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

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.