it was not prominently disclosed
>> that the software being downloaded had a timebomb (it may
>> have been buried somewhere several pages down in 6 point
>> type in the click-through EULA) is a questionable practice
>> in itself and seems to violate the spirit of what Google
>> purports to be compared to other software houses.
>>
>> It's not a stretch to assume that the versions being
>> downloaded are also set to expire since the current version
>> others have used were so set.
>
>But then, it WAS labeled as BETA sofware, so ... that means
>caveat emptor even it if is free.
>Usually, unless there's a promise of a benefit for using a BETA
>program, you can expect a glitch or rug-pull somewhere along the
>line. BETA is TEST software and often a good way of seeing how
>something is received by the general public. Then once you know,
>you end the BETA, have a nice big release announcement, and wait
>for the checks to roll in.
> IMO one should NEVER participate in any BETA without promise
>of a reward for their efforts. I do it with MS, and I get free
>software for it, but they're up front and tell you so. And they
>stick to their word.
> IMO again, as Excellent a tool as Google is, they ARE a
>business and one must expect them to act that way. They're a
>.COM, nor a .ORG, after all. There is only one way a business
>stays in business and that's by making money. And anyone
>offering BETA software is offering untested software only
>slightly removed from the ALPHA runs and hopefully headed for a
>Release version.
>
I don't disagree with the need for businesses to make money. However,
since Google does have several revenue models that don't require purchase
of product from Google, disclosing the fact that the software will expire
would be a reasonable thing to do. As you indicate, best practice is to
avoid being a guinea pig unless you understand the rewards/risks
>Regards,
>
>Pop`
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>>
>> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"James E. Cannon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've never seen so many people bitch about something for which none of them
>has paid a dime.
>
And which works exactly as promised. All of the bitching is about what
_MIGHT_ happen.
Behind (well behind, IMHO) all the bitching is a concern about what
might happen, which concern users should be aware of.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in news:OTOrg.116838
>>>[email protected]:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google Sketchup download page says
>>>new version, but it appears still free. Of course they would like you to
>>>buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear to be required.
>>>
>>>Have you tried using the new version on old files?
>>
>> As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new free version does
>>work. However, this should be a real red flag to those taking advantage of
>>the "free" version. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the new
>>version is also dated to expire at some future date. It is also not beyond
>>the realm of possibility that in the future, after people have invested
>>considerable time and effort in the creation of various files and
>>projects, that the "free" version could go away, leaving the only [legal
>>according to the DMCA] options available to either pay for the professional
>>version in order to liberate one's files or to abandon those files and the
>>accompanying work.
>>
>> Sure doesn't seem to fall under the "do no evil" code by which Google
>>supposedly lives. At a minimum, the fact that the software will expire at
>>a future date should be disclosed.
>
>That hypothetical situation, certainly would violate a "do no evil"
>code. But I've seen nothing that they have done that violates it. And
>where are folks getting the idea that the software will expire at some
>future date? I haven't seen anything to that effect.
I would argue that since it was not prominently disclosed that the
software being downloaded had a timebomb (it may have been buried somewhere
several pages down in 6 point type in the click-through EULA) is a
questionable practice in itself and seems to violate the spirit of what
Google purports to be compared to other software houses.
It's not a stretch to assume that the versions being downloaded are also
set to expire since the current version others have used were so set.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
You seem to have missed my point. Lets try again. "I don't know, the cad app
that I use is near double that though it (the app that I use) is real cad.
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bUu7g.1545$Zf3.973@trndny01...
>> >
> > I don't know. The cad app I usually use is near double that
> > though it is
> > real cad.
>
> Well, it's not really a "real" CAD(D) program, either.>
>
I definatly agree.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400, alexy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John L. Poole" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > news:OTOrg.116838
> > > > [email protected]:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I'm missing something here. The Google
> > > > Sketchup download page says new version, but it
> > > > appears still free. Of course they would like you to
> > > > buy the US$496.00 pro version, but it does not appear
> > > > to be required.
> > > >
> > > > Have you tried using the new version on old files?
> > >
> > > As the OP indicated in a subsequent reply, the new
> > > free version does work. However, this should be a real
> > > red flag to those taking advantage of the "free"
> > > version. It is not beyond the realm of possibility
> > > that the new version is also dated to expire at some
> > > future date. It is also not beyond the realm of
> > > possibility that in the future, after people have
> > > invested considerable time and effort in the creation
> > > of various files and projects, that the "free" version
> > > could go away, leaving the only [legal according to the
> > > DMCA] options available to either pay for the
> > > professional version in order to liberate one's files
> > > or to abandon those files and the accompanying work.
> > >
> > > Sure doesn't seem to fall under the "do no evil" code
> > > by which Google supposedly lives. At a minimum, the
> > > fact that the software will expire at a future date
> > > should be disclosed.
> >
> > That hypothetical situation, certainly would violate a
> > "do no evil" code. But I've seen nothing that they have
> > done that violates it. And where are folks getting the
> > idea that the software will expire at some future date? I
> > haven't seen anything to that effect.
>
> I would argue that since it was not prominently disclosed
> that the software being downloaded had a timebomb (it may
> have been buried somewhere several pages down in 6 point
> type in the click-through EULA) is a questionable practice
> in itself and seems to violate the spirit of what Google
> purports to be compared to other software houses.
>
> It's not a stretch to assume that the versions being
> downloaded are also set to expire since the current version
> others have used were so set.
But then, it WAS labeled as BETA sofware, so ... that means
caveat emptor even it if is free.
Usually, unless there's a promise of a benefit for using a BETA
program, you can expect a glitch or rug-pull somewhere along the
line. BETA is TEST software and often a good way of seeing how
something is received by the general public. Then once you know,
you end the BETA, have a nice big release announcement, and wait
for the checks to roll in.
IMO one should NEVER participate in any BETA without promise
of a reward for their efforts. I do it with MS, and I get free
software for it, but they're up front and tell you so. And they
stick to their word.
IMO again, as Excellent a tool as Google is, they ARE a
business and one must expect them to act that way. They're a
.COM, nor a .ORG, after all. There is only one way a business
stays in business and that's by making money. And anyone
offering BETA software is offering untested software only
slightly removed from the ALPHA runs and hopefully headed for a
Release version.
Regards,
Pop`
>
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
alexy wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > set to expire since the current version others have used
> > were so set.
>
> I don't think anyone has seen a version that was set to
> expire at a certain time. It requires accepting updates to
> keep it current.
No, updates aren't required to employ a shut-off date. There are
a very large number of ways to do it, ranging from counting the
number of day since installed to hiding a kill file at a
particular time. Connection to the internet is completely
irrelevant. BTW, if you're thinking of MS's practice, they do
not require connection either with their free try it downloads.
HTH
Pop`
Just tried it, and it works when not
> connected. I don't know how long, though--might have a
> requirement to check update status every so often. Would
> agree that is not clearly disclosed, but it seems quite a
> bit different from saying that it is "set to expire" at a
> certain point.
...
>> What I'd like to do is determine how many people who read this
>> newsgroup are actually interested in using SketchUp and
>> collaborating on building some common components. By
>> collaborating, I'm thinking of things such >> as have small
>> components, e.g. mortise-tenon joints, dovetail joints,
>> profiles of router cutters and other basic type components to
>> create models from. One project that comes to mind very
>> quickly is taking a lumber cut list in Microsoft Excel and
>> having the final cut pieces automatically generated in
>> SketchUp for assembly; and possibly, vice-versa -- design the
>> components/model and then export them to Excel >> for a cut
>> list.
>>
>> If you think you might be interested in SketchUp and designing
>> in it, would you please email me with the subject line:
>> "SketchUp rec.woodworking" and a brief comment on your
>> impressions with ...
...
I downloaded and played with it, and I agree it's darned good as
a freebie and a fully capable piece of softare w/r to doing what
it says it will do. I'm actually impressed with many of its
features and although it's no full blown CADD, it is indeed
capable of almost all woodworking chores what would be required
of it.
However, I'm not inclined to e-mail the poster, nor do I think
it's wise to put all my eggs into that basket for the following
reasons:
-- I don't e-mail strangers I don't know, nor do I give out
personal info of any kind online; all for obvious reasons. I
might however be tempted to do so anonymously on a web site.
-- At $500 a pop for retail, that's way over the top. The
freebie version is obviously a great idea IFF it's not used as a
bait & switch down the road, which is where I think it's headed.
-- I don't see the freebie version lasting much longer. If an
installed base can be confirmed, then the freebie will go to a
pay-for version. So if you really like the freebie version,
archive it for the future or you may be sorry.
-- It's only an opinion, but I think it's being used as a puller
and if enough people can be talked into creating design works in
a proprietary format, they will be forced to either abandon those
designs or spend the money to upgrade to the $495 full version.
I saw some hype that claims it exports to common CADD formats,
but I don't see anything in the freebie version. IF it's there,
I haven't found it yet. Maybe I just missed it? Don't think so,
but I've done stupid things like that before. The only export
I've found is to .PNG graphic format.
-- Another thing that bothers me is I get a Firewall alert every
time I use it where it's trying to call home - I don't know what
that's about. Maybe it's just trying for update info - but I
don't -know- that.
-- All that said, I do have to admit that it's a pretty darned
good implementation and so far bug free.
The above are some of the issues I'd have to see addressed before
I'd seriously doing anything but playing with it.
Regards,
Pop