Why do you pay for PLC programming software?

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.)
 
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
 
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.
 
S

Steve Myres, PE

>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.
 
B

Brian E Boothe

(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
 
H

Harry Ebbeson

The investment in writing the software is huge. In order to have all the bells and whistles everyone seems to think they need, the programmers have to make it happen. The money is made software- the hardware typically is a break even process in most cases.

AB has the long term performance that others do not have. If they did not they would not be one of the leaders. Again, all the engineering and hardware and software costs have to be paid somewhere. Remember a lot of the AB stuff is built in the USA- those people tend to get higher wages. The import stuff is built where the annual wages would not hardly pay your annual utility bills. Think how you would like it if your job was outsourced to India, China or someother third world nation. The only reason it is not done now is that you are here and they are not.

There is a cost of buying products from a US company and some are related to the cost of employees. Besides if the other companies import products were that good, they would totally take over the market- which they have not.
 
Allen Bradley have software writer who struggle to write good software for us to use. They are paid and in turn AB get's paid. If we steal the software and there is no profit for AB, AB will then have no reason to continue supporting their software. Also Software Piratecy is against the law. I have experience with a fired employee reporting to Autodesk about illegal copies of Autocad on about 15 computers at my old job. We brought one and loaded on 14 other computers. The company almost went through a law suite unheard of. So pay to play.
 
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?"
 
G

Gordon Clyde Cummings

I asked this question over nine months ago and made the mistake of mentioning the programming package of one of the big three PLC manufactures and how much better it was over their competitors. The moderator censured my letter and would not post it. So I will re-visit this issue and avoid the so called ?sales pitch?.

I have read several of the letters and claims are made of the cost of writing the software, cost of support etc. These arguments are mis-placed if the cost of producing the software was considered a marketing cost. Let me be perfectly blunt. There are packages out there that suck big time so much so that it doubles the time of a project integration. And, there is a package out there that enable me to complete a project 80% faster than any other engineer using the other packages that suck.

If the marketing manager of this company pulled his head out and posted this package on the internet and put the cost of writing the package on the advertising side of the ledger the sales of his three PLC lines would go through the roof.

In reality some of his cost would actually go down. For example, when a bug is discovered the new version would be posted on his website. Client would check the website for a new version and use that first and then call tech support. The product distribution costs would disapear because it was on the net. If the package had really good help files (they are very good now), but it the package was intuitive then the support costs would diminish ever further. He would also not need to produce two packages, i.e., one for the small PLC and one for the large PLC.

Basically, hardware is hardware. I believe that for the most part every manufacture?s hardware is very good. The difference is how the hardware communicates and how it is programmed. If I can complete a project 80% faster with his product than with someone else?s product, I would be a fool not to recommend it to my client. Especially if the software was available on the internet.

Come on show some intestinal fortitude and charge us for the hardware and use the software as a very good advertising and promotional tool. You hardware sales will sky rocket.

By the way the programming package I am talking about is the only FULL IEC 1131b programming package on the market by a major PLC company. There is only one major manufacturer of PLC world wide that I am aware of that has a full IEC 1131b package (It is not Phoenix Contact)

Yes, I use the other packages that my clients require, but they still suck and cost them more integration costs because they are not as effective programming tools.

Gordon Clyde Cummings
President
Prism Automation Systems
Clearfield UT
 
Can't agree with you more - and we've found that the distributors seem to know more about the products than the AB reps/techos.

My question is - isn't the software a tool to encourange more people to buy more hardware? SI's and OEM's would like to learn a product and then keep using it to keep costs (relearning) down. With ControlLogix for example, it seems to be a retraining exercise every time a new release comes out.

But we have to run several versions to keep in line with our customers (no point in upgrading to Logix500 v5.00 if most of our customers still use v4.50 (and it ain't backward compatible, of course!!!)

and then there's the firmware - nuff said!!
 
I agree but what choice do we have. If you already have AB PLC'S in place such as the older 2 and 3 models you could get the software for free. Then AB decides to upgrade thier PLC line and sell the software dept. to Rockwell. Rockwell decides to sell the software and the next thing you know everything is costing you. I think it is crazy!. I agree that the RSLogix is easy to use but having to have a licence per user computer is way out of line. If you wish to have an engineering station on more then one data highway then you have to purchase another software package. It is for this reason I am staying as far away from AB's PLC's as feesable.

Jim
 
R

Rick Caldwell

We pay for this software because we always have, we think we must, and we are used to it.

The truth is, this question is really part of the answer to the question many people ask me.

Why is it that you build far more PC based, open architecture control systems than traditional PLC systems?

Think about it.

We loved PLCs in the 70s and 80s. Every dog has his day. The day of the proprietary control system is dwindling.

The world is moving on.

Rick Caldwell
SCADAware, Inc.
 
G

Geoffrey Dell, Eng Tech, BMS

My company made a conscious decision years ago to standardize our PLC's to one PLC manufacturer, Allen Bradley, based on solid buisness principles. I pay to use A-B's (Rockwell) software because I like it, I am very used to it, and it is practical to be expert on one software verses simply somewhat familiar with many. I may be "locked in" but I am comfortable operating the way we are. The incentive to change is not apparent and I enjoy the efficiency gained from knowing one software package well.
 
For all the people wanting freedom from paying for PLC programming software, I recommend looking at Horner Electric's Operator Control Station. It is an operator interface and controller in one. It uses free software that is available on their web site. "www.heapg.com":http://www.heapg.com This software programs both the control logic and operator interface. WOW what a concept. No charge for the software and the hardware is priced competitively as well.
 
V

Vladimir E. Zyubin

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.
 
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 <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
Hello Anonymous

Good luck in getting the "It should be Free" crowd to understand that people that write PLC programming software need to get payed like everyone else. I tried to submit access to free OPC VB client code on the list but since it wasn't a Linux solution it never saw the light of day on the list. Simply resign yourself to the Linux slant of the A list and you will find swollowing each post a little easier.
 
L
>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
 
Top