New community edition (Release 2024)

Hi,

some short questions that are maybe of general interest:

1. Let´s assume a user has following situation:

• One production instance with Innovator 12 or 11
• One test instance with Innovator 12 or 11

Installing Release 2024 (especially for testing purposes) should be possible without any problems in this configuration, right? Or is there something to consider? 

2. Is the user limitation a hard or soft restriction (=does Innovator stop working if the user limit is exceeded)?


Thanks!
Angela

1. AFAIK, there shouldn't be any problems.

2. The restriction is hard. I'm tried to install R24 in the test environment and filled it with fake users. As soon as the number of users, including the admin, root and other "system" users, exceeds 50, regardless of whether they are enabled or not, whether they ever logged in or not, only admin can login to this instance.

Thanks for testing! That´s an important information!

So users can't even use the 50 users unless someone identifies themselves as an Auth Admin or Super User.
I'm surprised that not even the "logon_enabled" field is taken into account. It's like a built-in EOL function. Deleting historic users is not an option, as this would also require deleting data.

I see this release as experimental approach where they test out some ideas. They know their community isn´t Twitter - people don´t go crazy if you try something new. 

Their own homepage still contains too many quotes from the founders that describe the basic idea and their motivation with the open release. Release 2024 doesn´t match from my POV. But why should they risk their credibility for the (Quote) "...very small portion of Community Edition [...] users"? Discontinuing the open release just wouldn´t make any sense. 

I think we can found the motivation for this release in the history of 12SP9. It was a long running open release.  An excellent version for users groups below 250 users that couldn't get a full subscription, but not the best one regarding demonstrating latest Innovator features. 12SP9 was a rock solid version, but with outdated UI compared to I14 and it didn´t include new fancy features like the TOC Editor or all the other quality of life improvements. 

Release 2024 is offered clearly for marketing (show the latest and greatest you have) and testing. But it wasn´t intended as true open release. That´s why it has the inbuilt limitations regarding users and lifespan.

Year 2025 is just around the corner. I expect some finetuning in the whole concept. I am curious how they will solve this balancing act.

 John Sperling Does Aras already have a release date for the next classic open release?

For everybody wondering why I am so interested in the open release. I have a few instances that are too small for subscription but Release 2024 doesn´t fit either.

I of course contacted Aras as recommended above. Since 5 months (!) people try to find a solution, but there is some kind of gray area where they don´t have a suitable offering. Aras hasn't found a solution yet, but they definitely admire the problem. As I said before, I still expect a few changes in the overall open release concept, so I am not too worried.

But the whole situation is really funny. I am one of the most contributing members in this community - and as a token of appreciation, Aras accidentally locked me out of the software.  (at least partially, don't worry, I'm still fine).

Is anyone else affected in a similar way or is it just me that faces this unexpected edge case?

 John Sperling What do you recommend me to do when I haven´t got a solution from Aras since half a year? I am not in a hurry. Shall I keep asking or do you know an alternative solution?

Happy new year everyone! I assume no one saw my previous posts because the forum notification system was temporarily down at the time. My typical luck.  But PLM is a marathon. After 8 years, we have digital twins in the Innovator, but everything still feels unfinished.

Are there any news for Release 2025 already?

AngelaIp I haven't seen any information about any "classic-style open release". I thought the communication was pretty clear that they expect all customers to go onto a subscription once they decide to pursue a PROD instance. The community edition is only suitable for simple proof of concept testing that can be done in-house without a large sales project.

What do you mean by "too small for subscription". I was under the impression that Aras had subscription packages for even small user counts (<50 active).

Thanks for your input! Out of interest, what kind of communication do you refer to? Maybe I miss something. 

According to the Aras wiki article (not an official source I know...) the classic open release concept was introduced in 2007 and since then (from my POV!) was an important part of their culture and identity of "being different".
Their own homepage and even partner pages still mention it. If I would have to pick one of the available references, it would probably be their own company description they used with only minor updates for nearly a decade (!): 

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331112249/https://www.aras.com/company/ --> see "Business" section and "Community" section. Should speak for itself.

Years ago subscriptions with 25 users were possible. But at this time, Aras had much less applications (mainly PE and PM). The software has grown, so did the complicity. So the limit was raised to 50. And this is absolutely understandable. Main reason for this user limitation are upgrades. In worst case a 25-user instance can require just as much effort as a 500-user instance.
For a certain period, the user limit was even 250. At this time Minerva PLM was available as alternative offering explicitly for small and mid-sized user groups. But after the Aras / Minerva merger this offering seemed to be discontinued. So it seems that there is right now no offering that fills this gap.

I would also like to raise a point that may not have been considered so far.

I work with regular subscription instances AND open release instances (not the same companies obviously - they are strictly separated). 

If Aras really discontinued the classic open release, this could also raise some questions for the subscription instances. What will be discontinued next? Upgrades included in subscription? Customizability? Community? On-Premise installations? Do my subscribers have to be prepared?

I am of course not that pessimistic! 

I assume that Aras is totally aware of the controversies this release produced. And I even think Aras enjoys these kind of speculations. Basically we had similar discussions before Release 2023 showed up:   RE: New free version ...  **

Back then there were big doubts about whether there would ever be another release after 12SP9. And then out of nowhere Aras surprised everyone with Release 2023.

**I would like to point out that I was the only non-Aras person in the discussion who believed in Aras and defended them when nobody else did! I did that!!! 

I would also like to raise a point that may not have been considered so far.

I work with regular subscription instances AND open release instances (not the same companies obviously - they are strictly separated). 

If Aras really discontinued the classic open release, this could also raise some questions for the subscription instances. What will be discontinued next? Upgrades included in subscription? Customizability? Community? On-Premise installations? Do my subscribers have to be prepared?

I am of course not that pessimistic! 

I assume that Aras is totally aware of the controversies this release produced. And I even think Aras enjoys these kind of speculations. Basically we had similar discussions before Release 2023 showed up:   RE: New free version ...  **

Back then there were big doubts about whether there would ever be another release after 12SP9. And then out of nowhere Aras surprised everyone with Release 2023.

**I would like to point out that I was the only non-Aras person in the discussion who believed in Aras and defended them when nobody else did! I did that!!!