Control.com - Nerds in Control

My question is simple, but the answer escapes me. To all you devoted Allen Bradley people and to everyone else who uses PLCs, why do you pay for their programming software?

For AB to charge $1100 - $1200 for programming software, then on top of that, some people have told me that they charge a yearly upgrade/license fee blows my mind at how many people pay these fees. Then there is Automation Direct that charges for OEM licenses and little things like manuals. They are starting to remind me of banks...charging for every little thing.

A question that has been on my mind for some time. Curious to see what some of your answers are.

I agree completely, but I have no choice.

My company would never use PLCs, but for marketing reasons we have to. I find it particularly gauling that A-B charges so much for its software.

Consider a company using all Modicon PLCs. A-B comes in and says "our PLCs are better!" The idea of switching hardware is appealing and the company wants to do it and has the money for it. But they can't! Because they can't afford the software cost in addition to the hardward costs. If A-B gave them the software when they bought A-B PLCs, the company has an incentive to switch to A-B. Instead, A-B creates a DISINCENTIVE to move to their hardware.

On the flip side, I have an incentive now to STAY with A-B now that I've got so much invested in the software. Perhaps they feel that locking people in once they get them is more beneficial to the bottom line than attractive people in the first place.

The software shouldn't be a revenue stream. I'm certainly okay paying for technical support and some nominal fee for the software (a hundred bucks, maybe?). But paying thousands per copy per year is quite painful.

This is true of every other manufacturer as well. We would be much more willing to look at other PLC vendors if their software were free (or priced reasonably.) I actually like AutomationDirect.com's pricing, and I'm okay paying for manuals (it's nominal).

-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.

James

I am dismayed at your thinking here. It costs considerably more to develop good software than it does automation hardware. In representing Schneider Electric and our programming software, perhaps you would prefer us to add this cost to the price of the hardware?

I am sure you would not go for this suggestion. Like it or not, automation company's are evolving into software vendors..... This is the facilitator for what hardware is able to do. Without it hardware is inate.

We are all in business and consumers in the majority now accept that software is a piece of the automation solution. My suggestion....Get with the program and understand the value of the tool that is now esential to an automation system

Best regards

Lee J Ward
Schneider Automation

Lee, you haven't addressed my fundamental point; no plant that isn't currently using your products can EVER switch to them. It doesn't matter if the hardware is completely free; the cost of replacing the current software with your software is prohibitively expensive. With even one piece of equipment in my plant, I have to have dozens of copies of the software for all of the engineers and maintenance people who might possibly need to look at it.

This business model can kill companies. Do you really think it's a smart marketing move to place a huge barrier to adopting your products?

-James Inrgaham

Yes software is expensive, and yes once you select your flavor you are basicly locked into the system due to capitol investment costs. Changing a system to another is not a value added or money returning investment. It is only an essential reliablity investment in the worst cases.

The best thing going for PLCs is the wide body of knowledge in support. There are integrators in almost every city who develop in ladder, function blocks, and SFCs. Bottom line, Ladder is efficient for the technician to work in and understand just like an electrical schematic.

Look at PLC 5 1771 I/O, It's still available and has been since the 80s. SLC 500 since the 90s, try and find a 286 passive backplane CPU today. (Remember when the programmer would count clock cycles to build his timing, and never provide C code for that boat anchor sitting in your warehouse?)

Today you could retrofit a junky old PC based dinosour with a sercos card, a kinetix drive, and a few lines of ladder. We are talking coordinated motion easily from a PLC. Nice stuff comes with some cost, let's face it, none of us work for free, and if they wanted me to, then I'd go broke at home and let their machines gather rust.

Yes it costs a lot for hardware, but have you checked the price of tooling? 100 dollars worth of metal can cost 1500 after being machined on a CNC. Just remember everything is worth what the market will bear, and if machinery purchases become cost prohibitive due to cost of hardware then people won't buy. That would drop the cost over time, or they would go out of buisness, which would allow you to justify change out on obsolescence costs... Just my 2 cents.

Mike Roberson
Manager/Controls Engineer/Maunfacturing and operations whipping boy/ *insert derogatory comment here*

I did a small project that required several small PLCs. 32 I/O x 5. I looked around and found this.

Mitsubishi gave me their DOS based software for free. The small brick PLC cost me 450 USD ea for 32 I/O. The cable was 120 USD.

The AB software was 1500 USD and the cable was 150 USD and the PLCs were 1250 USD ea!!!

So I used Mitsubishi. Finished the project and delivered it. Wish I could have used a Linux PC to write the code.

Then the customer says it has to be AB hardware and software at their plant!!

So I said good luck with that. I'll redo it if you want to pay for both ...AND THEY DID!!

So I have 5 cool little PLCs at home! With software and supporting hardware. I even reordered all new cabinets and relays and din rails and
power supplies and kept all the old stuff!

So you see, the big Co. just can't see the point.

I have heard about an open source project that programs several PLCs from one GUI and downloads and uploads to several different hardware types. If it was ever true I bet AB squashed it like a bug.

Make a quality product at a reasonable price and I'll pay it and be happy.

I have only bought one copy of windows, and I regret that.

If you want me to buy it, it has to work and be reasonable.

Lee,

Allen-Bradley is a very smart company. They come
out with a new set of cards that can be accessed only on a new Software. They lure u into using this new set of cards & then unleash the real thing.
They suggested us to go in for NT8 module in place of NT4 (2 nos. used in our system) under
guise of cost-reduction. Once we got down to
actual engg., we were told to go in for RS-Logix
because "NT8 works only with it". Whereas we have been using APS since long. We refused.

Rgds,
goh

Hi,

- New hardware features usually needs new software, and I think that point is easy to understand. moreover, PLCs like CLX offer amazing possibilities with newest software that you can use with 'OLD' hardware just updating its firmware, obviously you make the decision and you decide if you need/want these new features or you prefer to stay with the performance you bought some years ago.

- Why should I pay for NEW software? usually you don't have to pay the WHOLE new software, PLC companies offer you software support plans that at a lower cost maintains your software updating you with the latest versions. Once again you have the decision of taking profit of these newer versions or staying with your initial investment.

- Why use Logix (Windows based software) instead of APS (MS-DOS based software)?

1) Try Logix, you'll FEEL the diference...
2) Will Microsoft O.S. keep on supporting MS-DOS based programs in the future? will computer manufacturers keep on producing compatible hardware with MS-DOS (note that most of the newest laptops have completely replaced RS-232 serial ports with USB ports)... so will your computer last forever?

- Why pay for newest software? why we pay for newest PLCs? why did we put the first PLC in our plant? I think the answer is our competitors are producing better and faster, 'cause they invest, otherwise we would keep on working with rely logics.

Your atitude towards a potential customer is apalling. I wonder if your tech support staff will treat me like that. The attitude that a customer should "get with the program" is not a good business strategy. This goes right along with gouging your customers by charging outrageous prices for software that could hardly be considered a high quality piece of programming.
I am just learning to program PLCs and I have never used your software or hardware, and your attitude has guaranteed that neither I nor any of my professional contacts buy your products. To stress this point, I am friends with the part owner of a large automation company here in PA. He is the reason I am learning PLC and motion control. His company has built projects for companies all over the united states.

> James
>
> I am dismayed at your thinking here. It costs considerably more to develop good software than it does automation hardware. In representing Schneider Electric and our programming software, perhaps you would prefer us to add this cost to the price of the hardware? <

I am forced to use your Concept software, and it is certainly overpriced. I'm amazed at so many shortcomings in this software, and am flabbergasted that it is unable to view variables and binaries at the same time. Please don't brag about a product that cost so much to develop, but is still such an inferior product.

I understand it is expensive to develop software, and I've been biting the bullet for years over the cost to interface. I agree this cost has to be passed along, and it would be impossible to do this on the hardware end. This would skyrocket costs. It would be nice though to see a lower cost.

It's like the old adage, "I'm proud to be a tax paying American, but I'd be even more proud to pay half as much if those good old boys in charge could be more efficient."

> I am sure you would not go for this suggestion. Like it or not, automation company's are evolving into software vendors..... This is the facilitator for what hardware is able to do. Without it hardware is inate.
>
> We are all in business and consumers in the majority now accept that software is a piece of the automation solution. My suggestion....Get with the program and understand the value of the tool that is now esential to an automation system <

Please! Modicon needs to get with the program.

So this subject has got most of you riled up now for the past 3 years. Never would I have realized the passion on both sides of the fence. I am glad that many of you have come to realize that Industrial Software for Automation development has evolved into the commodity I predicted back then, and, an all be it uneven calm has ensued. The fact remains.... Programming Software is a tool just like any other tool that has to be purchased in order to do a job. The cost associated with such a job is relative. You pay $5 for a hammer to knock in a 10c nail. Conversely, you can pay $5k for a software tool that will make a multi-million dollar plant run. Typically the development of a PLC or Automation programming tool in todays environment costs between $1m and $15m and all vendors are looking for ROI. It is what it is.... The cost of doing business!

Lee J Ward
Rockwell Automation

Sorry Lee, but there is a big difference between a hammer that costs $5 and software that costs $1300+. And the hammer will work with any nail. Not just the ones made by the company that made the hammer.

I'm learning PLC programming in my off time, buying hardware off e-bay and companys that charge reasonable prices for thier hardware. Of course I'm not a company with a lot of mony to spend and its tough to get a good deal on the software.

Also, the company i work for is getting away from AB for new installations and using other brands when the old AB hardware needs to be replaced. This has everything to do with cost.

They'ere using Siemens, but I'm making some of the automation guys aware of Tealware and TOPDOC from the SoftPLC Corporation. The cost is 25% to 35% less than AB and this is quality stuff. It also runs on Windows AND linux so the programmer can work on his/her platform of choice.

AB produces quality products and thats what I'm learning with at home because of the install base. Perhaps Rockwell could open up some of those specs so the open source community could take a crack at some programming tools. That would be ideal for someone like me whos just learning and experimenting at home.

Thanks,

Mike

It's interesting, I heard all the same arguments from the people who sold million dollar computers to SMBs. And yes, it was probably worth it to get your payroll done between Fridays. But, no one would even think of paying millions for that anymore. Where are the minicomputer class guys for this market? They'll be along. Huge infrastructures were built and staffed and everyone thought that was what you had to have. All were swept away when commodity computing came along. And it's hard to even think of doing things the old way. This market is loaded with functionally identical products with redundant infrastructure and the only diversity is at the bottom. Who do you think stands the best chance of surviving? Once the bubble bursts in what smells like and walks like
a commodity market, the exodus will begin. All the same arguments could be used to justify selling PCs for 10 or 20 thousand dollars. But a cold comparison between PLCs and some $20 embedded controllers is not flattering to the big automation vendors. If solution providers could (would?) use either, I think the towers would collapse. It's already possible to do the same job with solutions that differ in cost by a ratio of 10 to 1. Reality has a way of flattening differences like that. Let's ponder how the high end can persist.

Regards

cww

Wow. I'll try to restrain myself since you are new to PLCs, but you completely don't understand AB (RA) at all. Every group at RA is a profit center. That includes the software group as well as support. Even the local "Drive Center" which is suppose to be there to help, but ends up just trying to steal you customers (from us integrators anyway), because they need to show a profit too.

Let me make this as clear as I know how. RA/AB does not want you to buy anything but RA/AB stuff. Case in point, they took a world-wide open protocol, SERCOS, and "closed it" to just work with their servo drives.

If you ever come across anything open-source for AB, it won't be from AB.

As for software $, I'm more in the middle. It does seem over priced, but one has to realize the effort it takes to write, test, and improve such applications. Also keep in mind the liability of producing "safe" software. If your email program crashes you don't break a machine or worse, hurt somebody. I know AB has considerable QC procedures.

I've never used A-D, so how's the built-in diagnostics in the programming software? The millisecond-update trending in RSLogix5000 is the best troubleshooting tool I've ever seen. Not that RSLogix5k is perfect by any standard, but the trending alone can be worth the $5k pricetag.

This is so so true!!

Basically RA have 2 faces, and they can both be ugly. Even while there are a few good people there, their customer service is in effect, distributor integrator, stockist, etc. and it does not pay for you to give them any information.

I must point out though their products are top drawer, and there are inexpensive products in the range, ML 1100 on ethernet with a web server €360 cable €40 and prog sware €400.

Keep up the Oviscating,

Liability? Every user license I've ever read for software places the liability on the user and no fault can be be placed or implied on IDE software.

In fact a lot of software costs appear to be lawyer fees in writing the user license in such a way as to absolve them of all liabilities.

Beckhoff Incorporates a diagnostic tool in there software called Twincat Scopeview. It has a configurable update rate down to 1ms. You can also set up an I/O task and link it directly to your scope and even trigger a pre-configured scope to start recording automatically within your PLC logic. Very handy.

The problem with both is that they only work with one brand. And bear in mind you can get a Mixed signal scope with a 16 channel logic analyzer and two analog channels with 512k samples memory depth and 400MSamples/sec for about $600 and use it on anything. And you can believe what it tells you. Makes big bucks for a one trick pony seem like kind of a waste. A DSO with flexible triggering and deep memory makes a really good time machine for what happened before the once every two week failure. Digital power is cheap and becoming cheaper. Google Rigol DSO.

Regards
cww

Of course you can use hardware analyzers. We use an HP 2 channel DSO scope with 16 digital inputs. For complex triggering and viewing data on internal variables, you can't beat a scan based softlogic analyzer within the PLC. That and pulling in variable names and things automatically is just icing on the cake.

KEJR

In reply to Curt Wuollet: The software I/O timing chart (AB had this years ago) is really intended for something a bit different than a real logic analyser or storage scope. The logic timing chart is intended to help find bugs in your program logic, while a logic analyser or storage scope tells you what is really going on, including hardware problems.

I've used a scope to diagnose machine problems a number of times, but I only ever used a PLC programming software based software timing chart once (more for the sake of trying it out, than anything else). It's one of those things that sounds nice in theory, but is not really that useful of a feature in practice. It's definitely not a substitute for a scope.

I've found them pretty much useless especially for timing problems since they depend on the system that isn't working. And many factors, some of them very subtle, can cause them to "lie".  Many  glitches  wouldn't be glitches if they occurred during the detection windows.

The glitch is there for the same reason that the system can't see it.  But looking at the real waveforms is not for the faint of heart, you sometimes wonder how the thing works rather than why it  occasionally doesn't.  Brute force filtering covers many sins. Most "doesn't work" problems with encoders for example are immediately obvious with a long record.

Regards
cww

Mike,

I didn't realize Topdoc was still avaliable, it's DOS-based, right? I used it back in college when I was first learning PLC programming, it was easy to use and understand, but now all I use is AB.

Thanks for the info.

Mike

As a purchaser, user and teacher in this field I can say with some authority that the cost of Rockwell software is prohibitive. Our university will allow its AB products to live out their useful life while we replace them with other brands (mostly Omron and Siemens).

The bottom line is simply the bottom line.

AB may be better but it is not 5 to 10 times better as the cost would suggest.

Anonymous said:
"AB may be better but it is not 5 to 10 times better as the cost would suggest."

I have NOT found Allen-Bradley to be 5 to 10 times as expensive as other brands. Siemens is every bit as expensive as A-B. We haven't used Modicon in a long time, but when we did there was no significant difference in price compared to A-B. Mitsubishi and GE Fanuc are also similar in cost. In fact, I've never run into ANY PLC that apples-to-apples is one-tenth the price of A-B.

Granted, there is a premium for A-B. That premium is very similar to the one for other "Tier 1" vendors like Siemens. AutomationDirect.com does have $99 PLC's, while a full-blown ControlLogix could run $10,000 or so. That's a hundred times more expensive! But it's not like comparing a Kia to a Cadillac; it's comparing a motor cycle to an 18-wheeler. A-B also has a $99 PLC.

-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.

Great I understand PLC companies have to make returns, however as many posts indicate there is a real posibility for PLC companies to make a lot more money by making more sales. At present, costs would be the decider in what could gain PLC sales, the major portion of control system sales, not just for mining and the big players as it is presently structured toward. I worked in the mining industry as a tech, however trying to justify PLC costs in local industry even over BMS can't be considered. I am one of many, imagine the money you big guys are missing out on.

Just a thought.

Peter

You are right. Interesting that this is the policy of PLC's manufacturers. For example, the producer of PIC microcontrollers has completely different policy and provides the MPLAB software free of crarge. That soft allows to create programs and is also a simulation tool, i.e. you can look how the program works without a PIC controller.

PICs are very powerful tool and are used in automation as well, the only issue is assembly language is not as convenient to use as a ladder logic.

It's a shame that PLC producers do nat have as same policy as PICs manufacturer.

Your question implies that you feel there is an alternative, which may be the purpose of the question.

As for me, I pay it for the same reason I pay for a building, electricity, taxes, etc. I am out to make money. Their software allows me to do so. They charge me for the software (and to maintain it), and I pass it on when charging my customers for my services.

Why do they charge what they do? I don't know, but I suppose they have to pay employees and overhead costs just like I do. If they charge more than the market will bear, the market will move on to someone else (just like they would do to me).

In short, I don't mind the cost, so perhaps I am the reason the cost is what it is.

A-B is now a part of rockwell international. they don't care much about soaking the customer for every dime they get.

the problem is thet the A-B products are so good. they are made to work in the harsh enviroments for a good long time. if the aplication is critical, the extra $10,000.00 spent to go with the good stuff is paid back with no lost production, low maintenance, coustermer service, ect.

the software is easy to use and very powerful. also very expencive. there is an update fee or subscription fee evry year or so.

rockwell software probably makes as much money or more than A-B makes selling hardware.

the automationdirect.com stuff is cheep. and it does work most of the time. I have recieved new processors that were defective out of the box! they promptly sent me a new one hassel free. my customer, however, had to endure another 24 hours of down time.

you get what you pay for. even in plc land.

I'm not convinced there is much of a quality difference between AB and PLC Direct. I once had an AB processor out-of-box failure and have never had one with a Automation Direct. I would say the quality of the two brands is about equal. My one complaint about A-B quality is that the RTD modules data seems noisy.

My preference for one over the other on a particular project usually has more to do with how the instruction set fits the job.

I've even done jobs with a SLC as the processor using PLC direct DL 205 I/O, because I thought the PLC Direct I/O fit the project better.

> My one complaint about A-B quality is that the > RTD modules data seems noisy.

Oops, meant to say "A-D" (Automation Direct) RTD modules.

Well, I suppose I pay because I feel it is worth it for that software and for the tech help and upgrades that I receive in return for the yearly support fee. I can't imagine using 6200 or some other acii-interface, dos-level software.

I guess PLC hardware and software manufacturers could roll those software development and support costs into the price of the hardware, but then the hardware would look too expensive. Furthermore, the hardware sales would not cover a lifetime of tech help calls so I see a yearly support fee as still being necessary.

It all seems like a no-brainer to me. I mean, why pay for a car and continue to pay for gas when you can walk to where you are going?

Hi All

Perhaps the real issue here is not whether or not one should be paying for the software, the alternatives are obvious and generally
unattractive, but whether or not the PLC suppliers are being ethical when we get financially "molested" purchasing the stuff. I for one am convinced the programming software which I am using is at least 1000% overpriced, this encourages loose morals with software piracy
issues and worsens the manufacturers position, causing an increase in cost of the software causing ..............

I see numerous references to, especially Siemens programming software, which people are "just looking for a copy of" which is demonstrative of the problem.

Regards
Donald Pittendrigh

They'd be a little hard to use without programming software. And those companies have made HUGE investments in the programmers and debuggers to develop those tools. They have to recover the costs somewhere. You prefer they mark up the hardware? Then nobody is competetive and the more hardware you buy the more you've paid above and beyond for the software.

Some people don't realize the amount of hard work and time that goes into the software packages. I used to be a computer programmer, and I know that a project the size of RSLogix or Modicon's Concept and Proworx would be absolutely huge. That's a major investment, and you've got to pay those salaries somehow.

You probably don't pay for shareware either, do you?

I can only agree with 50% of this point. I do not have a problem with paying for the initial software investment. What drives me to drink is the continual updates made to the software and the associated cost. Many of the companies mentioned in this thread will create a new hardware product and only make it accessible through an update in their software. Of course, Mr. Customer, you must pay for the upgrade as well. When does it end?

Hi All

>Of course, Mr. Customer, you must pay for the upgrade as well. When does it end?

It doesn't unless someone with the required size apparatus and a healthy budget finds grounds for sueing a company practising this catch 22 scam
and sets legal precedent, I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting were I you.

Cheers
Donald Pittendrigh

I totally agree with you about it being a lot of hard work developing a software package and the manufacturers should be compensated for it. However, sometimes the software you get is not worth the price you pay. For example, a $80 game requires a lot more coding (and runs better) than a $1,500 PLC software package (i.e. RSLogix).

Some may argue that the cost of the PLC software is justified because it will help me make money. But so does a screw driver. Would you pay a $100 for screw driver just because it helped you make money?

You pay very little for a screwdriver due to the great size of the market for screwdrivers.

However, if the $100 screwdriver was the only one on the market, and I was able to earn, or save, $150 each and every time I used it, I would pay the $100 like a shot.

Money is not particularly useful sitting in your bank account. Money's greatest benefit is to be spent carefully wisely in order to make more money.

Bob Pawley
www.automating-automation.com

Which is why wise people prefer not to get into single-supplier situations, and why there are laws about a sole supplier exploiting the situation excessively.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

Because we have no choice. There were third parties selling programming software, but they were swallowed up.

As a customer, I feel very much like a hostage to Rockwell, Schneider, AutoDesk, and most of all, Microsoft.

The fact is, it costs a lot to develop and SUPPORT the software that is used to configure PLCs. The continuous "upgrades" and license fees, as well as the exhorbitant up front charges are how they pay for it. Since all of the major PLC suppliers use the same tactic these days, they
don't really have any pressure to change it. Make no mistake, we'd still pay for it somehow, it just wouldn't be a line item on the invoice.

George G. Robertson, P.E.
Manager of Engineering
Saulsbury E & C
grobertson@si-tx.com
(915) 366-4252

Well, I develop some of those packages and the money is not really in the development in as much as it is in testing it. There are many details in each and every firmware revision and processor family. I know for a fact no third party now will compete with us and cover all the details in making a programming package correctly. We could give the software away for free but people would still need support. The hardware prices would go up to compensate. The other benefit is if your an OEM is you can share licenses and program as much hardware as you want.

Linux is free but I prefer Microsoft for many reasons which I feel are worth the money. I have met the top developers at Microsoft and they are some of the most brilliant people around. I don't think smarter people are dumb enough to work for free. Even Linus has a real job now. Yes, programming packages are not as cheap as windows but we dont have the volume either. I dont like the support contracts and think that upgrades should be sold instead but it does not look likely ...

You don't have to use PLC and their software. Just write your applications in VB and see what it cost you to support your customers.

Ditto the "because we have no choice" sentiment.

PLCs work, and they work well. Allen-Bradley - while not producing the best product - has the lion's share. They know it, and they are not shy about raping us because... THEY CAN.

I am particularly distressed when circumstances force me to purchase OLD programming software for an outdated PLC or PanelView. As usual, A-B wants the same price they would've charged 8 or 10 years ago, when today's antique was "cutting edge".

What do we do, form a "Systems Integrators Local" and strike?

Jeff Cook
Cook Controls, Inc.
Dagsboro, DE
(302) 732-1157

You could try supporting and using the software you own for free from projects who treat you as a member of the community. In time, probably a very short time, that would bring about change. I haven't weighed in on this discussion because I don't buy software to program PLC's. What I'm hearing, I generally agree with. I don't have a problem with buying and selling software at fair value, it's the abuse that seems to upset folks.

I don't think there is a solution if you keep doing things the same way. When rapid growth stops, the money has to keep coming in somehow. This leads to charging much and delivering little to keep things balanced. That system only works with constant growth or the continuing revenue stream generated by the nicks and gouges that annoy folks.

I suggest that if you adopt a method where everybody puts in a little and the users develop the software directly, there's no corporation or infrastructure to support, so the need for a revenue stream goes away. You still have programmers, you still have testers, and things get added as they are needed. Done this way, everyone receives more value than they contribute. And you actually own something, forever. No one can cut you off or force you to upgrade. Makes perfect sense to me, I don't understand why it's such a hard sell compared to the alternatives.

Regards
cww

Simple, programmers gotta eat too. Why does an integrator charge the customer for the for the ladder code in the PLC in the control panel he just sold him? Extend that line of thinking and you would think that the ladder code would come free with the PLC and controls thats all hooked up to the machine. Sorry, but my kids need shoes too. Free enterprise at its finest, take it or leave it.

Let me answer that in a few different ways:

1: Please go to mat.sf.net and sign up to help develop an alternative.

2. Lock in. When your entire plant runs on Allen Bradley, and their "open" systems are just a bunch of marketing BS, you are stuck paying
whatever they charge. Management at most companies would rather keep getting nailed on the support contracts than move over to something else.

3. Most system integrators won't build anything else. We recently (6 months ago) spec'd a machine using the new Omron processor instead of a
controllogix. We have SLC's in plant, but no CL's, and the omron was a better system at a lower price. The integrators we spoke to would not build the omron system for us without charging us a premium for their software and training expenses. By the time they were done, the CL was cheaper than the Omron. (disgusting, btw)

4. Alternatives. Who doesn't charge for software?

5. Why do you pay for Visual Studio? That is programming software as well. and can run over a thousand USD for Visual Studio enterprise edition.

I think that covers it here.....

--Joe Jansen

Hello,

It's like paying for the extra toppings on a pizza. The analogy is not quite perfect and perhaps someone has a better analogy.

Best Regards
EW

Of course you have to pay for the functionality that you get.

For me, the aggrevating thing is the support licenses that we have to pay for. It is OK to pay for online/telephone support and for new software versions that have new functionality that we need.
But is is NOT OK that we have to pay for software updates to get bug-fixes for software that we have allready paid for.

Cleverly, AB and Siemens etc. packs the updates with the new functionality and the updates with the bug-fixes together. In that way we cannot argue that we should recieve the bug-fixes free of charge.

My simple answer to you is would you rather pay for the programming software once and a fee to keep it current, or would you rather pay an extra percentage for all the hardware you purchase, even spare parts when the software is already existing? The manufacurers of plc must support the cost of their developement and support personnel in some way, and I believe the way they are doing it is probably the best and fairest for all those involved.

Stephen,
I'm curious as to what industry or job function you do? I sell and support PLC's and have done that for years. It doesn't get any easier as the PLC's and the software become more difficult and all inclusive as the manufacturers develop new features to entice users.

Are you aware of how much engineering time goes into developing these devices? Right now I have to know about (7) different programming
packages and when a customer calls me, I don't ask him for his credit card number or his service account number to offer him my "expertise". We help as much as we can and when something is beyond us, that is when we call Tech Support. Oh, and those people aren't free either...

Maybe, this will explain why PLC manufacturers charge for the software.
WGS

This question was asked in the past pretty often, mainly because PLC HW has always been relatively expensive and the tool really only was meant to program the PLC Beside the answers that I have seen regarding the investment recovery for such tools, today there are other arguments as well PLC Programming tools have grown to design tools for Industrial Automation, covering much more than the ladder in the CPU. The features also serve engineering productivity, this is very important since the application complexity of today's PLC's has increased dramatically compared to 10 years ago
If you bring your car to a garage you will also be happy to see the mechanic use advanced tools to diagnose your problem, same for Industrial Automation

Let's turn this thread up a bit...

Why do we pay for expensive, buggy, incomplete software, complete with incomprehensible (and don't worry about it since they're outdated anyway) manuals, and then have to pay additional fees for tech support to tell us how to ACTUALLY get it to work?

Not a theory, this has been my experience. No particular manufacturer is being singled out, as it's pervasive.

In a free market society, I'm afraid the answer is the same as that to the question, "Why is there so much violence on TV": because that's the
way WE like it. WE pay for it, and reward the manufacturers who do business that way, and penalize those who don't.

George G. Robertson, P.E.
Manager of Engineering
Saulsbury E & C
grobertson@si-tx.com
(915) 366-4252

I suppose that's an answer to the question, but many of the problems you note above are addressed by providing access to the actual, compilable source code. For software questions that's the ultimate documentation. If it's buggy, then someone who cares might get in and fix it, similarly if it's incomplete or if the attached documentation is incomprehesible.

Ken

--
Ken Irving <jkirving@mosquitonet.com>

I could not read this article, and not to add something.

1. Documentation - !!! Cutting cost!!

Usually (on smaller projects) client is trying to avoid paying instrumentation and control detail design documentation (project). They usually give some instructions to the programmer.

(To prepare all information required for programming a I&C system requires technology, instrumentation & control knowledge and some basic programming knowledge. Of course it takes time as well.)

2. Pressure to finish the application software urgently, save money on communication cost etc.

Based on such basic instruction, the programmers who usually do not have instrumentation and control experience are programming (without consulting the client), and in case there is no pre-commissioning, the contractor delivers the application software, and comes to hand the work over.

Unfortunately the client realise that the I&C system does not work correctly, and the corrections commenced. Often (almost always) the
contractor is correcting his mistakes on the account of the start-up cost. The man/day price at site is of course huge (specially overseas), and the contracted amount for start-up is spent, and the work is not completed.

Often in turn-key projects, the contractor is misinforming the client by offering 1-2 weeks of commissioning and start-up services, which cannot be completed for a month.

In such project organisations (usually smaller projects in which the client has ideas to save money on detail design), the client at the end pays more, because the system integrator - programmer can claim that he had done it in
accordance with basic instructions.

So everything starts with detail design, and finishes with as-built documentation that will be very useful for maintenance or later upgrading.

Conclusion:

a. Somebody has to finish the programming
b. If the application software is not OK, the problem is again on client side, because he did not prepare the tender with design papers, he gave the work to the company that has not sufficient experience in work (again price cutting) and he did not organise the work as it should be.

To those that have a problem with purchasing upgrades/support agreements for new software, I say if you do not want to pay for it, simply keep using your old software with the plc platforms and cards that it supported when you bought it. Otherwise if you want to take advantage of the new technology you need to pay for it. This is no different that when Microsoft releases a new version of windows and expects you to purchase the new version, or an upgrade from the version you had. You have a choice there as well, switch to a different operating system, and see how much it costs you to become productive again. At least the PLC manufacturers provide support for their software without asking for a credit card the first time you call them and want help.

Not all of them. If you don't pay your annual fee, rockwell won't talk to you at all. Even to recover the activation file that is required to run the software you already paid for.

--Joe Jansen

I like this question; and YEA it escapes me also why MY Company Spends 15,000 a Year on AB Software then anotehr 6k a Year on Training. For New Software.. and we're even switching to ControlLogix Processors another 10k on Software..and they KEYS to unlock the software Comes on a yearly Basis of 1,200 a year for new keys and u only GET ONE KEY per package. NOW everyone can see that THIS IS A COMPLETE Money RACKET. Can't you, Ive been a VB and VC++ for Over 15 years, Ive been the the automation field a little over 2 years, And I Am AB Certified<( Yea i Know, NOW My Boss Has Stuck with AB for 10 years..and WONT LET GO..Because He Knows Nothing Else. HE knows NO OTHER Way or method
of Doing anything except AB. He Knows NOTHING about Computer Programming. (or even cares) Except Ladder Logic and RS-VIEW, In-which is SAD.

Me on the otherhand Try and Handle all the other Delima's we face that our Customers & Company's want. OPC /DDE .TCP-IP / Networking /
Client-Server / Excel Value generation / SQL-DAO Database Processes./ Custom Active-x / .And Do u Realize What I Make a year.?? 32k yep thats All...but hey its a really Relaxed Inviroment.i get to travel And Eat For Free.and i have
(3) 2Ghz Machines in my Office.

well there is my ranting,
let hear some feedback

I stayed on the sidelines so far on this one, but this post puts it all in perspective. Let's start with why I sell you PLC programming software and support contracts...

The programming software is a real cost of the technology, and has to be paid for somewhere. If it was buried in the cost of the hardware, it would increase costs to integrators while having no impact on end users. The existing model for PLC programming software moves the bulk of the costs directly to end users. This seems reasonable, since the machine builders/integrators have the product in their hands for days, while the end users have no limit for how long they need support. (I am supporting
28 yearold systems today!)

You have the choice of not buying our systems. If the customer demands that you use my stuff, it just means I'm doing a good job. Choose not to participate, or form a relationship with me, but stop doing the Whiny Whiny.

You can avoid the cost of upgrades by freezing your baseline (which several of my clients do with good reasons). This moves the cost and risk completely to the end user. I can still have a useful business relationship with you.

Bug fixes are another issue. Yet, I'm not aware of any reputable PLC manufacturer that charges its end users for serious product problems discovered years after product delivery. Just for an example, we completely covered customers back to 1993 for a problem we discovered in February 2001. Yes, bug fixes are included in upgrades--- but if the machine doesn't change, you don't need upgrades, and you wouldn't be using the machine if it didn't work in the first place. If your machine/process evolves continually, then you need support continually--- and damn, that costs something!

Ultimately, I'm the guy from the big automation company that you call in the middle of the night, on Sundays, holidays, weekends. Under better circumstances, you call me at 7:30am Monday morning and want to discuss how you can improve productivity in your existing automation. I'm the
person you need to have a relationship with if you have an evolving, completely normal set of automation.

You pay for the programming software because that pays for me. I actually like this job, so I hope you will continue! (My clients on the list: Chime in any time!)

Those are the positive aspects. There are negative ones. That brings me to the post from Brian E. Boothe. When a customer calls me at 3:00am on Memorial Day, I help him. If his employer has actually paid for the support licences, then my boss actually got some revenue from this. Otherwise, it's just me getting annoyed because a hostile user didn't learn anything useful at training.

We charge the big bucks because people often don't have the expertise they need to solve problems and we bail them out when they call. If you have a better business model, now is the time to post!

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida

Thanks for your support Larry.
You said everything I was thinking

Lee J Ward
Business Manager - Programming Software
Marketing Group
Schneider Automation

I guess that when the guys who use the software and PLCs give the stuff they are manufacturing away for free, I'll no longer need to earn the money I make from creating industrial automation products I require in order to buy the aforesaid products. Until such time, you pay a small and highly reasonable charge applies for my expertise...

Cheers
Tim Linnell

After reading most of the reply's on this thread, it seems to me that a lot of people just don't understand how software is priced. Software pricing is dependant on two factors

A=the cost of development over the life of product

B=the projected number of copies to be sold.

Price=A/B

Let's assume a cost of 5 million, divide by 500,000 copies (not much more is possible for this class of sotware) = 10 dollars.

Compare MS Office cost 50 million divide by 10,000,000 copies (typical MS Office number) = 5 dollars. MS sells the Office for $500. For Rockwell, using the same ratio, you get $1000.

Other factors to consider, marketing, support, backward compatibility, etc. Do you all think that software prices are just dropped on users without some thought? THIS IS BUSINESS!
Anyone who thinks that industrial software prices are too high, have never tried to code and then resell the code! Get your heads out of the sand people!

Because it's hard to get it for free :-(
Although sometimes possible...

Regards,

Jacek Dobrowolski, M. Sc. E. Eng.
Software Eng.

Sure, we pay for it. Then we copy it for internal use on other PCs. Doesn't everyone?

I do hope not. Unless you are using the product within the bounds of the End User License Agreement, do not be suprised someday, if a federal agency comes and knocks on your door.

Regards

Lee J Ward

Business Manager - Programming Software
Marketing Group
Schneider Automation

I look at it from the O/S system side. If good old MS didn't change their versions so often then PLC producers wouldn't need a team of 20-30 persons to make new versions to run on the MS platforms available. I guess if PLC software was platform free there would be about a 60% saving in unecssary R&D costs. From a PLC producer point of view they recieve about 1000 enquiries a month from PLC users about new functionality which would be handy. In this case somebody must pay for these developments. In today's competitive market hardware margins are dropping like bricks so manufacturers need to break even somehow.

Hi Ian

And if the PLC producers didn't use Microsoft, they would have a lot more manpower to add functionality or could put those people on fixing
bugs. Running an OS wersion until it makes sense to switch would save a lot of money and tremendously simplify support. And when the old
software would run on the new OS and hardware with just a recompile sanity might prevail amongst vendors and customers alike. You give up a lot and work a lot harder when you abdicate control of your schedule to Microsoft. Not to mention simultaniously supporting half a dozen incompatible products Some of which would be better left to die. Do you suppose sensible stuff like that would lower the cost of the software?

Regards

cww
--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to Linux.

Some of us use our old version of RS-Logix and build all of the new machines with Automation-Direct, at a much reduced cost.

I think it will come to free software somewhere in the future, Emerson Drives now gives away it's software for programming for Free, I suspect competition will continue to drive the prices down, as more and more people find out there is an alternative to A-B, and they lose more market share...

We don't pay for programming software we use Linux. This gives us more fexibility and I fill it gives us more controll over the equipment. Also there is no software versions, cables etc. to worry about. Yes, it takes more work up front, but it is well worth it in the long run. And yes ethernet card only cost us $20.00 (more less).
Down time is comparable to PLC systems. I think I know what I am talking about I worked in automation industry for close to 10 years and used PLC extensively. As it is now I will not touch a PLC (maybe for a small application).

I remember when A-B was embarrassed of their software. So they bought ICOM. Seem to me everyone is mad at A-B prices. Bite the bullet and look elsewhere. Otherwise keep paying through the nose. Watch AD raise prices if they can. Its business. At some point you must decide you want value, not ego driven marketing induced products that promise what everyone can offer.

As a former integrator, and now as a tech support specialist for an AB distributor, i can tell you there are many reasons for paying for software.

First, there is a real cost associated with developing, testing, producing, packaging, selling, improving, and supporting the software, and if it weren't paid for directly, then it would have to be spread out over the product line for which it is intended, making the hardware more expensive.

Second, it is an investment in your ability to deliver your product to your customers. If you are an OEM or an integrator, then you pass on the cost of the software to your customer as a legitimate project expense. If you are a part of an internal engineering group, then this is simply a capital investment that allows you to keep the machines running that make the products that you sell. As a capital investment, it is also tax deductible as a business expense; so, its real cost is only about 1/2 of what you physically pay for it. This goes for the support contracts as well.

Your company probably already licenses network software (it doesn't just come when you buy the network hardware), it probably already buys upgrades to MSOffice, McAfee or Norton, and your e-mail system (they don't just send you the upgrades for free when they have them, unless you are under support), and it probably has support contracts for the copiers and fax machines (just because you buy a copier, doesn't mean the vendor will fix it for free forever!).

Third, it is a given that anyone who purchases PLC programming software is going to need help either using the package, or help with making the code they have written, work. This cost is associated with the initial purchase of the package, and with the continued support contracts. We, as distributors, for the most part, do not charge for this service. Sure you can get free software from some of the vendors, but can you get a tech support person to come out to your facility when you are having trouble? How many field personnel does Automation Direct or Modicon have out there? As an AB distributor, you can call us when you can't figure out how to properly tune your PID loop, you can't communicate with your processor, or the communications to you drives have gone down, and we will send someone to you usually at no charge. But, just because there is no charge to you, doesn't mean there is no cost to us. These visits are paid for out of the money we make selling you the software and support contracts.

Finally, nothing in life is free. If you are an OEM or an integrator, do you not charge your customer for the documentation (drawings, user's manuals, program listings, etc.) that you supply with the machine? If we go by your logic, why should they have to pay to get documentation that you've already generated to build the machine? The reason is because there is a cost associated with supplying it. Don't forget that you get what you pay for. If you've paid nothing for your software, then you can probably expect that back when you're looking for help. If you've paid a fair price for this tool (and that is exactly what it is), then you can expect a fair amount of help when you really need it. Otherwise, your only option is to develop, test, support and supply your own package, and then see what the real cost of that to your organization will be!

An interesting point here is that the person who started this thread works for a company that gives its software away for free.

(MODERATOR'S NOTE: We considered not posting this comment because of its anonymity, but were able to verify that the information submitted by Anonymous appears to be correct, because Stephen's email address was available on the Automation List. However, in the future we may consider not allowing anonymous posts in similar situations.)

To the Moderators and all Subscribers:

Regarding this post, I wanted to state to everyone that I am not "anonymous" that post this reply to my original question. For any misunderstanding, I apologize.

The intent of my question is to attempt to generate information as to why software is charged for, when it is a required tool of the PLC. The product that is being sold is the PLC, not the programming software. The PLC is useless without a means to program. Even though there are development hours required, It should all be included in the overall design of the hardware product. If PLC software was open and could run on any PLC, then the discussion would be comparable to the computer example. In the computer industry there are companies that only develop software to be run on various PCs. There is no hardware associated with the final product. This makes sense. Squeezing a few extra dollars out of your customers, I consider to be questionable. Consider that many are required to purchase software and have no choice because that product is "speced in". Other fees include upgrade fees (aka Microsoft) Yearly site license fees, etc...

I, and countless others have asked this question on other forums as well.

FYI - On June 24, I was on my way back from Maine . It was an all day drive (13 hours) and I had no computer with me.

That's OK, it's making all the right people uncomfortable and has been a really interesting thread. And I believe it's a very fair question. I especially question the extensive copy protection when the software is pretty much useless unless you own the hardware.

It just raises costs. And after all, the entire pool of people who _want_ your software are by definition, your customers. The copy protection, it seems to me, is somehow related to most of the
practices folks find offensive. Once again, I have no argument with the use of it, merely the abuse. I'm sure others will argue that any way of using it is OK as long as it makes money.

Regards
cww

I think part of why integrators don't see this the way developers do, is that the work of integrators is regulary copied in whole or in part, and used and abused by the client, given away to other clients, and used by competitors on future projects. Software developers build their pricing on the idea that the cost is spread out among the users. If Allen Bradley charged customer number 1 the entire development cost of
RSLogix, then they wouldn't worry so much about it being copied or used for other purposes. I just don't think customer number 1 brought seven
figures of cash to the table to go with the PLC.

The reason the integrator can get away with charging the entire cost of development to the customer is that the developers SPENT A LOT OF MONEY developing the tools to make the integration that cost effective.

Wow, you guys have me arguing for the OTHER side, now!

George G. Robertson, P.E.
Manager of Engineering
Saulsbury E & C
grobertson@si-tx.com
(915) 366-4252

George G. Robertson, P.E. wrote:
<clip>
> Software developers build their pricing
> on the idea that the cost is spread out among the users. If Allen
> Bradley charged customer number 1 the entire development cost of
> RSLogix, then they wouldn't worry so much about it being copied or used
> for other purposes. I just don't think customer number 1 brought seven
> figures of cash to the table to go with the PLC.
>
> The reason the integrator can get away with charging the entire cost of
> development to the customer is that the developers SPENT A LOT OF MONEY
> developing the tools to make the integration that cost effective.
<clip>

I asked a couple of software developers what is normal for development software used in large IT software projects, and I was told that there are
many different pricing models. It is however quite normal for large scale development systems to be given away free to genuine software developers, with no fees being paid until deployment. At that point you are typically
charged for the run-time in proportion to the size of the finished system.

This is essentially equivalent to giving away PLC programming software and rolling the cost into the hardware price, or giving away the MMI or SCADA development software, and charging for runtimes. In other words, some of the
suggestions regarding how automation software should be sold are in fact closer to what is considered normal practice in the large scale IT software development world than many people appear to realise.

Statements to the effect that "developing software costs a lot of money" are quite simply begging the question. The question ought to be whether the pricing system used is suited to the business model of their customers. Evidently a good many people feel it does not, although they do not seem to have articulated this point clearly. System integrators may be more satisfied
with a pricing system which is co-ordinated with their own project cash flow rather than having to gamble their working capital on a particular PLC's or MMI system's sales success.

A further point I feel compelled to address is that charging separately for the development software avoids "burdening" the hardware with this cost.

Unless the programming interface is made public and the OEM's software is being sold against competing third party programming software, then the idea that there is any "separation" is complete nonsense.

In the absense of open and fair competition there is no guarranty of meaningful correspondence between the price of the software and the perceived benefit to the customer. Since you need to buy the software to use the hardware anyway, the hardware is still being "burdened" by this cost. Any arguments to the contrary are accounting fantasies.

I won't conclude from the above that typical current pricing models are wrong, but I will say that I have yet to see a convincing arguement that they are correct.

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

Let us just compare a PLC with a PC. If you would have to pay for your hardware and then for your operating-system seperatly you won't be happy, because the prices for PC's would go into the 4ks.

Nobody is expecting to get hardware without the software for the price you have to pay for right now.
On the other side well established software firms will give you updates for bugs w/o any fees or just with a small admin. fee.

The behaviour of the PLC manufacturer is not to accept.

What would people say if the buy a new computer and the operating system is going to fail from time to time and they would just get the answer buy a new one???????

Limiting the amount of development by selling the software makes no sense for hardware sales. If you have 5 engineers and a company unwilling to buy more then one copy of the programing software. You only have 1 PLC sold at a time. If the software was paid for through hardware sales you have the potential for 5 PLCs sold at a time. A lot of companies have no problem buying hardware, but dislike buying software for some reason.

Hello George,

The fact: To produce a PLC you have to develop before: a) the PLC hardware, b) the embedded PLC software c) the cross-tools, workbench software.

So, the total cost of a PLC is (N*cost_of_PLC_harware + cost_of_development + profit)/N, where
N - the total quantity of producing PLCs,
cost_of_PLC_harware - cost of coping, producing,
cost_of_development - sum of cost of hardware development and cost of the embedded soft development and the cost of workbench development
profit - profit of the vendor.

So, why the cost of workbench development is distinguished is hardly to understand... possibly, because workbench (as a cross-tool) is leable to endless upgrades (if we keep in mind the dirty MS' habbits).

The other reason could be the sale policy: the more small company pay more money... or it is the cost of the support survice. (IMO, $1000 is too
expensive for it though)

There is two ways to compensate for the workbench development cost:
1. to include it in the PLC cost (to evenly spread it on the PLCs), or
2. to make separate sales of workbenchs (to evently spread it on the customers).

IMO, both ways are acceptable.

BTW, there are official representatives of the vendors in the list. Why do they lurk?

--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:zyubin@iae.nsk.su

The trick is, historically, the products we are now using to program PLCs were NOT originally developed by the same business units (and in
many cases that same company) that developed the PLC hardware. If they were, then your argument would be valid in general. By the way, there
are some vendors who did develop all of the above, and in some cases, MMI software together. These tend to be very inexpensive for the reason
that you gave.

Don't know why the vendors are lurking. Probably a very sensitive topic. <G>

George G. Robertson, P.E.
Manager of Engineering
Saulsbury E & C
grobertson@si-tx.com
(915) 366-4252

(I'm Really Tired of this Question) >>> Why do u Pay For PLC Programming...

Because AB is TOP of the LINE , and when your Company Makes 4-Million dollars a Year We tend to be able to buy TOP of the Line Equipment and we make up the price thru the Customer, ("HOW exactly do u Do PLC Programming?") Thru Your DH-485 / Serial Port w/ The Freebie Cheap S*** That, Make your Customer Look Like he Spent $5.00 on Control Issues. I'd love to take a look at your SCADA Screens.. (" I Bet theyre Horrific ")...

If I recall correctly, the initial inquiry in regards to this was politely worded and seeking answers. This sort of response is totally unprofessional and not worthy of the majority on this site. As for a few of the comments that you made, let me respond (though I am not the originator of the original question).

1. There is no doubt that AB is an excellent product, but it is certainly not the only one nor I believe to be the best out there, they have an excellent marketing department.
2. That's great that your company makes $4-million a year, not all companies do and require to make do with what they can. Some of the best programmers I know started with only a DH-485 programming link.
3.As for the "horrific" Scada screens, that comment was unworthy and beneath contempt.

Steve

Hello List,

Just a story.
Once, one of my customers asked me, "why do you write your own user-interface, why do you invent your oun languages? There are a lot of wheels around the world... Have a look at this one. (He showed me a demo-project of a SCADA)... Good-looking screen, animation and other thousands delightes..."

I began to answer and at the same time I "played" with the mouse on the screen. The result was the following: the demo had crashed itself and had crashed Windows. Again: it was demo-project! = End of story.

No need to say I never heard any question on the topic after that incident.

About the UI screens... It is just a pictures, just a problem of good design. To solve it is much easier than to fight with the ugly system concepts. ;-)

Regards. Vladimir.

Interesting. I am one of your customers, BTW, inside of mc-mc's distributor area in Greenville,SC.

I am also a former integrator, and now work inside of our corporate engineering group. I have been doing this for just over 10 years now.

>>>>>
First, there is a real cost associated with developing, testing, producing, packaging, selling, improving, and supporting the software,
and if it weren't paid for directly, then it would have to be spread out over the product line for which it is intended, making the hardware more
expensive.
<<<<<

I agree. Nobody can realistically deny that there is a cost associated with doing this. More on this later.

As an aside, I worked for Allen Bradley for a year as a line tech/supervisor in their HQ building in Milwaukee, WI. I have seen the
horrible corporate structure that these products have to support. The operators on my line had 3 layers of management over them just in the
department. Then there was another 5 layers of management before you got to Don Davis, CEO. I can confidently say that about half of those
positions would never be missed, and only exist to give a buddy a fat check. When I quit, I recommended to the department manager that he not
bother filling my position, as I really did no work there for a year. My point? Maybe the hardware wouldn't be so exhorbitant already with a better corporate structure. Fix the problem, and AB could give the software away for free and maintain the same profitability.

>>>>>
Second, it is an investment in your ability to deliver your product to your customers. If you are an OEM or an integrator, then you pass on the
cost of the software to your customer as a legitimate project expense. If you are a part of an internal engineering group, then this is simply a capital investment that allows you to keep the machines running that make the products that you sell. As a capital investment, it is also tax deductible as a business expense; so, its real cost is only about 1/2 of what you physically pay for it. This goes for the support contracts as well.
<<<<<

Kind of like the merchants in Chicago in the first half if the 1900's paid for their 'Insurance' and it was just a cost of business? Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. I know for a fact that it is not an accident that
the file formats change from one version of Logix to the next.

>>>>>
Your company probably already licenses network software (it doesn't just come when you buy the network hardware), it probably already buys
upgrades to MSOffice, McAfee or Norton, and your e-mail system (they don't just send you the upgrades for free when they have them, unless you
are under support), and it probably has support contracts for the copiers and fax machines (just because you buy a copier, doesn't mean the vendor
will fix it for free forever!).
<<<<<

Open Source. It is a beautiful thing. Network software IS free. Although the Cisco's that I set up came with the software, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Does my company use anything like this? No. That does not mean that it doesn't exist. I know at least one list contributor who's organization
_does_ use Linux, Open Office, and all the other free open source software. As to the analogy between the copier and the software, Rockwell has never fixed any problems with their software for me in anything that could be considered a timely manner whether I was in support or not. At best, it would be 'in the next major revision, or maybe the one after that'.

>>>>>
Third, it is a given that anyone who purchases PLC programming software is going to need help either using the package, or help with making the
code they have written, work.
<<<<<

Nope. I have never called you. I do not call RS for support, since it is usually useless anyway. Can I get a discount on my software since I don't
need this 'valuable'(?) service? I learned AB programming on APS, so I have never needed help with Logix. At best I have called to report bugs in their software. Are you telling me I should pay for that benefit? I'd rather not.

>>>>>
This cost is associated with the initial
purchase of the package, and with the continued support contracts. We, as distributors, for the most part, do not charge for this service. Sure
you can get free software from some of the vendors, but can you get a tech support person to come out to your facility when you are having
trouble? How many field personnel does Automation Direct or Modicon have out there? As an AB distributor, you can call us when you can't figure out how to properly tune your PID loop, you can't communicate with your processor, or the communications to you drives have gone down, and we will send someone to you usually at no charge. But, just because there is no charge to you, doesn't mean there is no cost to us. These visits are paid for out of the money we make selling you the software and support contracts.
<<<<<

Again, since I usually know more than the person on the phone or the one that gets sent out to me, can I get a discount for not needing this service? If I teach your tech something, will he cut me a check for 'supporting' him?

I have never had a Rockwell person come out to my site for support. Ever. Your comparison is flawed in that you compare AB distributors against AD and Modicon Corporate. I have had Modicon distributors come out and help me with problems, just like AB distributors. Usually just as pointless, but they were just as warm a body as the AB guy.

>>>>>
Finally, nothing in life is free. If you are an OEM or an integrator, do you not charge your customer for the documentation (drawings, user's
manuals, program listings, etc.) that you supply with the machine? If we go by your logic, why should they have to pay to get documentation that
you've already generated to build the machine? The reason is because there is a cost associated with supplying it. Don't forget that you get
what you pay for. If you've paid nothing for your software, then you can probably expect that back when you're looking for help. If you've paid a fair price for this tool (and that is exactly what it is), then you can expect a fair amount of help when you really need it. Otherwise, your only option is to develop, test, support and supply your own package, and then see what the real cost of that to your organization will be!
<<<<<

Again, your analogy breaks down with the Open Source projects. Without arguing who is better at what, or who is more stable than who, Linux is at least comparable to Windows over all. Yet there is a vast pricing difference.

To be honest, I have followed the RSLogix 500 upgrade path, and the latest (5.00) I really am not sure what it was that was improved. I noticed that the file formats are conveniently incompatible, thus forcing the upgrade if I get any new equipment, but functionally, I am not sure what there is. I know that it has some rather annoying bells and whistles that I wish I
could turn off (like the yellow pop-ups that appear when I am editing mnemonics that try to help me remember the parameter list. If I am in a
long coding session, I am entering code at the bottom of the screen with the code scrolling up as I enter rungs. At the bottom of the screen the
pop-up covers up the mnemonic entry window, making it impossible to see what I am typing. I paid $$$$$ to get this 'feature'?) As to the 'get
what you pay for' argument, I typically tend to disregard that anymore, as it often can be proven untrue. RSLogix is not the orders of magnitude
better than everything else. The only reason you can charge what you do is because AB holds the proprietary keys making it impossible for anyone else to write a competing package, by cutting off the communication protocol. Without being able to talk to the processor, the software would be pretty useless. This another case where prices are not dictated by quality or consumer desire, but by forced upgrades thru incompatibility, and
foreclosing any competition to maintain false pricing levels. Trust me, if AB were to allow the DH+ spec, for example, to be open (for real, not their marketing BS version of open) there would be a free version of RSLogix within a few months.

And the market would be better for it.

--Joe Jansen

you really think an open version of AB SLC 500 programming software is availible? My first entry into AB SLC 500 programming was APS. A few years later I fully purchased the 8.1 version and was so frustrated with the the "user key" and other crap that came up with using it I reverted to 3.? and have never used 8.1 again. Lately I have found some units that I could not access because I did not have the current version of the software. Now my problem I have customers who use the old APS to modify N:files and T:files etc. If I start to use the new RS Logics 500 software they also will be required to "update" just to access their paid for machine parameters.Some how it does not seem right that the progrsmming that I and some of my customers purchased are no longer usable if one of us upgrades. Another problem is that my APS will not load on a newer lap top and this requires me to carry two units around? What a pain!

I agree its a PITA to have to continually upgrade, however, in fact for most users this just is not a major issue. The relatively small yearly upgrade cost is not all that much, and quite frankly, I see no way that they could make the thing forward compatible.

The few people who complain about it can stick to their old APS software. There are still people driving 1960's vintage cars. It does not mean that the auto companies should make parts for these obsolete beasts. It comes down to how much money does it cost, and is there any potential at all to make a profit. If there is no profit in something, then there is little incentive to do it.

BTW-I think you can get APS to load and run on a new laptop as long as you have DOS installed on it instead of W2k or something, and the right hardware is used. If I am not mistaken, there is an OSS version of DOS (I think its the leftovers of DRDOS) that might work just fine for you.

Bob Peterson

Bob Peterson:
> I agree its a PITA to have to continually upgrade, however, in fact
> for most users this just is not a major issue. The relatively small
> yearly upgrade cost is not all that much, and quite frankly, I see no
> way that they could make the thing forward compatible.

Then you're not a very good software engineer... (admittedly you never claimed to be one).

Making things forward compatible is not that difficult; it just requires some forethought and some discipline. And, of course, the incentive to
do it, which in this case is totally missing at best.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri(AT)baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

Interesting point Jiri makes ... it seems 9 times out of 10 I'm disappointed with how manufacturers manage forward compatability, but the other day was pleasingly suprised with the way ABB handled it with their new ACC 800 line of DTC drives.

This is an evolution of the ACS 600 series, and they set things up so a parameter setpoint panel from the 600 can be plugged into the 800 with no loss of functionality (although, of course, it won't be able to address new 800-specific features). The 800 series panel can be plugged into a 600 drive (new 800-specific features it knows about aren't displayed).

This makes upgrading or replacing drives a breeze. The 800 series signal terminal blocks are laid out exactly as the 600 series, and new 800-specific terminals are brought out on their own blocks. The basic footprint is smaller than the 600, so (except for tapping new mounting holes) there isn't any reason to stock both series of drives to handle breakdowns.

It's nice to know *somebody* out there thinks of these things!

Bob

mike---

I covered all of this at

http://www.control.com/1026150918/index_html

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida

Of course, the question is whether it wouldn't be better to make the 28-year thing explicit, as a support contract. The software itself would then be correspondingly cheaper, or even more so if you consider it a loss-leader.

Attempting to finance an ongoing thing from a once-off payment is a always going to be a problem.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

Jiri---

The annual support renewal rate is shockingly low, but the demand for support is constant. The upfront fee guarantees revenue to support the development and delivery of the software. The profit my boss makes pays for me, and the initial handholding every new client needs.

Yes, if everyone paid their annual fees (as is common in the HVAC business, for example), everything would be clear about the business. When my client lets support lapse, I still find a way to help, as long as it makes business sense. My 28 year old installation, mentioned in my previous post, has bought little PLC stuff during my tenure--- but my boss and salesman get $100K/year in MRO business from the account, which is enough to justify my attention.

I reject the use of programming software as a loss leader. The software has value, its support has costs, and all of that must be paid for, somehow. Cheap software, in my experience, is worth the price. The payment has to be made somewhere. (And everything can be negotiated!)

An additional note: Our bestselling PLC programming and documentation software package costs $1100. If a one-time expense of $1100 is a problem for a plant, I can't imagine why I would want to call on it. Automation is supposed to be part of a profitable plant operation. $1100 is the cost of a small downtime or a minor mechanical breakage. If a one-time $1100 expense is a problem, the plant is undercapitalized, mismanaged, or failing, and not an attractive client.

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver Rexel / Central Florida

And if $1100.00 for software to _start_ working and buying the really expensive stuff isn't questioned, the plant is mismanaged. Then there's the continuation costs, and so on. This never seems to get looked at and these gotchas come as unpleasant surprises. My point is that the cost of proprietary systems is high, complex, and nebulous but is always regarded simplistically. If a shop commits to a given product line, the $1100.00 is diddly for the vendor as well. Heck, that's the cost of one $5.00 serial card with a "special" connector or a couple of "special" cables. I would think the business and goodwill generated by giving away the razor would be worth it considering the margin on the blades. Especially since the razor is useless without the blades and no other blades will work. And having your razor greatly increases the probability that someone is gonna want your blades. Raising the threshold for entry just doesn't seem to make sense. For an inhouse shop your argument may hold, but for a small independent shop, $1100.00 for something that might only be used for one project is kinda steep. I have personally seen this up front cost kill projects, so someone cares about the $1100.00. But then, it does provide an opportunity for folks to do it differently. With less arrogance.

Regards

cww

Jiri Baum:
> > Of course, the question is whether it wouldn't be better to make the
> > 28-year thing explicit, as a support contract. The software itself
> > would then be correspondingly cheaper, or even more so if you
> > consider it a loss-leader.

> > Attempting to finance an ongoing thing from a once-off payment is a
> > always going to be a problem.

Larry Lawver:
> The annual support renewal rate is shockingly low, but the demand for
> support is constant.

That's a problem, of course.

> The upfront fee guarantees revenue to support the development and
> delivery of the software. The profit my boss makes pays for me, and
> the initial handholding every new client needs.

I've no problem with the initial stuff; it's the ongoing thing that bothers me, because it has a vaguely similar sense to pyramid schemes.

> Yes, if everyone paid their annual fees (as is common in the HVAC
> business, for example), everything would be clear about the business.

Yes, that would be the best.

> When my client lets support lapse, I still find a way to help, as long
> as it makes business sense. My 28 year old installation, mentioned in
> my previous post, has bought little PLC stuff during my tenure--- but
> my boss and salesman get $100K/year in MRO business from the account,
> which is enough to justify my attention.

That makes sense - if the client is a current client, still buying stuff, then the support can be financed from the new stuff they're buying, even if it's a different line.

> I reject the use of programming software as a loss leader.

Sorry, that was a bit of agitation for open-source :-)

The argument still stands if you delete that clause from my post.

> An additional note: Our bestselling PLC programming and documentation
> software package costs $1100. If a one-time expense of $1100 is a
> problem for a plant, I can't imagine why I would want to call on it.

Certainly. It's just that if someone buys a $1100 package off you, how are you going to allocate that to the next 30 years?

More importantly, how will the clients know that you're allocating it to the next 30 years? If your competitor decides to skimp and only go for
25 years, they're going to beat you on price, and nobody will know until a quarter of a century down the track.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri(AT)baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

>Third, it is a given that anyone who purchases PLC programming software is going to need help either using the package, or help with making the code they have written, work.<

If I have to call tech support because the software doesn't work properly out of the package, (or, more often, because the documentation stinks to high heaven) I shouldn't have to pay for that. The company didn't finish the product. The company has failed in their duty to their customer, and they should just be grateful I'm calling them instead of my attorney. I don't call to ask for help programming.

The motion instructions on the ControlLogix are a prime example of this situation.

For Pete's sake! Let's take this even further. The I/O is no good without the processor, so why don't they give you that? Your car is no good without the engine, so they shouldn't charge you for that either, right? This whole discussion is ridiculous! For those of you not wanting to pay for software or licensing, for those of you not wanting to pay the premium price for AB products, and for those of who convinced that AB stuff has far more bugs and problems than any other vendor's, and that their tech support is any less knowledgable than any other vendor's, good for you! And good for me, too. This means that while you are putting together systems with hardware from a mixture of manufacturers, using off-brand or bargain basement controls, struggling with "Open Systems", and playing the "Who's problem is it now that everything doesn't work together" game, I will be putting up with any inconvenience I have to from AB. In doing so, I know, from having done the same sorts of things, that my system will come up quicker, smoother, and with much less effort than the majority of yours. My initial hardware costs may be higher, but my overall project cost will be lower. I know that I have only one place to turn to when I need help (face it, all tech support is terrible); I know that my customer will be able to get product support no matter where in the world I send my equipment; I know that my customer will be able to find someone outside of AB tech support that will be familiar with the AB hardware/software/networking and be able to help with any problem that may arise. I know that the software (and hardware), no matter what I paid for it or what its problems, is supported by a multi-billion dollar entity who could care less about me and my problems, but has a vested interest in making sure it works, not by an international committee or by a company who decided to use their own home-grown OS (proprietary or "Open") and may not be around to support it, or may not want to continue supporting it, in 5 years. I know that the hardware will be around, be supported, and be compatible for at least ten years or more (can the PC or Automation Direct people say that?).

Let's face it though, bottom line is that no vendor, hardware platform, or software platform is perfect. If there was such a thing, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and there wouldn't be as many choices as there are. Right or wrong, we each do what we feel is best for our own company based on our past experience and emotions (I have never had an experience with AB that was bad enough that I would never use them again, some of you obviously have), not on any concrete rule of thumb. So, let's agree to disagree, put this ugly topic to bed, and in the words of the great Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Anonymous:
> I know that the software (and hardware), no matter what I paid for it or what its problems, is supported by a multi-billion dollar entity who could care less about me and my problems, but has a vested interest in making sure it works, not by an international committee or by a company who decided to use their own home-grown OS proprietary or "Open") and may not be around to support it, or may not want to continue supporting it, in 5 years.

That's multiple-sourcing your support might come in handy, because frankly none of the above options sounds particularly attractive.

As long as support is only available from (or controlled by) a single entity, you're going to have problems.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <jiri@baum.com.au> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

>As long as support is only available from (or controlled by) a single entity, you're going to have problems.

No, this does not follow. The most you can say is that there is the potential for a problem, but frankly I'd rather have a support contract and
someone to sue if it's not upheld than chance my arm with a gaggle of be-sandalled geeks with beatific grins on a self-congratulary bulletin
board. Who are more likely to explain that my whole way of working is wrong than attempt to align the software with how I want to work.

I do find this discussion bizarre. The software in question is being used to build machines who will produce lifetime profits of 100 times the capital investment used to create them. If anything needs to be given away for free, the attention might better be focused at this end of the equation than on the material and software supplied to produce it.

If you want expertise in your supplier, you will have to pay for it at some point. If you don't, then Mat-PLC will be ready real soon now, really.

Cheers

Tim

Hi Tim

> >As long as support is only available from (or controlled by) a single entity, you're going to have problems.
>
> No, this does not follow. The most you can say is that there is the potential for a problem, but frankly I'd rather have a support contract and someone to sue if it's not upheld

Yeah, right. Read your license again. Seriously, you should, before the situation comes up.

> than chance my arm with a gaggle of be-sandalled geeks with beatific grins on a self-congratulary bulletin board. Who are more likely to explain that my whole way of working is wrong than attempt to align the software with how I want to work.

Straight line FUD. I don't even own a pair of sandals :^) and I would be glad to compare our developer's credentials with anybody's. Let's not
get slanderous or propagate myths. Probably more sandals at IBM these days.

> I do find this discussion bizarre. The software in question is being used to build machines who will produce lifetime profits of 100 times the capital investment used to create them. If anything needs to be given away for free, the attention might better be focused at this end of the equation than on the material and software supplied to produce it.

Is it somehow wrong to give it away if you want to? They have their purpose, we have ours. I find it strange that you would think that theirs is more in your favor. Think about it.

> If you want expertise in your supplier, you will have to pay for it at some point. If you don't, then Mat-PLC will be ready real soon now, really.

How on earth can you possibly make the judgement that we don't have expertise. The very idea is to have a community of experts in their particular field. We could very reasonably have a great deal more expertise on tap than an