Downgrade Fee

[G_Sarver]

I was very troubled today when my reseller informed me that Autodesk is requiring a $250.00 downgrade fee for users who elect to return to a vanilla AutoCAD from a vertical. I was attempting to update my current version to AutoCAD 2006, plus buy additional seats, when I was informed of this. Upon my assuming the role of managing the software for my department I determined that the add-on features of ADT were not being utilized at all. My company was oversold on its purchase of ADT and it is not needed. Therefore, we are losing computer resources and spending more money for something we don’t use. I find it offensive that, as the customer, I am not being allowed to determine what my company can and can not buy. Has anyone else went from a vertical to vanilla? I know that prior to today there probably wasn't a fee, but does it happen?

[sid.fontenot550]

I don't see how they can do that. I will check with my vendor and see what they have to say.

[fletch97]

I had the same thing happen while taking our Revit licenses down to just straight AutoCAD. I believe it was a $250 fee for each license as well. I really can't offer you much other than Autodesk is just another money hungry company just like Microsoft. Money drives them especially because they know they have us! I've had so many issues with Autodesk that I don't even worry about it anymore.....it's just not worth the stress. Besides, it's not me that is hurting here...the companies that we work for are coughing up the money.

The phrase, "The customer is always right", died somewhere in the 60's / 70's. They don't care about us, they just want our money!

[michael.12445]

The phrase, "The customer is always right", died somewhere in the 60's / 70's. They don't care about us, they just want our money!


See also the "Autodesk Price Policies" thread.

Michael Evans

[G_Sarver]

See also the "Autodesk Price Policies" thread.

Michael Evans

I read that one before posting. I figured it might have something to do with what I intended on posting.

As to Fletch's comment, it is hurting the employee's if it is a smaller company, like mine, or those that have profit sharing for employee's. The more money the company makes and then doesn't spend benefits those type companies.

[sid.fontenot550]

I read that one before posting. I figured it might have something to do with what I intended on posting.

As to Fletch's comment, it is hurting the employee's if it is a smaller company, like mine, or those that have profit sharing for employee's. The more money the company makes and then doesn't spend benefits those type companies.

The following is from my vendor. It's twue, it's twue.

Yes, unfortunately, it's true. Autodesk is now charging a fee for
downgrading disciplines of product.
This is what I've pulled from Autodesk.

Approval must be granted in advance of the transaction being submitted
to ABC from Autodesk.

The US$250/seat platform exchange fee will apply to all transactions
regardless of the version of the coming-from product.
The customer is charged the then current non-promotional upgrade price
as if they were coming from the underlying AutoCAD(r) release, plus
freight.
Customers lose all rights and privileges associated with the downgraded
product and its associated subscription (if any).

Hope this helps some. I'll see what our cost is on this...as I haven't
gotten that amount yet, and see If can ease some of the pricing on that
for your friend, if they are wanting to do this.

[G_Sarver]

Sid,

I have gotten numbers from my reseller and it isn't pretty. I realize that this means lost revenue for Autodesk, but in the end doesn't it make them out to be a bully of sorts for extorting money out of their customers for something that they don't need. Kind of sounds like protection money that the mob required from merchants for protection from the mob. I don't mean to seem overly critical, but it just astounds me.

[sid.fontenot550]

Sid,

I have gotten numbers from my reseller and it isn't pretty. I realize that this means lost revenue for Autodesk, but in the end doesn't it make them out to be a bully of sorts for extorting money out of their customers for something that they don't need. Kind of sounds like protection money that the mob required from merchants for protection from the mob. I don't mean to seem overly critical, but it just astounds me.

I agree with totally. They are becoming the Micro$oft of the design world.
Just bite the bullet and downgrade/upgrade and get on the subscription program. You will make up your cost in 2-3 years.

[Maverick91]

I was very troubled today when my reseller informed me that Autodesk is requiring a $250.00 downgrade fee for users who elect to return to a vanilla AutoCAD from a vertical. I was attempting to update my current version to AutoCAD 2006, plus buy additional seats, when I was informed of this. Upon my assuming the role of managing the software for my department I determined that the add-on features of ADT were not being utilized at all. My company was oversold on its purchase of ADT and it is not needed. Therefore, we are losing computer resources and spending more money for something we don’t use. I find it offensive that, as the customer, I am not being allowed to determine what my company can and can not buy. Has anyone else went from a vertical to vanilla? I know that prior to today there probably wasn't a fee, but does it happen?
It frustrates me to see Autodesk's "show-me-the-money" side....

[Steve_Bennett]

From what I've been told, there are two angles to this.

You can look at this as a restocking fee since there are costs involved in reshipping different content, reissuing serial numbers, etc.

If you are downgrading because you don't want to get training or put forth the effort to implement the software, then yes, you're probably gonna get screwed. It's like going back to the car dealer after buying a new car and saying I don't like all the features, I want a car with less features. If you bought the car, good luck trying to get a different one without selling it back to them (even then you won't get all your money back due to depreciation).

Or you can look at this as a way to discourage downgrading to make sure that you really get what you were promised out of your purchase.

If you are downgrading because the product turned out not to be a good fit for your company & what they do, your reseller should have been more upfront with you to begin with about what it would take to implement the product. You should be able to work something out with Autodesk & your reseller.


If I were you, I would just use the option to setup a profile for the vertical to run it as vanilla AutoCAD & then when a year goes by, do a crossgrade from your vertical to vanilla AutoCAD. It will probably be a lot cheaper.

[robert.1.hall72202]

Plain Jane vanilla AutoCad doesn't contain Iges file utilities. I am not really using MDT to its full extent other than wanting an iges file translator. Even though you do not fully use the full blown software, it still gives you a few perks over plain AutoCad 2006.

I wouldn't buy plain AutoCad unless it is for educational purposes. Out in Industry, somewhere down the line, something may be needed someday that plain Cad cannot handle.

[G_Sarver]

Plain Jane vanilla AutoCad doesn't contain Iges file utilities. I am not really using MDT to its full extent other than wanting an iges file translator. Even though you do not fully use the full blown software, it still gives you a few perks over plain AutoCad 2006.

I wouldn't buy plain AutoCad unless it is for educational purposes. Out in Industry, somewhere down the line, something may be needed someday that plain Cad cannot handle.

That may be true concerning the additional features available. However, we haven't needed it thus far. Nor do I think that we will have he occasion to. Just to let everyone know what we finally decided is to do was maintain our current verticals and buy additional vanillas. That way we are prepared for any future 'gotchas'. Besides, what is another $800.00 other than a portion of my profit sharing.

[G_Sarver]

If I were you, I would just use the option to setup a profile for the vertical to run it as vanilla AutoCAD & then when a year goes by, do a crossgrade from your vertical to vanilla AutoCAD. It will probably be a lot cheaper.

That is what I have actually done to speed up load time, both at start-up and during each drawing open, and keep from eating up so many resources. I unloaded the arx's and created a vanilla profile. Then set a launch which loads each of the profiles when needed.

[ignacio.arrue]

A car ??? Are you comparing a plastic box with a CD and without any kind of books with a car ?????
Be serious please

[Brian Myers]

A car ??? Are you comparing a plastic box with a CD and without any kind of books with a car ?????
Be serious please

Actually, the return on your investment is better than what you get from a car. This isn't about a plastic box and CD with a book that costs $30 to produce and ship. This is a case where the programming itself and the production benefits you get from it are worth much more than the materials and costs involved in getting it to you. Like a car its value drops the longer you have it and you've likely spent thousands of dollars on both. Also like a car, you can keep it for as long as it works for you.

Now charging $250 to downgrade may not seem fair, but by downgrading you are actually taking money out of Autodesk's pocket. Your product will work as base AutoCAD anyway, so if you are downgrading then you are likely doing it to save money on the subscription program and/or future upgrades. The $250 is much cheaper than the price difference/cost that Autodesk will lose in it's bottom line years down the road and ultimately it will save you and your organization money.

[G_Sarver]

Now charging $250 to downgrade may not seem fair, but by downgrading you are actually taking money out of Autodesk's pocket. Your product will work as base AutoCAD anyway, so if you are downgrading then you are likely doing it to save money on the subscription program and/or future upgrades. The $250 is much cheaper than the price difference/cost that Autodesk will lose in it's bottom line years down the road and ultimately it will save you and your organization money.

Yes, and this is what I have stated as much previously. I don't feel that we should be penalized for something that isn't needed. Truth be told it isn't as much the additional monies that it takes to maintain our current software level, but much more the tax on our resources for our PC's. The vertical sucks up a tremendous amount of computing power and memory with no return in functionality. Now, I say that not as a user who would implement the program to it's full capacity, but as an organization that has no use for a vertical. Through naivete the program was purchased with the assumption that we deal with architectural features of buildings. However, we do not. We are a manufacturing firm that designs and engineers curtain wall/store fronts for building. We were simply oversold with this product. Alas, we have decided to fore-go the upgrade fee and simply maintain the current level because Autodesk won't let us downgrade. Extortion plain and simple.

[Brian Myers]

We were simply oversold with this product. Alas, we have decided to fore-go the upgrade fee and simply maintain the current level because Autodesk won't let us downgrade. Extortion plain and simple.

I actually don't disagree with you in this situation. Part of my own argument is that Autodesk's products are either undervalued or that people don't understand what they are actually purchasing. In both cases the answer is you are not actually purchasing software (you are, but that's not what you are actually getting) you are purchasing increased productivity and a competitive market advantage.

Obviously this doesn't apply to you since you do realize the value of the product and by downgrading your license you are strictly trying to fill your needs.

On the other hand, I can see Autodesk's point... ok, take a deep breath, I'm going to drown you with company logic which may or may not make sense.... Autodesk not only sells software but they leverage future profits to aid with growth, manufacturing, advertising, and other future expenses. In doing this they create a budget with projected revenue that they and their stockholders expect to meet. After a downward (or actually a leveling off) of software sales Autodesk created the subscription program. The idea was that they would lose revenue from the selling of new seats of software but they would gain a steady revenue stream from existing customers and be able to continue to budget and maintain a market advantage even during bad economic conditions. As a result of this business strategy they began making serious money (eclipsing the 1 billion dollar mark).

What this leads to is that if multiple customers downgraded then Autodesk wouldn't make their profit margin that they and their investors were expecting for the coming year. Also, they likely would prefer to discourage their users from migrating to base AutoCAD as they make a better profit from the vertical products which they view as the future of the design industry.

For the end user this business strategy is not a good one unless you see yourself using and upgrading Autodesk products over the course of the next decade (in which case it's actually better for you).

Ok, you can exhale now....

Obviously this strategy has it's drawbacks as well (which you are running into). In your case I agree that Autodesk should bite the bullet and budget in a % for expected downgrades in order to lock-in customer Loyalty. I mean this as loyalty with a capital L. Capital L means you WANT to return to the product, not that you are forced to keep it in order to stay within operating budget.

This leaves you with a tough look in wards to decide your future. Who is to blame?

Is it Autodesk with their marketing strategy?
Is it your reseller for over selling you a product?
Is it your firm for not investigating enough what the product will offer and how you can utilize it?
Did your firm not explain well enough to your reseller what your needs were?

Likely it's a combination of all the above.

I'd be tempted to switch my Reseller (they don't have to be in your area).. there is no reason for them to profit on a yearly basis for an oversell that's costing your firm money.

I also agree from a certain perspective it's extortion on Autodesk's part . Extortion can be defined as "an exorbitant charge" and charging you $250 a seat for a product you essentially already own could be defined as such. BUT Autodesk would counter that you agreed to pay "X" amount of money each year by joining the subscription program and by backing out of the contract (to a potentially less expensive contract) they are charging you a penalty to make the money they would have otherwise been owed.

Another reason for such an agreement on Autodesk's part is to prevent "a cheap upgrade". In other words, many resellers will offer discounted rates on the initial software to those that join the subscription program. Imagine this office:

5 seats of AutoCAD and 5 employees.
You hire an employee on a 1 year contract to get a big job done, but he needs a vertical product to be more productive. You purchase the subscription and the vertical product you get at the discounted rate. Then you suddenly "change" to the base AutoCAD subscription program and drop the subscription on one of your seats of base AutoCAD. As a result you received a large discount on your ADT package and once that contract employee leaves you are no longer stuck with the ADT subscription cost that Autodesk (and reseller) believed they would get a portion of.

In short: Yes I believe you got the bad end of the deal... on the other hand I understand the business logic for why they do it. I don't blame Autodesk for you buying something you don't need, but I am critical of their handling of this situation. I am concerned about the relationship between you and your reseller because if you were upfront with your needs then they should have helped you more with this situation from the start. In other words, they are paid to know and understand Autodesk products and business practices and it's part of their job to not only represent Autodesk well, but more importantly, to represent you the client.... and in this case it feels as if they failed.