The Best Pricing Model for non-FEM Structural Software - KootWare 5

[KootK]

The Mission

While I'm still above grade, I intend to create a suite of pay for play, online structural engineering tools (KootWare). And I feel that a big part of making this questionable venture a success -- or at least improving the odds of a contained failure -- will be arriving at a good pricing model. Frankly, this is something that I feel that other developers have done poorly, to their detriment. As such, I'd like to solicit feedback from the hive with respect to the pricing models that I'll propose below and any possibilities for improvement.

The Basics of What You Need to Know About the Offering

1) 100% online offering. No option for a local, perpetual license version.

2) The goal here is not to get rich. The goal is to extract enough income from this that I can justify pouring a lot of effort into a project that I expect to enjoy a great deal.

3) Spit balling, if I could create enough value that I could convince 1000 SE's to part with $5/month, that would be enough. Or any other combination of numbers that gets to the same place. How many software using structural engineers do we think exist in North America anyhow? Sixteen? Eighty thousand? I really don't know.

4) Think something along the lines of TEDDS, ENERCALC, or Jabacus on steroids. I do have ideas for, in my opinion, greatly improving upon these offerings. I'd like that to be a separate conversation however. For now, make a leap of faith and just assume that it will be awesome.

5) I intend to attach some manner of structural only, online forum to the offering. While it would be a free-form space for conversation, as Eng-Tips is, it's ostensible purpose would be to provide a place for me to provide responsive help to anybody designing stuff utilizing the software. Thus making the whole thing even more fun for me. This would be offered in addition to the usual help guide and verification manuals etc <-- edit added per skeletron's comments.

Some Obvservations that I Have Regarding the Pricing Models of Others

6) For software of this type, I feel that a monthly subscription pricing scheme would not be well received. As a small outfit my self, I loathe taking on any additional "monthlys", no matter how great the ROI seems to be. I'm always afraid that I'll use it twice and forget to cancel. I doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

7) I also don't think that a straight "pay per use" model is the way to go either. Design is an iterative process and software licensing needs to reflect that. Sadly, I don't just design a shear wall once. I probably design it half a dozen times before all is said and done. And I can't be losing my shirt on pay per use while going through that process.

8) One has to assume that anything that can be abused, will be abused. This will prevent me from being quite as customer friendly as I would otherwise wish to be. My own IP halo gets a little dirty from time to time so no judgement here.

Pricing Model A

This is my favorite of the two and would appeal to me as a customer. Keep in mind than none of the particular values are set in any way. It's really more about the structure at this point. That said, if anybody has thoughts on what the numbers ought to be, I'd welcome that too. I figure I'll adjust as use data starts to pile up but I'll still have to start somewhere.

1) Create an account at KootWare International and add a credit card, paypal etc.

2) Buy yourself some quantity KootWare credits. $10. $100. Whatever. Little gold doubloons in your digital purse.

3) To access the retaining wall tool for use, you pay $5. After the first run, you have the lesser of 20 additional runs or 60 days to keep using the tool on the original $5. One "run" would represent one execution of a full design with detailed output. <-- added per skeletron's comments.

4) If you want to share your account login and credits with somebody else, that's your prerogative. Share it with your coworker, a school chum in Brisbane, your aunt... retaining walls for everybody on that original $5. But, no matter who's using, it taps out after 20 runs or 60 days.

Pricing Model B

1) Create an account at KootWare International and add a credit card, paypal etc.

2) Buy yourself some quantity KootWare credits. $10. $100. Whatever.

3) You can use any tool your like, for free, but you can't get a detailed printout for your calcs until some money has changed hands. The software would tell you the basics of what passed and what failed and would allow you to save your file to the system for future retrieval. I kind of like this in that it would allow one to essentially do their preliminary design work for free. I could allow folks to printout their inputs in case they were worried about my going bankrupt before they get to IFC.

4) When you've got all your design settled and ready for final calc documentation, it's $5 per print. The trouble with this is, I couldn't let the user see the detailed printout ahead of paying for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up with a bunch of folks just doing screen capture etc.

 

[Lomarandil]

NextGenCalcs
EigenCalcs
Top Out
White Box
STMagic
Development!=Anchorage(Calc)

----
just call me Lo.

 

[Craig_H]

Not sure if your ideal pricing model still involves limited-output freeware? If so, brand the free outputs as KootWare, put all sorts of old-koot-esque (or kooky) branding on it, and that way nobody abuses the free stuff (few would have the audacity to trot it out in front of a third party). Channel your heritage and give it some West-Kootenays flair. Then brand the paid version very boring and solemn-serious. As much as I enjoy shaking my fist at the established way of doing things, I guess that having a serious-sounding name may have a bearing on long-term success.

 

[Lomarandil]

E.g Kootware, where the output is entirely in comic sans?

----
just call me Lo.

 

[KootK]

Stuff that got deleted because we're excessively PC these days

Yeah, I would indeed like to the grand wizard of structural engineering. Needs to be a bit more subtle though. Maybe ClanCalc

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

You also want it to sound solid for people submitting calcs to third parties.

This is probably the biggest reason not to do "KootWare"; despite it being a really fun sounding name.

I'll probably not go with KootWare out of fear that potential customers not in on the joke would be put off by it's silliness. However, I do not consider reception by 3rd party reviewers to be an issue because of a particular way in which I intend to differentiate my offering.

I intend to set things up such that, when users print output, it will not contain any information that would tie the calculation back to my software. Calcs will display my customers' logos, if they wish it, but not my logo (unless they wish it). And this isn't an attempt on my part to dodge responsibility for the quality of the software or its output. Rather, this is a philosophical issue for me.

While I/Kootware will own the black/white box that generated the calculation output, once that output has been generated, I will consider the design to be the sole property, and sole product, of the engineer responsible for the design. I realize that some software vendors intentionally court relationships with AHJ reviews etc. And I realize that there may be some marketing advantages to doing that. That isn't where I want to position Kootware however. To the extent that trust exists, I want trust to be developed between AHJ reviewers and the engineers whose work they review. I really do not want to encourage AHJ reviewers to come to trust Kootware, regardless of whether or not that might benefit me as the developer/purveyor.

I feel that encouraging reviewers to trust any software is to steer things back in the unhealthy direction of black-box-ed-ness. I'd be happy to supply AHJ reviewers with free copies to use to check calculations, done in Kootware or any other software. But I do not want to encourage AHJ reviewers to trust KootWare output simply because it's Kootware output.

Trust the man, not the machine.


HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

Koot is a mildly derogatory term of sorts in this part of the world, like "that old koot is crazy as batshit".

Come to think of it, the same is true in this part of the world. So much for hastily derived abbreviations...

Not sure if your ideal pricing model still involves limited-output freeware?

It does indeed. That said, my current thinking is that I will not take any measures to punish/dissuade free tool abuse. Through the course of this thread, I've come to believe that the only way deliver the kind of product that I want to deliver is to place some trust in my user base. There's just no way to lock it all up tight without making serious compromises. And while it may be wishful thinking, I want to deliver a product with such a low cost and great value proposition that nobody likely to ever be a paying customer would avoid becoming one solely on account of having to pay the nominal fees that I'd be charging. We'll see...

Channel your heritage and give it some West-Kootenays flair.

West Kootenays? Ew. Whatever gave you the impression that I was one of those hillbillies? East Kootenay flair.

Then brand the paid version very boring and solemn-serious. As much as I enjoy shaking my fist at the established way of doing things, I guess that having a serious-sounding name may have a bearing on long-term success.

#MeToo. I originally wanted my regular engineering firm name to be TacocaT Consulting Engineers until cooler heads talked me down from that. I still wonder though... Maybe being the real me, as opposed to the stodgy / white washed me, would have zoned me in on the kind of clients that I really want to the exclusion to the kind that I could do without. Or maybe I'd sink like a stone, who's to say. I feel that the Kootware venture is quite a bit less sensitive to serious-sounding-ness than a regular consulting firm. And that makes it that much harder to not be Kootware.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

Development!=Anchorage(Calc)

Humor aside, you've given me what I consider to be the top contender for a serious name. White Box! White Box Online Structural Design (THLS' point). White Box OSD.

The concern most often expressed in this thread has been making the software non-black-boxy. So this... speaks directly to that in a somewhat subtle and clever way.

When I named my consulting firm, I read the book below which I highly recommend. White box checks many off the boxes presented in that book including:

1) Simple and memorable.

2) Combined with "online structural design", says plenty about the offering.

3) Subtly conveys meaning with regard to what will be a major selling point with potential customers.

As an added bonus, the name would help to keep me honest with regard to not letting myself drift towards black boxiness, as coders are prone to doing. I can't very well be White Box and turn out some decidedly black box software. Too much potential for ridicule.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I love it; that's a fantastic name. I agree that it's a highly marketable name and, after some googling, I'm shocked nobody is using it yet. I'd dive all over that.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL, CO) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)

 

[Agent666]

White boxxx seems fairly popular though!?

 

[KootK]

Damn it!! It had occurred to me that it might conjure tawdry/racist imagery but I figured the odds of that would be vanishinlg low. But there we go. At least it's tasteful erotica intended for a female audience.

Boxwhite actually has perfect domain name availability (

http://www.boxwhite.com).

$3k up front to buy it though. Would a switch Boxwhite sacrifice too much with regard to catchiness?

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[jayrod12]

I'd prefer Whitebox with just the single X. boxwhite does not have the same ring.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Yeah, whitebox; I've found many an interesting website via typos and it had zero impact on my perception of the brand/product.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL, CO) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)

 

[jari001]

The site linked below is doing something vaguely similar what you want to do. You may have reviewed many sites like it, it's one I'm constantly running into when I'm searching process eng calc related material. I looked at this person's pricing structure and I think it's reasonable - maybe it matches the model that most people have evinced preference to on this thread?

https://www.lmnoeng.com/

 

[BUGGAR]

This is the part of the Imnoeng product I think best:
"Any of the calculations on our website can be purchased and run as a "stand-alone" calculation on a computer that is not connected to the Internet. The program will run in the Windows environment."

 

[WinelandV]

That website is like stepping back in time to how the internet was in 1999.

And upon checking the copyright, it appears he started in 1998.

 

[KootK]

The site linked below is doing something vaguely similar what you want to do.

Thanks for the suggestion. At this point, any and all versions of P4P design calculators are of interest to me. They give a better sense of what is possible/common. An interesting outcome here is that I may publish a list of all of the online tools available on my own product webpage for the benefit of others. I suspect that I'll have a pretty comprehensive list compiled when all is said and done. All that said, there are some important differences between LMNO and what I've got in mind:

1) On average, I'll be offering much more powerful individual tools.

2) I hope to produce something vastly more visually appealing per windelandv's latest.

3) There'll be no downloadable, perpetual license tool for me.

4) I'll provide an "all tools" pricing option but my dominant model will be al a carte, monthly, $5-ish, subscription to individual tools.

I looked at this person's pricing structure and I think it's reasonable - maybe it matches the model that most people have evinced preference to on this thread?

I don't believe that it is the model that most people have envisioned. That said, I should let other speak for themselves. So the model is reproduced below for comment. It strikes me as both complex and expensive given the sophistication levels of the handful of tools that I checked out. This isn't my space in terms of expertise though. Maybe for someone working in that area, they might see themselves using dozens of these tools over the course of a project which would justify the cost.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[KootK]

This is the part of the Imnoeng product I think best: "Any of the calculations on our website can be purchased and run as a "stand-alone" calculation on a computer that is not connected to the Internet. The program will run in the Windows environment."

I've no doubt that there will always be a cadre of people out there for whom the perpetual license option will be king. I respect that but intend to make no attempt to appease that segment of the market. Some reasons why:

1) Given the complexity of the tools I hope to develop, having all of them have a downloadable, stand alone analog would add a great deal to my development overhead.

2) My sense is that online subscription models are the future. Certainly, based on the direction that other vendors seem to be heading, that's a commonly held belief.

3) I've yet to identify anyone who really seems to be making a serious go of the "sell spreadsheets" model. Firstly, it seems to be an almost impossible task for small time developers to figure out how to do this without having their products jail broken and freely distributed to the world at large. Secondly, the price point required to have it make sense to lose a long term subscribing customer in favor of a perpetual license would be too high I suspect. Just spit-balling it, I'd want several hundred dollars for each standalone, perpetual license sale of my tools that I'd normally be offering at $5/month. And, frankly, I don't see that any of my individual tool would be worth hundreds of dollars to any rational consumer given competing alternatives.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[Agent666]

Jumping back to the strut and tie discussion for a second, I randomly came across this today which looks kind of similar to what you were aiming for with the optimisation FEA stuff backing up the selection of a valid model for an analysis. May be of some interest to people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13s_4xfsATk&feature=youtu.be

 

[KootK]

Anyone who hasn't checked out the STM software that Agent666 linked to really should. Not only is it the elastic FEM concept that I'd had in mind, it's pretty much the whole kit & kabboodle. I'd almost be willing to pay the $1500 just to have my own copy to tinker with. I'm striking the STM project off of the Kootware list until further notice. I probably wasn't going to get to it for a couple of decades anyhow.

The software even seems to be able to auto-generate the nodes well which is something that I wasn't even sure could be programmed reliably. Go Korea! It's even a pretty gorgeous interface. And they have a 3D version which I considered entirely out of reach for me.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I've been using the older program CAST for what little strut and tie I do (not sure if you can get it anymore; was a free download from a university) but AStrutTie is definitely a cool program. If I ever get a bit S&T project again I would definitely pick it up.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL, CO) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)