New Autodesk Releases

[RobertAitken]

OK I know 2006, and no doubt based products, will soon be on us but is it really something that CAD Managers and business owners really need? Not 2006 but a new upgrade every year.

A recent report I read indicated that MS and other large software houses were considering slowing the release of new/upgrades of existing products for two reasons.

1. Companies can't afford the cost of deployment
2. Companies can't continually pay for training for features they don't use.

Autodesk took the reverse approach with the new/upgrade release each year. This, it could be argued, was to justify the subscription cost but is more likely to ensure a constant "revenue stream" for Autodesk. The term "revenue stream" was banded about by Autodesk with the introduction of the subscription program.

I know some people will upgrade because they have to have the latest version, even if they don't use any of the new features. Some will wait and see then decide. If you paid into the subscription program then all you have to worry about it the annual deployment and training.

So do you think that you'll, if not on subscription, upgrade or, if on subscription, deploy the latest release.

Thanks

Robert Aitken

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Below is my personal opinion (please do not read anything else into it) -

Autodesk's old business model of a new release every 3 years (approx) was too long a wait (Lots! of people use to complain and make a lot! of noise about this).

Extension's for Subscription Customers never really worked, Autodesk never really released enough of them during that period to justify that particular business model.

Current Autodesk business model, new release every year, not good for customers (for many obvious reasons that have already been discussed by others).

From what I have read on this particular subject, plus my own personal opinion -

A new release every two years would appear to be the best middle ground.

Have a good one, Mike

[RobertAitken]

Mike,

I can never remember the 3 year upgrade, they always brought out new releases every 2 years with the previous releases expiring 4 years after release.

I thought that Autodesk didn't generate enough money from the 2 yearly upgrade so introduced the subscription program and that term "revenue stream". I know the place where I worked them saw that phrase and thought "why should we be forced to pay for their business model" They wouldn't give answers to any question I asked re subscription and it was deemed to be no benefit to join.

Robert

[Mike.Perry]

I can never remember the 3 year upgrade, they always brought out new releases every 2 years with the previous releases expiring 4 years after release.Hi

Ok! my bad, maybe I should have said 30 month release cycle (R12, R13 & R14).

AutoCAD Release History Page (http://betaprograms.autodesk.com/history/autocad_release_history.htm)

Have a good one, Mike

[RobertAitken]

Cool site Mike. Kinda brought a tear to my eye looking back at all those old releases.

Robert

[mtlynn]

Great Site Mike. Thanks

I found out when I got my start R-2.6 that was a long time ago. Good old DOS.

[CADKitty]

So do you think that you'll, if not on subscription, upgrade or, if on subscription, deploy the latest release.
I know we will not be upgrading, even without having seen the list of features/updates included. We are not on subscription, looked into it, didn't see the benefits. Despite ACAD's new "yearly update" plan, we still update every 24-30 months. Why? Simple.

1) Cost of the software. When we upgraded to A2K4, we actually changed many of our seats over to LT just to cut costs.

2) Time needed to upgrade. We are are small, busy firm. Any upgrading takes place, therefore, after hours or when there's no work to do. Not extremely efficient, I know, but it's how it is.

3) Training? Ha! That's called "have CAD figure out what changed and tell everyone else." Again, this happens when we're not busy, and when the designers aren't busy.

That being said, we're one of the only firms we deal with (engineering, architectural, structural, etc.) that is in 2004. Most everyone else is still running 2002 or lower, waiting for the time to upgrade to 2004/2005.

As for us, we'll wait for ACAD 2007....or 2008....

[fletch97]

Hey Guys -

This is great thread....with that said, you guys missed one more aspect to all of this, hardware upgrades. I don't know about you guys but we have a mixed collection of computers floating through the office and every time a new release is issued, all computers need to be analyzed for compatibility with the new release. (Which only adds to the headache and cost of an upgrade.)

We're on subscription but will have to seriously test 2006 to see if it's worth installing, training and upgrading pc's. I loved R14 because it hung around for such a long time that it gave people a chance to get really efficient and fast with it. The problem with upgrading all the time is the fact that everyone is playing catch-up and never really getting that fast with the software.

So the big picture here - Autodesk makes money....companies and employees hurt because of it!! Got to Love corporate America!! Don't worry though, it's cheaper to sub work out to other countries so we'll all be out of work sooner or later.

Good Luck!

[Wanderer]

you guys missed one more aspect to all of this, hardware upgrades.

I loved R14 because it hung around for such a long time that it gave people a chance to get really efficient and fast with it. The problem with upgrading all the time is the fact that everyone is playing catch-up and never really getting that fast with the software.

you bring up a good point about the hardware requirements, but, in some rare cases that could be a plus. I got my last pc upgrade (hardware and OS) because of 2005's requirements. Of course, I am one of only a VERY small number of cad users at my company, so the cost issue isn't so big. I just needed justification that I shouldn't be using the same pc as my secretary.

I will agree with you on the learning curve, people are playing catch up. I'll admit that there are still tools from 04 and 05 that I haven't really taken full advantage of. (I tested 04, but, didn't upgrade here till 05 because I didn't think it was worth it) It all depends on the tools you need to do your job.

For me 2006 will be worth it almost just for the rollover highlighting and dynamic input features (although there are many more cool features that others might use more). They help me work A LOT quicker. I feel a real slow-down going back to 2002 or 2005 after having been able to work with these.

my $0.02

[Scott D Davis]

Interesting thread! Now from the vantage point of someone who has been on the 'rapid release' cycle for some time now. I've been using Revit since r1.0. Back then, Revit Technologies Corporation was releasing new versions every 6 months. We've always been on subscription, and never found any of the upgrades to be a problem. There has always been good advance notice about what the new features are, and tutorials have been available from within Revit to explore the new features. We have upgraded every release, and each has been well worth the effort. Was there a huge learning curve? Not really. Most peopel explore the new features on their own, or we hold a lunchtime seminar on "What's new' and review the new stuff. Hardware upgrades? Never really a problem, because our office is continually rolling over hardware that reaches about two years old. We are not a small office, over 125 people in 3 offices. Now there is network deployment for Revit Series (which is what we have) so IT can build a deployement and get it installed fairly easily.

I really like the once a year plan. Maybe it's just because I've come to expect it, coming from the Revit side. Guess you came blame Revit for changing the way Autodesk releases products, but in my opinion, its a great thing. We get the latest software, we are assured of a new product and new features, and we will never feel like we are behind our competition. We welcome the upgrades, it's not a hinderance, and will continue to always make sure we are on the latest version of software.

[tommy.huckabee]

My company has never been on the year to year upgrade, we usually wait about 2 years. it seems as though when upgrading every year your not getting your moneys worth. there is usually some changes but not enough to totally switch over to something new. When we upgrade it is because there is enough changes made to Auto CAD to justify spending the money. We have quite a few seats here and LT doesn't cut it for most of the users. As of now we are running 2004 and about to upgrade to 2006. I been patiently waiting for this one for some time now.
Thanks,
Tommy

[jaberwok]

Hey Guys - This is great thread....with that said, you guys missed one more aspect to all of this, hardware upgrades........
I don't think the hardware point is as important as it used to be. It used to be that a new release of acad pretty much required the latest hardware [286, 386, maths co-processors, etc.]; now just about any machine can run acad though, of course, some machines will be always better than some others and many features are desirable but not essential. Also, hardware is comparatively cheap now - my first pc for acad cost nearly £4000 when the software cost less than £2000.

It's the cost of training or, for many, the even greater cost of lack of training that is the big problem.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned though is the new bugs that are introduced with each release.

[Glenn Pope]

Another point that hasn't been mentioned though is the new bugs that are introduced with each release.
Yes the bugs. I sure hope Map 2006 is better about this. 2005 was extremely buggy. The sad thing was that most of these bugs should have been found in the earliest stages of testing. Like not being able to highlight an object more then once.

[Brian Myers]

This is one of my favorite topics.... for those that know me for my long posts, well, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I'll begin with a few examples and go from there. First, what if I decide to buy a car for $20,000. Do I expect them to fix the problems with the car? Yes, if its not safe! Do I expect them to give me a new car with slightly better features when the new model comes out the next year? No.

I buy a fancy drafting board. If they came out with a fancier drafting board (whatever that may be) would I expect them to give me the fancier board for free? No.

I buy a phone. Do I expect to get a better phone for free when it comes out? No.

So why should I expect to get the "latest and greatest" fancier software for free? I don't! Complain all you want about release whatever... if your boss comes in and tells you that you need to start using the release from 2 years ago I bet you throw a pretty large fit. Why? Because with that old software you were not as productive as you are today, and frankly, it simply wasn't as good.

Lets say the release 2 years ago WAS good enough for you? Then why on Earth should you upgrade? Why DID you upgrade??? If it's good enough for you, then it's good enough! It really is that easy!!! Don't waste your money on software if you know for the next 5 years you won't upgrade. Autodesk isn't forcing you to upgrade.. its offering you the opportunity to upgrade.

Now many of you are saying: But they canceled the support on my CAD software! They ARE forcing me to upgrade!!!! Well....How about that car you bought almost 6 years ago? It cost you about $20,000 which is double or triple the amount you paid for AutoCAD. Why didn't you complain when the Warranty expired on that car last year? They'll fix it you know, but at a cost... just like your AutoCAD. Plus, the product has worked for 5-6 years... how come you didn't try and fix this suddenly pressing problem 6 years ago? Likely because you see the newer versions don't have that problem and want a newer version. But unlike going out and buying a new car with fancier features, you balk at buying CAD software (which hopefully you use more during the course of the day than your car) at a price that is 1/2-1/3 of the cost of your vehicle.

Now that I likely have you mad, I bet you're thinking: "But my company doesn't own 20 cars, but it DOES own 60 copies of AutoCAD!!!!" Well, 20 years ago it didn't own ANY copies of AutoCAD but it owned 60 wooden drafting boards. Why did management decide to get rid of those boards? Companies made Millions using them. Well, it was because most of the companies that stayed competitive bought computers and CAD. Yes, its expensive, but the return on your investment makes it worth it. If it isn't worth the investment for you, then don't upgrade! Wait until it is. If r14 works great for you... then great! But I'd bet your company would run better on 2005 or 2006 even without extensive training.

What if you say: "Is there enough improvements that I should upgrade?" The answer may lie in what your company is doing and how your company functions. Companies that are running smoothly likely shouldn't (and won't) upgrade if their users seem happy and are productive. If they are constantly complaining or you hear of a new feature that WILL greatly improve your productivity or employee retention then you (or the CAD management) should decide just how much of an improvement getting new software (and training) will make.

For me the subscription program is great! I like getting new CAD software more than once every 7 years. Think of how many times your subscription price will go into a new piece of software. For me its about 7 times. Now think of how much extra productivity you'll get over that 7 year span (I know I'm MUCH more productive with this version than the version I had 7 years ago). So if I throw my extra $$$ from productivity into the equation I'd likely be able to buy one or two more upgrades of AutoCAD.

Ultimately the question becomes: "How financially stable is my company???" If you can budget for yearly upgrades then likely the subscription program is for you. Does your company save back a little each year for the big software upgrade down the road? If they do, then likely they should be on the subscription program simply for increased productivity. But if your yearly $$$ is sometimes good, sometimes bad, then likely holding off and saving your money for dark times is the best option.

In short: This isn't about the software. Buying (or not buying) a car likely won't put your company out of business. A drafting board and pencils would still work in the right hands, but your company may struggle competing in the marketplace. A new phone might keep you connected during a phone conference call, but it is hardly a necessity. But new CAD software and its cost can directly effect employee retention, productivity, and the very existence of your firm. It can bring you over the top in a competitive market place or put you out of business. It takes good management, both from the CAD management and business management to keep your business a success and your turn-over rate down. Instead of blaming the software (Subscriptions, cost, bugs, etc) perhaps you should be investigating your finances, business decisions, industry niche, and employee productivity and job satisfaction. This is where you will be the big winner.

Remember: With what other product would you expect the perks you get from the software companies??? A new car would cost you 1/2 price (at best) if you traded it in for a new model. Your office furniture and phones can last for years before you spend the money to replace them. If your CAD software is good enough for you NOW then by all means KEEP IT. Don't upgrade unless you need to buy new seats for new hires. There are ways around file compatibility and operative with multiple versions if you put the effort in to try them out.

Finally: No one said the job would be easy.. but CAD does make your life easier and new versions help you and your company over the long haul (if you have steady clients and a good business model).

But to your original question: For myself this version of AutoCAD actually isn't worth a full price upgrade... unless I was running version 2002 or earlier. It IS worth the price of the Subscription update. The new hatch editing features are a huge perk for my business and uses, but the dynamic input features are just fluff for me (its very neat and I'm glad to have it.. but it mostly won't effect my productivity at all!!) Of course, that's just myself and my company! Your company could be very different depending on your set-up and how your company is run both in training, field and education. The best change for myself happened a couple years ago with the Tool Palettes (a pain to set-up perfectly originally.. but once you have them the way you like, you never want to go back!) If you don't have a CAD version that uses them (or your company doesn't use them currently) you have no idea how much you are missing out.

Time to rest my fingers....
Brian

[RobertAitken]

They ARE forcing me to upgrade!!!!

It's not the support issues that force people to upgrade it the fact you have to buy a new license when they withdraw support.

Kawasaki ran a promo a few years back claiming that someone wanted a new Z1. Can't buy them now, stopped selling them in the '70s. No problem they can supply any part for the Z1 and as a demo someone built one from scratch. If your 1970s Z1 breaks down you can still get parts for it.

For arguments sake. If I decide not to upgrade my R14 licenses and wait for 5,6, or 7 years to upgrade. My company increases turnover and I have to purchase more CAD licenses I can't. I have to purchase the latest version and struggle with all the problems that will entail. I can't legally buy software second hand because the users don't own the license and the license isn't transferable unless in certain circumstances and the example I have given isn't one of them.

Back to the car analogy. If you bought a car that contained bugs that stopped it working for whatever reason the manufacturer is bound by law to make the car safe. That doesn't happen a lot in the corporate software market and don't mention M$ and their nice little service packs etc etc. If it was GM or Ford they would be force to withdraw the product.

You raised valid points although I did think it would have generated more discussion.

Robert Aitken

PS Brian, if long posts are the norm for you, how many keyboards do you go through?

[Brian Myers]

I understand and agree with what you said in general, but I suppose my argument would be as follows:


It's not the support issues that force people to upgrade it the fact you have to buy a new license when they withdraw support?

That's not exactly true. You can still use your old license as long as you wish (after all, you did pay for it). You simply have to buy a brand new liscense when you wish to upgrade. But your old version will always be a legal, liscensed version.. just since its old you likely won't be as productive using it.



For arguments sake. If I decide not to upgrade my R14 licenses and wait for 5,6, or 7 years to upgrade. My company increases turnover and I have to purchase more CAD licenses I can't. I have to purchase the latest version and struggle with all the problems that will entail.

I agree... but you can't blaim the software company for that... no software company (at least no major software company) sells software from 4 versions ago. But I will tell you that I can set-up my current version of AutoCAD to look a feel an awful lot like any non-DOS version of AutoCAD. And if you want me to make it feel like a DOS version of AutoCAD.. I think your company needs some serious help! :screwy:


Back to the car analogy. If you bought a car that contained bugs that stopped it working for whatever reason the manufacturer is bound by law to make the car safe. That doesn't happen a lot in the corporate software market ... .

... and this answer really goes back to your last question as well. As bad as that software package you bought may be (bugs, crashing,etc) when you bought it it was the best on the market. You used it for that many years because it DID serve your company so well.

Using a car again as an example: If you go out and buy a car in 1998.. it handles ok, stearing is a little tight, it tends to have a minor transmission issue, the seats are not comfortable but functional and its gas milage is average at best. The 2006 model comes out, its high performance, good on gas, drives like a dream and you can sit for hours in the seat. Does your 98 car still have a warranty? no... Can you get much for it in return? likely not. Will you be paying full price for that 2006 model. More than likely.

But do you HAVE TO HAVE that 2006 model? Well, you might have to have it if your car is constantly breaking down without a warranty. But if it's still healthy then realistically you can drive it until its a pile of broken down rust on the ground! It still gets you from point A to point B. CAD software is the same way.

Ultimately we're paying the high price for the seats of software because of how much money it makes our companies. If we don't use all the snappy new features then that's likely your own fault and not the software companies fault since I know people that still use AutoCAD 2005 like its AutoCAD r12. Line..Circle..Erase... basically, its changed, but mostly its stayed the same (now the verticle products are a different thing entirely...)

Finally: I agree..in a perfect world even if you have AutoCAD 2.6 you should get a discount for buying the newest version (and a reward for using v2.6 for this many years!). But may it be cars, toothbrushes, office furniture, etc there really isn't another market where you EXPECT to get a discount for being a loyal customer. (Cars perhaps being an exception since they can be resold or scrapped for parts...)

Much like the assembly lines of the past 100 years where production gets cheaper and faster as the technology improved, the CAD/Design industry is going through that scenario now. Manufacturing Companies used to fold because they could not get the product out the door fast enough or cheap enough to beat their competitors. We're buying the newest versions of CAD software to get our own products (drawings/designs) out the door fast enough and cheap enough to beat our own competitors. Assembly lines used to pay thousands (or millions) of dollars to upgrade these lines to beat the competition... we're doing that today with hardware and software.



PS Brian, if long posts are the norm for you, how many keyboards do you go through?

I pay good money for my Keyboards and mice so they'll last a long time! ;)

[RobertAitken]

Good point Brian but the fact remains that if my 1998 car does develop a fault I can stick it in a garage to get it fixed. Yes I have to pay for it but it's back up and running. When it starts getting to costly then you bale out and get a new (newer) car. If I want to buy a 1998 car I can on the second hand market.

It only happens in the software industry they they stop providing support after a given time. Why not sell that support to those willing to pay for it. How much have you forgotten about AutoCAD? I was thinking about this over the weekend and it's a phenomenal amount. From the start menu up to R11 to the Phar Lap dos extender switches and more.

Yes the new software does bring benefits but the looks I get when you start mentioning that whatever company isn't using CAD but has merely replaced the drawing board with a computer screen is unbelievable. So unless you have management that can appreciate what can be done for them then the benefits just aren't being realised.

Where i am now is closing in 2006. My contract is for 2months so no point in bringing anything to their attention. The DO manager received an email from his AutoCAD supplier telling him that 2005 was out. Without even looking at the software he ordered it and got it installed on various PCs. They are using 2005 just like they used 2004, 2002, 2000, r14, r13, r12 as a replacement for the board. Sorry had to hit my head of the brick wall. First week I was here all I kept asking was why aren't they.......... The answer. Because that's the way we do it. Office Politics playing there part.

I can see your argument but I think that Autodesk and other software vendors should make all those versions available. Maybe the older the version the less it costs. Dealers can take the support role from Autodesk. Customers that want the upgrades and use them can get them, those that don't will still be able to function without too much hassle.

It sounds like cake and eat it. It's just making sure that whoever you are, however you use your CAD software you get what's best for you.

Robert

[Brian Myers]

I do agree with you Robert and what you've said, but I suppose there is an argument to be made for this line of thought as well (Autodesk's, as well as other software companies, views):

We buy software because it increases our productivity,profitability and long term employee retention. That being said, regardless of what version of AutoCAD you buy you are still buying it to accomplish that same goal. As a result, if they did sell old versions of AutoCAD then likely they would need to sell it at the same price (or in the ballpark) as the newest version on the Market. I know, this statement likely has people scratching their heads.. "it's old, buggy software... why should I pay the same price as the newer software???" The answer lies within this statement as well as your previous post. See, Autodesk is criticized for putting out software that has X number of problems every year. Each release attempts to fix them but inevitably more problems are discovered. On the other hand, for the most part, each release is superior to the release before. How?

Well they have programmers, Q/A guys, etc on staff putting in long hours every year to put a new product on the market. They need to pay them and continue to bring in a healthy revenue stream to keep them the dominate player in the marketplace. If they charged $7,000 for the newest software, everyone would wait 3 years until it was priced at $4,000 before buying it if they sold older versions of the software at a reduced cost. As a result, Autodesk would make substantially less profit and may even lose its spot as the dominate player in the industry.

As a result of this, Autodesk would have to sell the old software at near the same price as the new software. Now, if you're paying the same price, why not just buy the new, less buggy software? I would.. I think most companies would. If your company isn't using it to its full potential, that's not Autodesk's fault, thats your Company's problem and perhaps they should look within to fix their own productivity problems and issues.

So I understand your argument, I'm just not sure how your company would ultimately benefit from buying old software at what would likely be an increased price (due to Autodesk's ever increasing price structure). Of course, higher software prices is another argument and while I can argue it, I don't enjoy that argument as much...

[jaberwok]

Much like the assembly lines of the past 100 years where production gets cheaper and faster as the technology improved, the CAD/Design industry is going through that scenario now.

Bryan, I agree with most of what you say but that makes an interesting point. Is the software getting any cheaper? Why not?

Anyway, what we all need to remember is that AutoDesk's number one priority is not not to us, its customers, but to its shareholders. This is how it has to be.

[Brian Myers]

Bryan, I agree with most of what you say but that makes an interesting point. Is the software getting any cheaper? Why not?

Anyway, what we all need to remember is that AutoDesk's number one priority is not not to us, its customers, but to its shareholders. This is how it has to be.

That's always the over looked thing, the shareholders... and the real reason they feel they need to keep a healthy profit margin.

But the real reason software isn't getting cheaper (besides the shareholders) is supply and demand. The public demands it so Autodesk supplies it at a premium. I usually say that the maximum length of time you can run a single version of AutoCAD is about 7 years. Now this number will get bigger as the product improves, but right now 7 years is the realistic max. At that rate, its approx. $1,000 a year per employee that you are paying for the software (depending on the product). Figure in computer costs, paper, printers, network, etc... maybe $1500 a year per employee. As a result, you need to figure that extra expense in at raise time or (more likely) when you hire your employees initially. In other words, if you hire an employee on at $38,500 then budget them out to around $40,000 a year (not counting benefits, etc). If the max you can afford is $38,500 then find someone to enter around $37,000 or less. Its simply an expense (like insurance) that needs to be figured in.

But back on subject... no the price doesn't need to be that high, but like all industries the salaries, insurance, etc are all going up with the cost of living. I'd expect it to cost more than it did 10 years ago... but I agree, it seems excessive at times. But so far it doesn't seem to effect the profit margin at Autodesk which is the bottom line for them.

[michael.12445]

The analogy to buying a car breaks down for me when I consider that I can always trade a car in on a new model. If it has a lot of years/miles on it, I may only get a token amount for it, but if I don't like the dealer's trade-in offer, I can always just sell it myself. Not so with AutoCAD - once a release is "retired," you can neither "trade it in" (upgrade) nor sell it to someone else.

If, on the other hand we compare software to software, there is just no other vendor whose products we use that imposes terms as unfavorable as those Autodesk imposes on the use of AutoCAD. That includes companies like Adobe, Novell, and Microsoft. For example, while Microsoft has begun to discontinue support for older versions of Windows, you can still upgrade those versions to Windows XP without paying for an entirely new license.

It's interesting that some of the people who posted in this thread say that Autodesk's subscription program is a perfect fit for them. I'm glad for them - and maybe Autodesk has enough of those happy subscribers that they can afford to throw away customers like me. From our point of view, all these marketing schemes, from "subscriptions" to "retirement" of older releases, etc., amount to attempts on Autodesk's part to turn customers into vassals - i.e., if you use their products, you owe them an ongoing "CAD tax" in perpetuity.

Even that might be acceptable, if the upgrades were really worth it. But it seems to me that keeping this "revenue stream" flowing totally depends on issuing a succession of AutoCAD releases that are only ever incrementally better and always leave something to be desired. Many of the "improvements" turn out to be tailfins that are never used, or are so badly implemented as to be useless, while the bugs, quirky non-ntuitive behavior, and gotchas continue - and even proliferate - from release to release.

Now that Autodesk has announced the "retirement" of the release we're using (2002) on January 16, 2006, I have every intention of recommending to our principals that we NOT upgrade. I will also recommend that we explore alternatives to AutoCAD. I know of one (MicroStation) that is more expensive, but several others (Bricscad, Datacad, VectorWorks, etc.) that are less expensive - and are sold on more favorable terms.

Michael Evans
Togawa & Smith, Inc.

[hand471037]

The analogy to buying a car breaks down for me when I consider that I can always trade a car in on a new model. If it has a lot of years/miles on it, I may only get a token amount for it, but if I don't like the dealer's trade-in offer, I can always just sell it myself. Not so with AutoCAD - once a release is "retired," you can neither "trade it in" (upgrade) nor sell it to someone else.

These issues apply to ALL commercial software. Period. And that's a totally separate issue from the Subscription and Yearly Release IMHO.

The Car Metaphor re:subscription & yearly releases here is actually a lot closer to the Taxi Cab/Police Car industry vs. a Small Business. See, most Cabs & Cop Cars that you see that look like 'old' cars (Ford Crown Victoria's from the mid-nineties for example) are actually New. Or mostly New. They keep making them, and sometimes update them, but for the most part it's the same car that they started making ten years ago, for the Taxi company uses that car, and has a lot of them, and when they add new cars they want it to be the same for maintenance reasons, instead of a New car that would have Different issues but might be better.

Whereas a Small Business can buy a new car pretty easily, and upgrade, and take advantage of newer better things first, for it's a lot easier to change just one or a few cars than it is to change a whole fleet of cars.

The Car company at some point tho is going to decided that the ten-year old car isn't a good deal anymore, it's not good enough, it's getting too expensive to make and support, etc., so they then will 'end of life it' and come out with a new model that they agree to support for X number of years.

In the mean time, they continue turning out new cars each year for the masses, that don't have the huge issues that a large Taxi company does. It's easy for them to buy a new car every few years, heck even every year, for it's not such a deal-breaker that it's not the same for they can keep everyone on the same page much easier.

OK, case in point: Revit and my office. We're an office of Ten. Or so. We use Revit, which is new every six months. It's not hard keeping ten people on the same page, and it's easier to migrate to a new version of Revit when it comes out than to migrate between versions of AutoCAD, so it's really painless for us to keep up to date.

Opposite example: Gensler. I know a guy in the Corporate CAD office, and it's taken them a long time and a lot of effort to simply get everyone using ADT 2004 as AutoCAD, for they had Microstation, various versions of AutoCAD & ADT, lots of customization, all within 22 offices around the world. You can bet that they aren't going to be making huge waves every year. They are going to keep working with 2004, and maybe go to 2006 when it comes out, but again, they are going to, much like the Taxi Company, keep the same software and keep everyone together the same way on the same page instead of changing each year.

Now, the real issue here that I feel it the heart of things is that the cars we're all buying have the hoods locks shut, and only Autodesk can open them up, change them, or fix them. We can weld parts on, but only in ways that Autodesk allows. *Thats* the real issue here, and it's an issue with all commercial software. Any closed-source commercial software is little more than share-cropping, you never own anything, you're only paying for permission to use it for a set amount of time within a certain set of rules agreed upon within the EULA. So, just like in sharecropping, if you can make more money farming on the land then you pay in rent on the land, everything's cool. If not, well...

So it's more like Leasing a car vs. Buying a car, except this is a car that even if you buy you can't sell and a car you can't fix.

So, I see it as two sepirate issues, really. Subscription is great I think, yearly releases are great, but even if it was the way it was before, with huge gaps and big steps, we'd still be sharecropping, we'd still be unable to open the hood of the car. We're giving up some freedom (being able to open the hood) for the security and convince that someone else is going to make the car work (Autodesk, instead of having to write and maintain our own CAD software)...

[Mike.Perry]

If it has a lot of years/miles on it, I may only get a token amount for it, but if I don't like the dealer's trade-in offer, I can always just sell it myself. Not so with AutoCAD - once a release is "retired," you can neither "trade it in" (upgrade) nor sell it to someone else.Hi

That statement is not quite true, below snippet is taken from a recent "totally" independent CAD E-mail Newsletter that I receive in my Inbox -

<snip>
(Autodesk likes to make it seem that more-than-three-release-old versions of AutoCAD don't qualify for upgrade pricing after mid-January. Not true: the company offers 30% discounts on upgrades going back to Release 14.)
</snip>

Have a good one, Mike

[michael.12445]

These issues apply to ALL commercial software. Period. And that's a totally separate issue from the Subscription and Yearly Release IMHO.

Now, the real issue here that I feel it the heart of things is that the cars we're all buying have the hoods locks shut, and only Autodesk can open them up, change them, or fix them. We can weld parts on, but only in ways that Autodesk allows. *Thats* the real issue here, and it's an issue with all commercial software. Any closed-source commercial software is little more than share-cropping, you never own anything, you're only paying for permission to use it for a set amount of time within a certain set of rules agreed upon within the EULA. So, just like in sharecropping, if you can make more money farming on the land then you pay in rent on the land, everything's cool. If not, well...



I totally agree. Open-source CAD would be the best scenario. At this time, however, while there are lots of great open-source applications, there isn't really a good open-source CAD program. There are a few (i.e., Qcad), but their capabilities are very limited compared to the commercial offerings. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised to see this change in a few years. If and when this happens, I'm there.

Michael Evans
Togawa & Smith, Inc.

[JamesVan]

So it's more like Leasing a car vs. Buying a car, except this is a car that even if you buy you can't sell and a car you can't fix.

Funny how so many things in life are analogous to cars. Jeff, I'm starting to see the logic develop here although I think selling the software doesn't have any similarities to the software world. Does anyone ever sell their old software? "Hey, I've got a bunch of Windows 3.1 floppys laying around...going once, going twice..."

Leasing vs. Buying plays out like this: before converting to subscription recently, we analyzed the cost compared to how we were purchasing software. In our NY office we maintain about 200 seats of ADT. We have historically upgraded every other release. So, when we compared the cost of upgrading from 2 versions behind versus annual subscription, we would save thousands of dollars by going to subscription. Being on subscription doesn't mean you MUST upgrade with every version, it turns out to be cheaper to pay every year and sit every other version on the shelf. The support is also something not to be overlooked. Autodesk is doing a much better job recently with direct and reseller support than in years past.

So, what's my point? Ignoring the selling of the car, you can buy a car ($$$$) or lease a car ($), but the car will still have the same warranty. If you buy, you can still take the car to any mechanic you want after the warranty period. The manufacturer doesn't say you have to stop driving it. On the other hand, when you lease you're regular payments are less and you get a new car every 3 years. You just have to continuously make payments...which brings up another selling point for subscription. Managing partners like to have a predictable budget. Let's say you're not on subscription and every other year you'd have to ask for something like $80,000 for Autocad upgrades as opposed to saying we'll have a regular obligation of $30,000...no more, no less...no haggling.

My $0.02.

[hand471037]

James, thanks for posting a much clearer and shorter example of what I was getting at. :)

I need something attached to my ankle that starts beeping as soon as I say or write more than five sentences in one go. :D

[Glenn Pope]

Managing partners like to have a predictable budget. Let's say you're not on subscription and every other year you'd have to ask for something like $80,000 for Autocad upgrades as opposed to saying we'll have a regular obligation of $30,000...no more, no less...no haggling.
One of the problems for us is that the subscription isn't very predictable either. When we first got on subscriptions, everything was good. The price varied very little. Then last year the price jumped over $2000 for all our seats. The problem is we (being a municipal government) have to do our budgets in Jan/Feb. Our subscription renews in Sept. The quotes are only good for 2 weeks. So we had to find someplace to get the money to cover the difference. Now we are hearing more about big cost increases. Now we are worried next time we renew. We just finished our budget, having to put in what we were quoted. What will the price be in Sept. :sad:

[Brian Myers]

James and Jeffery,

Very good points and exactly what I was getting at earlier in this thread! I agree 100%.

Glenn, how long does it take them to approve the budget for the year? You might be able to rework when your subscription starts so that it coincides better to the time when your budget will be approved. AKA, have them change the subscription renewal date from September to perhaps March. Granted, you lose some months that you paid for the subscription initially, but you invest the same amount of cash each year for the upgrade so you won't actually be paying extra... you'll simply be paying earlier in the year. Of course, they still may up the price during that time, but you'll greatly be closing off the time period in which they can raise the price.

Just a thought...

[Glenn Pope]

James and Jeffery,

Very good points and exactly what I was getting at earlier in this thread! I agree 100%.

Glenn, how long does it take them to approve the budget for the year? You might be able to rework when your subscription starts so that it coincides better to the time when your budget will be approved. AKA, have them change the subscription renewal date from September to perhaps March. Granted, you lose some months that you paid for the subscription initially, but you invest the same amount of cash each year for the upgrade so you won't actually be paying extra... you'll simply be paying earlier in the year. Of course, they still may up the price during that time, but you'll greatly be closing off the time period in which they can raise the price.

Just a thought...
It take about 4 months to work everything out. We have asked about changing the renewal date. The reseller said we can't. Thanks for the thought tho.

[RobertAitken]

We have asked about changing the renewal date. The reseller said we can't. Thanks for the thought tho.

Glenn,

Play hardball. Tell them you need to change something and if that means changing CAD systems then so be it.

The things that made AutoCAD a clear winner are being removed. I always argued against Microstation because the cost to buy and renew the licenses were a lot more expensive that AutoCAD. It appears that that difference is being whittle down. I'm sure Bentley would love to hear from some AutoCAD users that are getting a bit disgruntled with the service they are getting from Autodesk.

What was the reasons that AutoCAD got into the position it is in? Are these reason still valid? How detrimental to your business would moving over to another CAD system be? Is it worth it?

Yes we all have a lot of time and effort invested in AutoCAD and the verticals but there does come a time when you have to cut your losses and change to something else.

Just my thoughts

Robert Aitken

[Glenn Pope]

Thanks Robert

I have no say in the matter, but I'll bring it up. I doubt anything will happen tho.

[MMccall.83699]

What would happen if you let your subscription expire and try to reinstall to newer hardware sometime down the road. Will it still authorize correctly?


The one year upgrade cycle is a little short for me. I kinda feel like I'm being charged for updates that are more along the lines of patches and service packs. If they are more substantial that that, should the software be charging that radically every year? Shouldn't major changes to the programming end at some point and from there on become more refined, with fewer bugs and more stability. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new features and improvements, but what I don't need is old features reinvented to justify a new release being 'new'.

[tommy.huckabee]

I agree with that. The one year time cycle is a little short and it seems as though the new features are being rushed and causing bugs and glitches that wouldn't be there if it was released, say every 18 months or even 2 years. I would suggest a new release somewhere in this time frame, it would give Auto Desk time to work everything out and users enough time to get the full grip on the new and updated features.

Tommy

[RobertAitken]

I agree with that. The one year time cycle is a little short and it seems as though the new features are being rushed and causing bugs and glitches that wouldn't be there if it was released, say every 18 months or even 2 years. I would suggest a new release somewhere in this time frame, it would give Auto Desk time to work everything out and users enough time to get the full grip on the new and updated features.

Tommy
Herein lies the problem. Autodesk need to keep the money flowing. When it was subscription was introduced it wasn't sold fully on a how good is this but in part as a "revenue stream" for Autodesk. You are paying for their shareholders.

Last year I looked at the cost of 20 AutoCAD Licenses against 20 Microstation. At the time the subscription cost for AutoCAD was 50% that of Microstation. Saying that I believe Microstation haven't increased the cost but Autodesk has.

Maybe the peasants will revolt and Autodesk will be forced to change tack.

Robert

[tommy.huckabee]

Yeah I think your right, but we shouldn't have to pay for the shareholders. Anyone who works in this field knows how hard it is to upgrade every two years. Companies just don't want to fork out the money to pay for new releases and training has always been an issue. So if your company is like mine by the time you do upgrade it takes forever to learn the new and updated features that you've missed over time. I go through the same thing every year begging and pleading, going into meetings with quotes and pamphlets trying to get upper management to buy something new. I would rather only do this every other year.

Tommy

[RobertAitken]

This again was one of the reasons Autodesk gave when subscription came out. You will know yearly how much you will spend on software upgrades for your CAD investment.

That's fine but from what I've heard Autodesk are increasing the cost of subscription after companies budgets have been finalised without informing their customers.

It appears that they have so many companies by the short and curlies that they feel they have to pay up or lose the competitive edge. Look closely how your business operates the CAD system and see if the new features will benefit you. If not forget the subscription and upgarde when you need to.

It appears that Autodesk are now the tail that wags the dog.

Robert

[tommy.huckabee]

Yeah you're right. We generally upgrade every other year and this year is the one. I didn't see enough of a change in 2k4 to 2k5 to invest the money but I still would like to be on the cutting edge of new CAD software. Being in my seat I have to at least try to upgrade every time something new comes out. I've been a die-hard Auto Desk user since I started so if it is at all possible I would like to use just their products and the latest versions when I can.

Tommy

[MMccall.83699]

Some other thoughts:

Autocad promotes the new features it's providing as increasing productivity. I was wondering how this increase in productivity will ever be realized if the product changes too frequently. By the time companies get a new upgrade, evaluate it, deploy it and train the users there is not enough time to reap the benefits of the increased productivity before the cycle begins again. (provided there are any benefits after users are trained, there productivity does in fact increase and the increase offsets the time and effort to get to that point)

The core Autocad product servers as the platform for many different fields. If one field needs an upgrade to the core in order to move forward it creates a change in all fields that use that core. I use the civil engineering products and I'm not really happy with the fact the the software I use is tied to the needs of so many industries, all pulling it in different directions, and dragging everyone forward. It would be like Microsoft releasing a new version of Windows every time it needed to release a new office product. I much preferred a stand alone civil product.

[tommy.huckabee]

That's a fact. I use Auto CAD for fabrication drawings of cranes so I really don't need any of the Civil or Architectuaral features. There is Auto CAD mechanical and we use it too but there should be some way separate all fields with their own programs.
On the new features, not every discipline is going to need all of the new features and if you are lucky enough to have training provided you will spend valuable time learning about features you're never going to use or buying a product that is basically what you had before. Reaping benefits from a product that is upgraded every year is a daunting task but may be easier than playing catch up every two years. The bottom line when talking to upper management is productivity, but productivity can only go so far. Any one person can only do so much in a given amout of time and can't be moved any quicker. Some things can be made easier but that affects the person and not so much the employer so it doesn't save too much time and time is what the company is looking for.

Tommy

[jaberwok]

Maybe the peasants will revolt and Autodesk will be forced to change tack.
Maybe they will but we've been saying these same things for the past 15 years (or so) and the ONLY relevant changes are the introduction of the subscription model and the yearly release cycle. Good for some, maybe but certainly not good for all.

Can we all persuade our managements and/or clients to stop upgrading? Again, it hasn't happened yet.

[michael.12445]

Can we all persuade our managements and/or clients to stop upgrading? Again, it hasn't happened yet.


When Autodesk decided to "retire" Release 14, saying that if we didn't upgrade by a certain date we would never be able to upgrade, my boss was appalled. As I recall, his response to this news was, "...But this is America!" Nevertheless, we allowed ourselves to be coerced into "upgrading" to 2002. While many may disagree, and argue that someone using 2002 could be far more productive than with R14, our experience has been that whatever productivity gains might have been realized with the new features were offset by the time wasted having to "debug" drawings in an effort to keep 2002 from choking on its own data.

So now that 2002 is facing "retirement" in January 2006, we are looking at alternative products from vendors other than Autodesk.

Michael Evans
Togawa & Smith, Inc.

[Brian Myers]

I want to word my response carefully as to not conflict with the rules of this Forum. I should say I'm not trying to start an argument, but I'm generally confused as to the problem here. Also, I'm not intentionally picking this post out, it simply brings up many points I believe several people feel and it's a good way to talk about the feelings that many Autodesk customers have.


When Autodesk decided to "retire" Release 14, saying that if we didn't upgrade by a certain date we would never be able to upgrade, my boss was appalled. As I recall, his response to this news was, "...But this is America!"


Autodesk never said you would "never be able to upgrade". Well, they did in the sense that they will no longer give you a price break for purchasing an upgraded seat. Also, they will no longer directly support the product. But, I still know of ways to fix it and I know many companies that to this day that still use R14 productively. Supported? No. Productive... well, for the companies that still use it... yes.. in many cases it is. Those are still valid liscenses and the companies are still productive using it.


Nevertheless, we allowed ourselves to be coerced into "upgrading" to 2002. While many may disagree, and argue that someone using 2002 could be far more productive than with R14, our experience has been that whatever productivity gains might have been realized with the new features were offset by the time wasted having to "debug" drawings in an effort to keep 2002 from choking on its own data.

I won't argue productivity as I was never a big 2002 fan. I enjoyed 2000 and thought 2004 was a big step-up. But 2002 just didn't blow me away. I know, not very informative on my part, but I felt I needed to respond to that before leading into your next question which is tied to this answer:


So now that 2002 is facing "retirement" in January 2006, we are looking at alternative products from vendors other than Autodesk.

Its fine to review other products as there ARE other products out there you can use and be productive with. Perhaps products you would be happier with.

You've now used AutoCAD 2002, a product you "upgraded" to, for it appears 4 years now. By "upgrading" it tells me you did this at a reduced price from normal seats of AutoCAD by upgrading your r14 licenses likely at a cost no greater than if you had switched software programs (and companies) entirely. You've also mentioned that any productivity gains you achieved were lost by debugging faulty drawings after the upgrade.

What bothers me is that you've used this "buggy" product for 4 years now but you are complaining about the product.

What I mean is that it appears that you've used a "buggy" version(s) of AutoCAD for approx. 8 years now, 1 version at full price and one at an "upgraded" rate without realizing the benefits you would like from the program.

This tells me a handful of things must be (or could be) happening:

a) Perhaps your company isn't trained well in the productivity benefits that can be achieved in using AutoCAD.

b) Perhaps AutoCAD simply doesn't meet your needs... but you decided to use it for 8 years.

c) Maybe one of the vertical products "Desktops" would be better suited in helping you... but it doesn't sound like your company is willing to upgrade again in order to try them out.

d) Autodesk is being criticized for upgrading too often...
...Autodesk is criticized for charging for 4+ years of innovation...
...criticized for their product not being good enough in 2002...
...criticized for "forcing customers" to upgrade a "retiring" product that likely you wouldn't upgrade if they were not retiring it.

It sounds like Autodesk is being criticized for trying to make money while paying for new product development; making their products better; and retiring products that were not as good as their current line while still letting their customers use the old products if they are still productive with them.

Why are we criticizing Autodesk for this?

I think companies need to start looking from within and realize maybe their real problem isn't with Autodesk, but with their own management. Training employees in productivity; setting regular technology budgets; also realizing using products that apparently don't work for your company for 8 years doesn't make good business sense.

Autodesk is not forcing you to upgrade a product that works for you... if the product works for you well you wouldn't be "forced" to upgrade, you would keep what you have. Since you kept it for 4 years I have to imagine it works for you or else you likely have some worse management/company issues brewing. In time I would expect many more companies will no longer "upgrade" AutoCAD as it's close to tapping out any productivity gains it can achieve on its own (which is why Autodesk's biggest growth is in the vertical product market).

So I don't mind if people complain about Autodesk, the subscription program, etc. Feel free to examine other software alternatives! Maybe they will be better, maybe they won't.

What bothers me is Autodesk gets bashed for trying to make money, keeping up on technology, attempting to give customers what they need while beating their competition...

... but then their customers are not willing to keep up with the technology, and are not willing to invest the money in this technology, in order to beat their competition.

I see this as company, industry, and management issues underneath and not an Autodesk issue at heart. Many companies are guilty of ignoring technology advances and lack continuing employee education.... areas Autodesk itself I hear excels at.

[Steve_Bennett]

So I don't mind if people complain about Autodesk, the subscription program, etc. Feel free to examine other software alternatives! Maybe they will be better, maybe they won't.

What bothers me is Autodesk gets bashed for trying to make money, keeping up on technology, attempting to give customers what they need while beating their competition...

... but then their customers are not willing to keep up with the technology, and are not willing to invest the money in this technology, in order to beat their competition.

I see this as company, industry, and management issues underneath and not an Autodesk issue at heart. Many companies are guilty of ignoring technology advances and lack continuing employee education.... areas Autodesk itself I hear excels at. :shock: My goodness, that was beautiful. ~sniffle~ Please take this as a complement, but, you could have been a psycologist or a salesperson - I'm not sure which, but my oh my, that was just simply wonderful. ;) All the issues you just skewered, plauged the last place I was with. Perhaps some just don't see this as plainly as you did. :confused:

[RobertAitken]

The purpose of this thread was not to start bashing Autodesk. But to find out if, as Microsoft and others have found out, companies can no longer maintain the constant cycle of upgrades, installing etc etc.

Yes by all means release new features but dont force companies to purchase subscription when they could upgrade every couple of years.

I don't agree with the comments about being forced to upgrade. Unless you've just entered the IT software market you should know that products get retired. NT 4 just went last year.

So back to the purpose of the thread.


So do you think that you'll, if not on subscription, upgrade or, if on subscription, deploy the latest release.
Robert

[jaberwok]

Autodesk never said you would "never be able to upgrade". Well, they did in the sense that they will no longer give you a price break for purchasing an upgraded seat. Also, they will no longer directly support the product. But, I still know of ways to fix it and I know many companies that to this day that still use R14 productively. Supported? No. Productive... well, for the companies that still use it... yes.. in many cases it is. Those are still valid licenses and the companies are still productive using it.
A good point; one which is seldom raised and is one of the areas where the motor car/software analogy breaks down completely - software does not wear out. If it works for you today it will still be able to do the same job tomorrow.
I'm sure some upgrade just to know that they always have the latest "toy", but many upgrade to ensure compatibility with customers and suppliers.
Who actually makes use of "support" from ADesk? I tried a couple of times in 1985 - it was useless - and have never bothered since. More to the point - who uses support on a four year old version of the software? If you've been using a version for four years, you should have solved any problems already. If you really need support, you'll get better results here and/or on the alt.cad and comp.cad usenet groups.



I think companies need to start looking from within and realize maybe their real problem isn't with Autodesk, but with their own management. Training employees in productivity; setting regular technology budgets; also realizing using products that apparently don't work for your company for 8 years doesn't make good business sense.
So true.



So I don't mind if people complain about Autodesk, the subscription program, etc. Feel free to examine other software alternatives! Maybe they will be better, maybe they won't.
I guess that, in this over-complicated world, one of the few pleasures available to all is to complain.

[Lashers]

Phew! This is a great post! . .no coffee break for me toady! . . . it has brought to my mind a possible solution (there would be no surprise if it was ignored by Autodesk though).

I paid £90 per month to use Revit (Pre-Autodesk) I felt this was useful as I could pay for it out of what were private jobs quite happily, I was then offered to go on annual subscription (Post-Autodesk), which represented a great saving to me and essentially I received a £3600 piece of software in return!!! Happy all round!

Since then it has just been an annual call to pay the subscription! A bit of a let down, but I am still in credit regards the purchase cost of the software. I think Autodesk are falling down because they don't have a structure in place (although there is this forum) to connect with their customers! Make us feel that we are "on board" - show us that if we stick with the company WE can develop and grow together - by this I am listing a few things below that would certainly make me feel valued as a customer:-

1. Perhaps the subscription could be discounted after Three years of paying, say up to 1/3 off . .I know some "special" users will get this but if should be available to all.

2. All subscription payers should be able to obtain additional licenses at a reduced rate! This will add value to the concept of paying the subscription, because it allows my business to grow with reduced capital investment - I would even be prepared to commit to a min. 2 years subscription on the new license to qualify for that!

3. Always offer an upgrade path! I can accept stopping support after a period, but they should publish a discount for all old versions of their software. They would do it if an out of date Microstation user was going to switch, I would guess!!

Also, my experience with Revit has been very good, I upgrade whenever it is available . .taking on the incremental improvements and develop my skill in this way. No wonder there is a big issue with missing one or two version upgrades - the leap of knowledge and hardware requirements would be far more substantial!

Anyways, thats my ramblings for now
lashers

[michael.12445]

Just to clear up a couple of points...

Our "upgrade" from R14 to R2002 was by no means an easy decision, as we could have quite happily kept using R14, except for the problem of interoperability. We are an architectural firm that is too small to have our own in-house structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and civil engineers, so we have to share files with a large number of consultants (and the cast of characters changes between projects). We started getting too many R2000-format files that we couldn't open, to the point where having to ask their authors to "save as" R14 was costing us time.

And just to clarify, yes, I was using the term "upgrade" specifically to mean buying a newer release at the upgrade price as opposed to full price.

So for us, the feature set of R2002 was of secondary importance to being able to generate .dwg files that would be compatible with other offices.

For the same reason, we avoid the vertical products like Architectural Desktop, because they introduce ARX objects not recognized by vanilla AutoCAD without an "object enabler". Unfortunately, many of our consultants are so CAD-illiterate that this procedure would be way beyond them (one has R2002, for example, but still uses R14 for plotting becasue they can't figure out how to plot in R2002).

This also helps to explain why we stick with a product we don't particularly like - right now most people we deal with are on one or another R2000-based release, so we need to maintain compatibility with them. (Only a few are using R2004 or R2005).

As for the "Autodesk bashing" - as I understand it, the argument is that Autodesk is being unfairly criticized for investing in the creation of technological innovation, and then charging customers for the fruits of this investment.

I have two issues with this argument: one of degree, because I question how much it really costs to develop each new release; and two, the fact that Autodesk does not rely solely on the merits of its new products to sell them, but periodically yanks both support and upgrade privileges from users of older releases to persuade them to upgrade.

As for the first issue, I can point to lots of innovative software that was developed with very little capital investment, i.e., Linux, etc., and as an end user, I have to admit that's coloring my judgement here. But let's grant that Autodesk is a for-profit company that uses the proprietary intellectual property model rather than the open-source model for software development. This brings up the second issue. If we compare apples to apples and put Autodesk alongside other for-profit companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Corel, Intuit, Macromedia, you name it - IMHO none of them treat their customers as badly as Autodesk. Maybe Microsoft comes closest, trying to strongarm their cutomers into "software assurance" subscriptions, but the fact is that even though they have dropped technical support for older versions of Windows, if you have one of them you still qualify for upgrade pricing on Windows XP.

And so, with more companies offering products that at least claim DWG compatibility - often more so than Autodesk's current products, which will not "save as" to a format prior to R2000 - and at far lower prices and better terms than Autodesk, naturally we are looking at alternatives.

Michael Evans
Togawa & Smith, Inc.

[tommy.huckabee]

I think Lashers has a good idea here. It is important to reward faithful customers with a small price break here and there and from what I see anyway it doesn't look like too many people are happy with the subscriptions. I would go for the subscription if when someone new was hired on I could get another seat at a discount. that would make it easier to get temps in when they are needed and not have to pay full price for a seat that is only sometimes used. and also any user past or present who has a copy of an Auto Desk product should be able to obtain an upgrade at an upgrade price, or even charge a little more than regular upgrade price from some of the older versions.

Tommy

[RobertB]

... Maybe Microsoft comes closest, trying to strongarm their cutomers into "software assurance" subscriptions, but the fact is that even though they have dropped technical support for older versions of Windows, if you have one of them you still qualify for upgrade pricing on Windows XP.

Michael, I beg to differ on this point. You cannot purchase an upgrade to Office 2003 unless you have a recent version of Office. Office 95 doesn't match the upgrade requirements. And if you have Windows 95 you certainly cannot upgrade to Windows XP.

[michael.12445]

Michael, I beg to differ on this point. You cannot purchase an upgrade to Office 2003 unless you have a recent version of Office. Office 95 doesn't match the upgrade requirements. And if you have Windows 95 you certainly cannot upgrade to Windows XP.

Robert, thanks for the correction. You're right, the upgrade path for Windows XP doesn't go back to 1995, only to 1998. So if Autodesk's policy was equivalent to Microsoft's, you would still be able to upgrade from R14, but not from R13.

Michael Evans

[Mike.Perry]

So if Autodesk's policy was equivalent to Microsoft's, you would still be able to upgrade from R14, but not from R13.

Michael EvansHi

Might not be upgrade price, but 30% discount is still a reasonable saving -

New Autodesk Releases (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=101627#post101627)

Good luck in your new CAD software choice....

Have a good one, Mike

[Mike.Perry]

Now that Autodesk has announced the "retirement" of the release we're using (2002) on January 16, 2006,Hi Michael

You might be interested in the following...

Retirement Strategy Pays Off for Autodesk With Record Second Quarter Revenues (http://aecnews.com/articles/1140.aspx)


Autodesk has decided to change the timing of annual product retirements to synchronize more closely with annual product releases in March. The change is being implemented with the retirement of AutoCAD 2002-based products. The previously announced retirement date has been extended from January 15 to March 15, 2006. Autodesk believes this move will improving customer satisfaction as well as increase the total number of customers who take advantage of the opportunity to move to new releases.
+

AUTODESK REPORTS RECORD REVENUES OF $373 MILLION (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=5813271&linkID=2475212)


In response to feedback from customers, resellers and the sales force, the company also announced a change to the timing of annual product retirements to synchronize more closely with annual product releases in March. The change is being implemented with the retirement of AutoCAD 2002 based products. The previously announced retirement date has been extended from January 15 to March 15, 2006. In addition to improving customer satisfaction, the company believes this change will increase the total number of customers who take advantage of the opportunity to move to new releases.
General note to everyone - I have posted the above information as a heads-up, NOT! to start a soapbox debate on Autodesk policy...

Have a good one, Mike

[michael.12445]

Hi Michael

General note to everyone - I have posted the above information as a heads-up, NOT! to start a soapbox debate on Autodesk policy...




No, I'll leave that to Evan Yares and others...as I mentioned in another thread, the decision about which CAD software to use has been effectively taken out of my hands, as we are merging with another company that is on subscription (and has its own IT department). The merger is to take place this fall, at which time we will be moving to 2006. Therefore our 2002's will be upgraded well before the now-extended retirement date.

Michael Evans