This comes up so often it's good to explain what happened there.
They were not out to extract value from consumer.
They retargeted the offering to professional engineering and architecture firms.
SketchUp was originally an offering for the AEC market. Then Google bought it and essentially pivoted it to consumer offering. Then Trimble bought it and pivoted it back.
I do realize this hurts the person who is a non-professional user but AFAIK SketchUp sales have never been better.
So it's not a pivot out of stupidity or malice, it's just a pivot.
The main customers - engineering and architecture companies - seem to be fine with it.
If you were an engineer CAD manager it would be odd to pay hundreds per seat a year for a product consumers can get for a pittance. So it's about pricing power I guess as well.
And do agree as a consumer there should be better options.
Monopoly rent extraction targeting a captive audience
Business customers don't pay for "having more buttons than mere consumers". Their business depending on such a crucial tool makes them reliant on swift and extensive support, negligible down times and so on. They are being cornered by ecosystem lock-in and workflow dependencies.
You could sell the same software at low prices to both "classes" of customers and charge extra for the services relevant for businesses. But then the fiction of "professional" whatever would be gone on the business side. And more importantly, companies like SketchUp would have to admit, they are merely SaaS with bad scaling prospects.
Unfortunately, that's not a problem with the strategy. That was taken into account by the business when the pivot was made, and it was determined to be an insignificant amount of users. The strategy worked without any problems, given the increase in sales. Anyone who used it during the consumer period is no longer the intended customer.
" in search of "
Trimble didn't need to search anything. They knew very well what the market is.
They could have a handled the consumer market retreat better.
I used it a lot since the first demo version came out on CDs of computer magazines of the era, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
The first release was definitely not feasible for professional use in the AEC market. It was just a easy to use 3D modelling tool for hobbyists and tinkerers who wanted to CAD or model something simple at home with the mouse, without the cost and steep learning curve of parametric pro tools like AutoCAD, 3DSMax or Maya.
It was the first 3D modelling tool I used that made 3d modelling simple and fun that a child could enjoy. But definitely not AEC levels, at least not the first release.
>Then Google bought it and essentially pivoted it to consumer offering.
When Google bought it, it was already popular in the consumer market. They bought it because they needed a simple tool that anyone could use to populate Google maps with 3D buildings of their neighbourhood via crowdsourcing, and nothing was simpler back then then sketchup.
>They retargeted the offering to professional engineering and architecture firms.
More correct would be they pivoted there because that's only userbase that will pay for SW. Unless you have the backing of someone like Google or Autodesk being you to finance such a loss-leader, then you're forced to move away from free SW for casual home users to paying pro-sumers to survive as a company.