Propagation of the Species

[mlgatzke]

I just had a question and wanted to see how other Revit users felt on the matter.

I teach architectural drafting at a local community college. I just found out that our educational licensing (ACES) for Revit only allows us to have 5.1, not even 5.1L. I’ve just been told that we probably won’t even see 6.0 until Summer. Now, as a matter of full disclosure, I am still working to get 6.0 for my classroom and I already have 6.0 for my personal Revit license.

Does this licensing scheme make sense? Should the educational institution training centers be relegated to software that is 1 or 2 versions behind the current version? I would think that Autodesk would prefer students and others receiving training to be knowledgeable on their latest releases. Thereby seeing, talking about and promoting their software’s latest capabilities.

Am I the only one that feels Autodesk is cutting their own financial throat? Doesn’t this seem counterproductive to the future of the software?

[gregcashen]

It's not just you, Mike. The whole attitude toward educational licensing seems a bit absurd to me. This in particular is stoopid.

[Les Therrien]

I would guess it's done that way to give the Industry a slight advantage over the newcomers.

Also, around here I know that a lot of software is pirated at the university and college level.

[Archman]

Software piracy is indeed a problem at most universities, but the licensing scheme mlgatzke mentions seems to penalize those students that do not pirate software. The pirates are going to have the advantage because they have had the opprotunity to use the latest releases while the honest students have not.

[Joef]

The question is: should you have to pay thousands of dollars to buy a license to learn a software program? Shouldn't you perhaps pay for a book or a cd only; but if you aren't using the software commercially why should you have to pay full price? Particularly if you end up never actually using the software and end up with a license that is very difficult to transfer (sell). If you go to the library and take out books on electronic and teach yourself, is this considered piracy? If you try to teach yourself a software program sometimes the only way is to obtain a pirated version. At least you can get a PLE (personal learning edition) of MAYA to help learn the program. They at least understand the problem and have done something creative about it.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

I think Autodesk is about half way there with Revit. The fact that I can get a client/consultant to download a fully functioning version of the software, with no license required,and give them the ability to fully explore a building model or print any sheet view I have set up is pretty accomodating in my opinion. It makes for a cheap print server in the office or an easy method of exchanging 'drawings'. I can give anyone a brief lesson in navigating their way around the program so they can see what 'they'are paying for.
I also like the approach used by the people who sell SketchUp. You can download a full version of the software and you have eight hours of 'playtime' with it. Create, print, save whatever you want within that eight hours and then decide. Granted you can't learn to use Revit in eight hours but I'm of the same mind as Joef. There is no way to fully assess or lear a complex piece of software without digging in to it. You can't trust product reviews, they tend to be less than thorough or somewhat prejudiced by the reviewers knowledge/experience with other products, and you certainly can't trust the manufacturer's promotional material.
There must be a way to provide fully functional software for educational purposes, at a greatly reduced cost, so people can get a real sense of what the product can do. Perhaps a time limited trial version for a few hundred dollars or monthly license fee rather than the annual subscription. I'd happily pay 1/12 of my annual subscription rate for a month to try something out (good for crunch time on projects too :idea: )
If I'm not mistaken isn't this the way Revit was initially licensed?

[mlgatzke]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this practice is absurd. At first, I considered the piracy issue. However, it has been my experience that any piece of pirated software I've seen has come from industry. Yes, students are the largest users of pirate software (probably due to a lack of funds), but the educational licenses are not the originators of the piracy. (Besides, news to Autodesk: There are many sources on the Internet that bypass ALL of their licensing measures.)

The BIG problem for Autodesk is those users profiting from the software, but haven't paid for it.

As far as giving industry an advantage over academia. . . they aren't competitors. Besides, this argument is simply ludicris. Education needs the latest versions to train future employees. Not supplying education with the latest versions is only retarding the incoming workforce.

Sorry, I didn't mean to disturb the discussion - only refocus it. Please continue.

[gregcashen]

You're right, Mike. Aside from the liability implications in not pursuing educational violators of EULAs, I would think that Autodesk would welcome students getting their hands on their software any way they can...how else does the software become ubiquitous in industry than by having a trained army of users graduating on a regular basis?