I've never seen so many people bitch about something for which none of them
has paid a dime.

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
ing, 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 archivesg. 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 withg.

Regards,

Pop`

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400, alexy
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han
wrote:

"John L. Poole" wrote in
news:OTOrg.116838
:

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 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.

alexy wrote:
"Pop" wrote:

alexy wrote:
"CW" wrote:

Maybe so but we no betas were being discussed.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
message ...

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

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

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:45:34 GMT, "Pop" wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400, alexy
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:23:50 GMT, Han
wrote:

"John L. Poole" wrote in
news:OTOrg.116838
:

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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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" 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
ing, 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 archivesg. 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 withg.

Regards,

Pop`

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
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

"Pop" 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.

"todd" 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.

"alexy" wrote in message
...
"todd" 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

"James E. Cannon" 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.