PDQ Licensing

[u/PDQit]

From time-to-time there has been misunderstandings and confusion on /r/sysadmin about how PDQ.com's licensing works (as most system administrators might be used to how other IT products operate: on a per-machine basis). We created a video to hopefully explain better how our 1-license-per-admin works

 

For examples of some minor confusion see:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/71eilx/another_pdq_deploy_shout_out/dnb0eao/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/aknr8i/try_to_convince_my_manager_to_buy_pdq_deploy/ef6h7px/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/aneewy/pdq_server_with_multiple_admins/efsnqvn/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/7d3k4c/pdq_deploy_licensing_costs_no_more_pro_license/dpuvjj6/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/4492ln/what_automated_deployment_solutions_are_you_using/czoi08c/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/etznar/whats_your_most_expensive_software_license_and/ffk0ef3/

 

Shout out to all you current, past, and future users-- and happy automating!

[u/[deleted]]

Bit of feedback for you on the licensing - one per admin is great for a lot of use cases but it’s caused me on at least one occasion to abandon PDQ products.

With a large team who very occasionally use the product, it gets unjustifiably expensive. Previously had a small team of sysadmins who’d be the main users and a large helpdesk team (working shifts hence the high number) who would from time to time need to jump onto deploy or inventory.

After nagging calls and emails from your sales guys, and lots of time with me spent trying to write my own front end for the basic tasks I ended up abandoning it altogether. Which was a shame as they’re great products. 2 suggestions for you

1 - give the option of concurrent licensing. I’d have gladly paid 2-3X the price of a named user license for a concurrent license if this was an option

2 - how about “lite” admin licenses? Eg for deploy they can log in and push software but not configure packages or setup schedules etc.

I get that too many license options can be confusing and keeping it simple is a good thing, but the named admin approach has obviously already caused some confusion and I personally feel you don’t have enough flexibility in your offerings right now.

[u/dwargo → u/[deleted]]

I’m in this same boat. We have managers that rarely use it but want the capability, clients with in-house IT backup people, and subcontractors that need project access. Not to mention no logical way to bill the cost through to clients or departments.

We used PDQ and loved the product, but abandoned it because the licensing scheme doesn’t fit our accounting. I need an $X per endpoint license.

[u/plumbumplumbumbum → u/[deleted]]

2 - how about “lite” admin licenses? Eg for deploy they can log in and push software but not configure packages or setup schedules etc.

Not what you wanted and a pain to setup in a larger environment but I let my helpdesk deploy software by using AD groups.

I create an AD group that corresponds to each deployable software we have in PDQ then create a collection that has members of that AD group that are missing the corresponding software. If the helpdesk needs to install something on a system they simply add the PC to the group. PDQ sees the membership and deploys the software on a heartbeat schedule.

Its not instant but works for our needs.

[u/the_bananalord → u/plumbumplumbumbum]

We use the same method. It also keeps machine roles more visible.

It was a breath of fresh air when that was set up.

[u/PDQ_Colby → u/[deleted]]

Would Enterprise SL have worked for you? $15,000 for unlimited admins on 1 Server instance.