Revit Subscription Costs - Ouch!

[Scott Hopkins]

Last year I paid $595 for a one year subscription (which seemed high at the time). This year the cost went up to $695. The rate hike is very demoralizing. I hope this is not the beginning of a trend. Autodesk has a long history of squeezing their users for everything they can get. If you work in a big office where someone else is paying the bills I am sure that you will chime in saying "Quit complaining! Revit is so worth it". However, if you are a one man shop you feel the pain. What are others paying for their subscriptions?

[Wes Macaulay]

It's high but other companies actually charge more. Bentley coming to mind immediately. Mind you, the other apps aren't used by architects as much -- perhaps it should be tied to the average income of an architect :razz:

[Nic M.]

I sure feel the pain, just paid mine

Always paid € 700 subscription (868.56 $) for three years now.
One man shop.

[Paul Monsef]

I seem to remember paying $695 back when we purchased 5.0 which was quite a jump from the $495 ADT subscription. Then a short while later, the Revit subscription dropped to $595 and the ADT went up $100.... Now Revit is back to $695

Try paying $795 for Revit Series! :o)

[blads]

you guys have it realtively cheap...

$US 695 = $A 917

last year Revits subs were about $A1200 + GST = $A1320(~$US 1000)
something to look forward too in December

[BillyGrey]

I hear you loud and clear Scott. Regardless of what others manage, we micro-business' feel every pinch...Same as you, $695 per year + initial. we'll have 11 or 12 grand into their hands by year 8.

Dang blads, is the cost of shipping the cd that expensive???

Peace

[blads]

I hear you loud and clear Scott. Regardless of what others manage, we micro-business' feel every pinch...Same as you, $695 per year + initial. we'll have 11 or 12 grand into their hands by year 8.

Dang blads, is the cost of shipping the cd that expensive???

Peace
makes you wonder don't it???

besides the CD is free its just all the packaging that goes with it...

[Alex Page]

In NZ its very high...more than Aussie which is also high...whats stopping us from buying USA product and subscription? Why on Earth would there be a difference in price?

[Joef]

I think Autodesk should reward its customers by reducing the subscription cost by a certain amount each year based on how many subscription support calls you make. Kind of safe driver type incentive. They should also be called to task for not providing the training materials they said were part of the subscription. Other Autodesk subscribers receive these e-learning features. Revit subscribers do not.

[GuyR]

As I understand it, in USA you have client->reseller->Autodesk(USA).
In NZ you have client->reseller->AutodeskNZ(AUS)-> Autodesk(APAC)->Autodesk(USA)

More links to the chain, thats my guess.

From memory with ArchiCAD the subscription was very similar everywhere in the world. But their reseller network works quite differently. More like Solidworks etc.

Guy

[aaronrumple]

I think Autodesk should reward its customers by reducing the subscription cost by a certain amount each year based on how many subscription support calls you make. Kind of safe driver type incentive. They should also be called to task for not providing the training materials they said were part of the subscription. Other Autodesk subscribers receive these e-learning features. Revit subscribers do not.
Not if they can't solve the issue. I don't recall an issue I've submitted recently that wasn't declared a defect and "we'll get that fixed in the next release..." They should be paying me for finding the problems....

[kpaxton]

... by reducing the subscription cost by a certain amount each year based on how many subscription support calls you make. Kind of safe driver type incentive...
Hee-hee-hee. Although this is a good suggestion, that would only work if things were in our control. I'd just like to say that they need to get these bugs worked out of the program first, before this happens. I wouldn't want to pay for something if it's not my fault to begin with. Just a thought.

Another way of looking at your subscription, especially when you're a small firm (a sole proprietor), is to 'job cost' your software. This is more of a way of thinking rather than an accounting practice. This is to say..."This one project's fees will go to help pay for the cost of my subscription this year". Once the project is paid for, it's done, and with the relatively small cost of the subscription, a small project would suffice. Now, if only something could be done about the high initial cost....

-Kyle

[trombe]

When my friend went from VectorWorks Architect 10 to VWA 11, he paid $NZ 1200 odd dollars including + GST ( Goods and Services Tax, 12.5% for you non kiwis or Australians who have the same regime more or less and the UK "black tax" of VAT).
They get the point releases included in the last upgrade price, but they pay for major / series releases.

Two other friends have ArchiCAD. One has the "Select" series subscription ( nominated support, upgrades etc), while the other is not on any particular deal and decides when to pay the upgrade path to the "next big thing" , or whenever the local ArchiCAD vendor can show its worth it to him.
The Select subs guy pays in the region of $NZ 1200 - $1300 + GST which is around $ NZ 1500 inclusive. He gets software bugs / crashes / queries support, some tuition help and all of the point releases as well as the major upgrade releases.

While we pay slightly different rates for our software subscriptions, the VW guy has the slightly cheaper deal and the ArchiCAD guy is around the same cost region as me with Revit.
We all think that it is a bummer to be on a treadmill paying every year.
We also think that it is a necessary cost of being in business - that it is critical to have excellent tools to do our work with, and that there is a (relative) cost for that.
As long as the costs do not get out of hand it is worthwhile.

My annual subscription costs give me access to fantastic tools and allow me to do things I could not do before Revit came along..that alone is probably worth the sub !!
I agree that the sub cost should be factored into your annual accounts / forecasting / tax provisions / each job maybe.

my 10c
trombe

[knurrebusk]

I´ll pay for things to be consistent!

If Revit can work with Autocad Civil/pipe/electrical/site etc!!!"
Things will work for some time.

What **** me off is when I´m forced to ride a dead horse, and
plain Autocad is dead like a stone.
China/etc will ride the horse, but we all now it´s dead.

So why is there nothing! from the factory concerning whats ahead.

[knurrebusk]

Need to correct myself.

Several projects are slowing down, because things change when Revit is not the factor.
Suddenly everything is difficult, and takes time.

So why let all this fuzz happen?
The backbone is not ready, and the people that shod be ready is stupid !! etc that is sticked in Autocad 12 horror world!!

[iru69]

I´ll pay for things to be consistent!

If Revit can work with Autocad Civil/pipe/electrical/site etc!!!"
Things will work for some time.

What **** me off is when I´m forced to ride a dead horse, and
plain Autocad is dead like a stone.
China/etc will ride the horse, but we all now it´s dead.

So why is there nothing! from the factory concerning whats ahead.


Need to correct myself.

Several projects are slowing down, because things change when Revit is not the factor.
Suddenly everything is difficult, and takes time.

So why let all this fuzz happen?
The backbone is not ready, and the people that shod be ready is stupid !! etc that is sticked in Autocad 12 horror world!!

I'm not out to hurt your feelings or make fun of you - I don't know what your background is - but I think many of the forum members would appreciate it if you spent a little more time thinking out what you want to say before posting and make sure it relates to the topic of the thread and make sure you have a point. Many of your posts are completely incomprehensible.

We understand that you're not happy with the Revit site tools. We got it already. It's unfair of you to use every other thread you post in as an opportunity to bring it up. You bring up a lot of software applications that don't have much to do with Revit in the middle of threads that are about Revit. It's rude.

[Steve_Stafford]

...Many of your posts are completely incomprehensible...It isn't obvious to the general membership that our member knurrebusk is posting from the Netherlands which means that English may not be his first language. I wish I could claim to be able to speak let alone write in another language :(. I barely manage in English... I do remember a few Dutch words from my 15 months in the Netherlands as a 9 year old...that doesn't quite qualify does it?

[iru69]

Yes, the language barrier does cause its share of misunderstandings. Maybe I'm completely out of line in saying anything. Maybe I should have posted a few thoughts in the recent "Growing Problem with Posts????" (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=24528&page=1&pp=10) thread instead. After I posted, I felt embarrassed - I don't want to be perceived as some kind of forum cop, and I resolved not to comment on other member's posts unless they were hurtful or personally offensive.

Reading through the "Revit Building - General" forum last night, knurrebusk had not only posted here, but added another to Vectorworks 11.5 (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=25434&page=1&pp=10), a thread he started (and which I still don't understand what it has to do with "Revit Building Support") and one to Rendering Crashes in 8.1???? (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=26002), which is just another opportunity to go off topic about alternative rendering software, another favorite of his. This has been going on for months, and generally I just ignore them, but I guess my annoyance got the better of me.

However, some of these threads are serious problems and issues users are having, and it gets to a point where it's unfair not only to those trying to carry on a discussion, but to those just trying to follow along. And then I imagine someone from the Factory or Autodesk looking over these threads and it leaves the impression that it's just a bunch of nonsense.

Actually, "incomprehensible" is the wrong word (shows how articulate I am). Incoherent, or simply "off the wall" would have been more appropriate. There are a lot of forum members who have a loose grasp of English, and most everyone (including myself) takes care in making sure they feel welcome to contribute as well as seek answers to their questions. But it's not right to take advantage of that and use the support forums to post every random thought that comes into your head (whether that thought has to be translated into english or not).

Obviously I've already said too much about this and have taken away from the original thread which is rude in itself.

edit: p.s. - I only carried on here because I felt a bit defensive about the notion that I might be insensitive to those who aren't fluent in english - my response certainly wasn't directed in general at forum members who use english as a second language.

[Steve_Stafford]

...edit: p.s. - I only carried on here because I felt a bit defensive about the notion that I might be insensitive to those who aren't fluent in english - my response certainly wasn't directed in general at forum members who use english as a second language...I didn't intend to make you defensive. Only an admin could know that a member who doesn't include their location in their profile is posting from outside the USA. I agree that his posts recently have been a bit confusing. Here's a toast to our diversity...keeps it interesting eh? :beer: (if not confusing sometimes)

[Roger Evans]

It's high but other companies actually charge more. Bentley coming to mind immediately. Mind you, the other apps aren't used by architects as much -- perhaps it should be tied to the average income of an architect :razz:

Any chance of getting that tieing in thing backdated Wes???

I do not (& never have been able to) understand the price difference between countries ~ (but have to say this applies to just about all Software & Hardware) However no one has so far been able to give a plausible / justifiable reason for the price hike ~ Yes Revit is a good program ~ but it irks me when I see so many issues that still have to be addressed & a lot appear to have been shelved / ignored.

Considering the cost of the program & annual updates The family library available is pretty sparse especially when we all know that the Revit Team is so talented & that there must be tons of stuff done but just not made available.
The Tutorials are good but could be & should be expanded
Probably what concerns me most is that Revit is becoming more & more complicated when the objective surely is to make it simpler

Two weeks ago I went to see a client who showed me his house design done with a £20 3-D house design program ~ There he was drawing on the left tile with the 3D popping up on the right tile ~ Then he went & did a walkthrough for me. All in all I was stunned that he could do so much for so little OK the overall design & presentation was not professional but I have seen a lot worse & I was left wondering about the future of our profession, the future of Revit, and what other programs are now out there.

[Adam Mac]

my 10c
trombe

Hey Trombe - is that Kiwi 10c or Aussie 10c...??

But seriously - i'd be interested in why the subscription costs vary so much between US$ and AU/NZ$. It seems to me it's a bit like the fuel pricing debate - everybody knows there's something not quite right - but nobody's doing anyhting about it...!

My AU$ 10c worth.

Adam.

[blads]

Hey Trombe - is that Kiwi 10c or Aussie 10c...??

But seriously - i'd be interested in why the subscription costs vary so much between US$ and AU/NZ$. It seems to me it's a bit like the fuel pricing debate - everybody knows there's something not quite right - but nobody's doing anyhting about it...!

My AU$ 10c worth.

Adam.
G'day Adam

I think GuyR (http://forums.augi.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=191688)answered anything is his reply...

[MartyC]

I have watched my subscription going up at the rate of about 10% per year, which is more than double Australia's 'supposed' rate of inflation.

However, one advantage to the subscription system I have found is that my Revit software costs are fully tax deductible in the year it is charged as it is a 'subscription'. If the software cost was a fixed cost, say three grand every couple of years for a new version/update, I would have to depreciate the cost over (I think) 2-3 years since it is then a capital purchase. (according to my accountant). A hassle to account for.

For me paying the subscription fee and claiming the expense directly is simple. The net cost for me is the subscription cost less 1/11 GST (10%). The tax deduction is 30% (at Oz company tax rate), therefore the out of pocket cost on that basis is bearable -just!

I personally would like to see the cost increases curbed a bit, otherwise Revit could become a little expensive in the market. Increases at a rate of 10% compounding is not what I think any one of us would like to see continue.

CheersM

[robmorfin]

Yes, the price is high, and it will get higher as time goes by, never mind the number of users keeps growing exponentially, but I have to say this, Revit's price dropped down according to a list of "AEC objects Buyer's guide" publication from Cadalyst, I don't have the publication date, but I am attaching that list as an image, where the price for the Revit subscription used to be $199.00/ month = $2,388.00 / year for V1, I didn't check the price back then, but some of the old users I'm sure can say if this is true or not, so yes, it is expensive but at least once Autodesk bought it from Revit Technologies they made the price way more accessible, I hope they don't start increasing the price back because now we can't live without it and have to pay whatever the price it is. Sorry about the attachment, when I press the manage attachments button, I get this message : "A pop-up windows was blocked", so I cannot attach it (yes, my firewall is disabled).

[robmorfin]

Here it is, thanks for the tip on how to disable the pop-up blocker Steve.

[ppelegrin]

To all you Aussies,

Revit Subscription went down just recently from $1,120 to $975.

Of course the general direction for software pricing will always go in the up/wrong direction - its worth noting that Autodesk Australia have dropped Subscription and license purchase prices twice in the last 6 years - also admitting that it goes up more often than down.

For comparisons...

MicroStation = $950 per year (but without yearly upgrades) - does not include Triforma Architectural.

Recently released Archicad subscription = $1,800 per year (quoted from user).

At least it appears that Autodesk is not abusing its market position, relative to its competitors...


As I understand it, in USA you have client->reseller->Autodesk(USA).
In NZ you have client->reseller->AutodeskNZ(AUS)-> Autodesk(APAC)->Autodesk(USA)

More links to the chain, thats my guess.

Guy

This isn't the case. International pricing is overseen by Autodesk Inc. Autodesk Australia works on U.S pricing internally - direct from U.S. Although Autodesk have stated recently that they want to normalise the pricing around the world (excuse for price rises maybe?), I cannot see it happening - with fluctuating exchange rates and different local market conditions.


Regards,
P Pelegrin

[DaveP]

If you work in a big office where someone else is paying the bills I am sure that you will chime in saying "Quit complaining! Revit is so worth it".
Actually, we in the "big offices" complain "Holy ****! We have to pay $695 times 8 licenses. That's $5500" And that's only for 8 licenses. We're planning (hoping) to do the whole office next year - 43 licenses means about $30,000 for subscription fees.


besides the CD is free its just all the packaging that goes with it...
Even with that price tag though, yes, I do think Revit is worth it. Think of the major changes you've seen over the last two years. I won't even try to list them, but with two releases coming out a year, we definitely think we're getting our money's worth.

As far as the different rates for different countries go. I'm with you there. I see no reason why a Pacific version should be any higher than a US version. After all, we both touch the same ocean!

[knurrebusk]

Even with that price tag though, yes, I do think Revit is worth it. Think of the major changes you've seen over the last two years. I won't even try to list them, but with two releases coming out a year, we definitely think we're getting our money's worth.


I agree that Revit is unique, and raise the standards for what can be achieved by fewer persons in shorter time with less error!

But this efficiency also complicate´s at least my workflow, the progress of a new project is fast and effective.But this can be stressful in the long run if there is important areas that restrict the flow of work


Problems arrive late in the timespan of many simultaneously ongoing projects, the need to
leave Revit,and use external companies for consulting is bad for the workflow.

[James.Lupton]

Does anyone know the Autodesk policy on lapsed subscriptions. For example if you renew your subs on 3 out of 4 licences, what happens if you later want to upgrade the 4th licence to put it back on subscription.

Like most offices our software requirements are project demand driven. If we have less projects next year, we dont need all our licences but if our workoad increases in 2 years time we may need all licences back.

It was the flexibility of the old Revit Technologies subscription which made it attractive. They would let you increase or decrease your licences on a monthly basis.

I think the anual basis is fine but I would like to know that a licence can be shelved for a few years and brought back onto subscription later when needed.

[knurrebusk]

Concerning English language/inconsistent posts/topics I just don´t care.
As long as I´m hopefully balancing on not being totally rude to anyone in person.

The Revit team has my respect 100%, not sure if Autodesk deserves the same trust though:(

[ariasdelcid]

I feel Scott s pain! I kinda remember Revit being $175 a quarter before the Autodesk purchase. For a one man shop is certainly expensive at $695 yearly. That plus AIA fees...
But that is the market reality... I wish it wasn't that bad

[DaveP]

I kinda remember Revit being $175 a quarter before the Autodesk purchase.
Maybe my calculator is broken, but it says $175 x 4 = $700.
So, doesn't that mean the subscription now is pretty much the same as it was before big, mean AutoDesk bought out Revit?

[Roger Evans]

If I recall correctly when subscription started in the UK it was around £80pm

[Dean Camlin]

I don't think Revit was ever $175 per quarter. It may have been $175 per month, but I remember my subscription as $199 per month. Originally, it was offered month to month & you could let it lapse & pick it back up without a penalty (this was early on, like years 2000-2001). Autodesk bought it in April 2002, right? After that policies changed.

[James.Lupton]

I think what has been forgotten here is that the old Revit subscription did not require an initial capital outlay to buy the software. They simply allowed the user to licence each seat on a month by month basis and to increase or decrease the number of seats to the demands of the users business.

The easy in option was great and because the subscription was the only cost for the software (training was free) it was easier to cost each seat against the project.

I know that these were the good old days and that Revit Technologies had a new product to place in the market place however, in our market where we are continually under pressure in relation to the rates we can charge for our services, the addition of software as an overhead is difficult to sustain or justify unless you can guarantee that each seat will be fully productive throughout the year.

I would like to see a pay as you go basis be introduced again however, I dont hold out much hope. With Revit, once you are on that treadmill you have to keep it going and if you take a break you will be penalised to get back to the latest version.

[ariasdelcid]

Sorry...$175 a quarter for a 5 seat deal...introductory offer ..no down payment for package...Very good deal...

[John Anderson]

I too would appreciate some clarity on the penalty costs for letting a subsciption expire and picking it up later. How long after it expires before penalties kick in? How much are the penalties? Is there a standard from Autodesk for the US? Anybody have this information?

Perhaps Autodesk could consider a carrot instead of the stick approach and reward continuity in subscription with lower yearly rates.

[SkiSouth]

Discussing this with my provider a while back, (having changed from ADT to Revit) Basically, if you let the subscription drop, you start all over (this was revisited with her even last month - my renewal was up) - Yes that means a REPURCHASE of Revit. In other words, as my provider says, " you don't have to renew your subscription, but you have to renew your subscription......" There is no grace period....

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Perhaps Autodesk could consider a carrot instead of the stick approach and reward continuity in subscription with lower yearly rates.
Good one John! Autodesk has never been known to provide any 'real' discount for the loyal small operator. If you happen to be a user with 100+ licenses then you may have a chance but for the rest of us it's

"You want 5 licenses at $5,000, that'll be $25,000. But hey, to make your life easier we will only give you one copy of the disk so you don't have to go the trouble of unwrapping all those packages. For shipping costs we'll even send you a copy of the user's guide"

[hand471037]

"You want 5 licenses at $5,000, that'll be $25,000. But hey, to make your life easier we will only give you one copy of the disk so you don't have to go the trouble of unwrapping all those packages. For shipping costs we'll even send you a copy of the user's guide"

And we'll sue you out of existence if we think you're using any of our stuff illegally, and heck, you'll lose automatically if you didn't keep very good records even if you are legit, and you'll probably loose anyways because our lawyers have a lot more money than yours... oh wait, do you even have one? no? well then, guess you'd better just pay up. It's a very nice little business you've got here, be a shame if something was to happen to it...

(I'm really not this bitter, but I think it's asine how most small business completely ignore the Business Software Alliance and remain unaware of the very real dangers that come from this group of thugs. Protect yourself: keep good records of what you bought when, don't pirate ANYTHING, and use Open Source Software instead whenever you can...)

[John Anderson]

There is no grace period....
Yes, I got a hint of this policy, with perhaps some little leaway/discretion on the dealers part, the last time I updated.

To me it's unfathomable that Autodesk would play with such tactics. They nead to define clearly a grace period and a reduced price for reinstating a subscription say in the first year after it expires. This drop dead with no forgiveness is indeed very thug like.

[STHRevit]

Thought I would revive this topic as we have just had an interesting development.

Scenario:
During the GEC we have trimmed some staff, which leads to machines not being used and in that time we let some of the subscription's lapse. No point in paying for subs on a machine that is just sitting there idle now is there, particularly when you are trying to lower operating costs.

Well I am happy to report that things are improving and we are looking at cranking up again.

So, we enquired about renewing the subscriptions. What we were told was this.
We are required to pay for the subscriptions for the previous period (the ones that have lapsed) in full, along with the new subscription period and potentially a late fee as well.

Lets look at 2 machines
Previous years subs (2 x $1075au) $2150
New Subscriptions (2 x $1075au) $2150
Late Fee $350
Tax $465

Total cost $5115

Now this is only for two machines, imagine if you had a few more.

I don't have an issue in paying a late fee. That is just a cost of doing business and the new subs are obviously required.

What I do have an issue with is the cost of paying for 12 months subscription that we had no benefit of using!!
No tech support
No updates
No new releases
or any of the other "benefits" of subscription.

Is it just me that feels charging for "good and services" that a customer has not received, nor enjoyed the associated benefits and then charging again for that same "good and services" for the new 12 months is a bit rude.

Here's the kicker, if they are not re-subscribed in an allotted time frame, we will then be hit with the new subscription + 50% of the new seat purchase price, for each sub license.

Some might say we have a choice to subscribe or not. Technically, yes, we do. However I can't help but think Autodesk know that once you spend your hard earned cash implementing and training your staff, you will be reluctant to change software companies and are cashing in on it, rather handsomely...

Has anyone else faced this situation??

[dfriesen]

We are required to pay for the subscriptions for the previous period (the ones that have lapsed) in full, along with the new subscription period and potentially a late fee as well.
Tell them you're not 'renewing' - you're buying new subscriptions. You're one of those new users that they're so excited about!! Maybe you'll even get a welcome gift! Like an "Official Autodesk Revit Building Architecture" coaster - you can never have too many coasters!

[twiceroadsfool]

Im on the fence with this one.

You dont want to pay full price for new licenses, right? So they let you pick up the old subscriptions even though you let them lapse, for a fee thats still cheaper than paying for full new seat prices.

I know what everyone wants: To not pay for a year, then pay for a year, and still get everything. But i wonder what the expectation of support and functionality should be, if people are to start skipping releases and canning subscriptions every other year?

Im sure most think theyre still entitled to "full support" when they try to yank their 2008 files in to 2011 and all hell breaks loose, and im not really sure what my reasonable expectation would be in that situation.

At the end of the day though, its not like its unknown that the agreement works that way. I always ASSumed that if i canned subscription, and changed my mind four months later, id have to pay full new seat price. And since i know that (or thought it was the case), i dont find the current situation all that unfair.

[STHRevit]

Well I guess that is a part of the issue. Subscription never used to work like that. This policy only came into effect this year. So in that respect, it bothers me. It wasn't the original conditions we initially agreed apon.
We are still autodesk customers but it would appear there is no consideration for past loyalties and current purchases.
I guess it is no wonder that there are some people out there using un-registered versions, afterall it's not like you can save to an earlier version or anything useful like that.

Perhaps the cable tv companies can learn from this. All the customers who sign up in December could be invoiced for the previous year, even though they didn't actually have the benefit of the service.

I am not saying it should be free, of course there should be costs involved, but to pay for a year of subscription without having the benefits is a bit over the top. Perhaps a late fee and a waiver stating no support will be given for project files being upgraded over two releases, or something like that.

[twiceroadsfool]

And you know what happens when you try that? People say okay, then whine that they want it supported anyway, ala the 2009UI. In regards to the conditions you originally agreed on, did it ever say anywhere you could cancel subscription and get back on it without covering the costs of the year you let it lapse? Im sure it didnt.

Again, im not totally siding with the subscription model, but i dont really see a good way to structure it, for what (it appears) some users want.

Regarding the Cable company... Plenty of places do it. AT&T, Verizon... Its all the same. Thats why you cant get "new contract" pricing when youre an existing customer, and the fine print says that counts IF you WERE an existing customer in the last XXX duration of time. If you were, you dont count as new, you count as continuing... And you eat costs because of it.

Like i said, at the end of the day the other option is they say "Okay, youre right, this isnt fair. So we will consider it a NEW seat of Revit, and you can pay the full New Seat Price, THEN pay subscription for next year, and not last year."

Is that really a better option?

[Scott D Davis]

All the customers who sign up in December could be invoiced for the previous year, even though they didn't actually have the benefit of the service.

More like: a cable customer is paying a rate of $30 per month. They decide they don't want cable for 3 months so they cancel. Then decide they want it back. But now the price is $40 per month but they want to pay the old rate, and get all the new channels.

[STHRevit]

I can't be sure or the original subscription T&C as I won't be in the office until Monday, so I will check then.

Like I said, i would expect some cost for picking up a lapsed subscription, just not convinced the current model is the best.

Unfortunately the majority of our consultants and collegues have upgraded which leaves us in a bit of a pickle.

[patricks]

More like: a cable customer is paying a rate of $30 per month. They decide they don't want cable for 3 months so they cancel. Then decide they want it back. But now the price is $40 per month but they want to pay the old rate, and get all the new channels.

heh this is why I'm glad DirecTV allows me to suspend service for up to 6 months per year when it's not needed or when I can't afford to pay the bills, then start it back up just like nothing ever happened. Same package, same price, etc. :)

[ron.sanpedro]

More like: a cable customer is paying a rate of $30 per month. They decide they don't want cable for 3 months so they cancel. Then decide they want it back. But now the price is $40 per month but they want to pay the old rate, and get all the new channels.

Before Autodesk took over Revit had this nifty feature where I could buy the number of seats I needed on (I believe) a monthly basis. You know, an approach that SUPPORTS the customer. Now Autodesk wants all the money up front, won't offer a meaningful way to downsize, won't offer an easy way to liquidate, uses a pricing scheme that maybe doesn't force us to stay on subscription, but it most certainly does coerce us. And the amount of meaningful improvements each year has gone down. In other words, an approach that SHAFTS the customer.
So back to the cable analogy, the day someone offers an iTunes style ala carte BIM solution, where I pay for the features I need, the seats I need, and I can add or subtract at will, then I will dump the brain dead, old guard, customer screwing business model in a heart beat.
You probably picked just about the best analogy possible. Ask around, how many people LOVE their cable company? And how many people hate their cable company but feel like they don't really have another choice yet? Yeah, Autodesk is a cable company all right.

Gordon

[aaronrumple]

I think everyone should pay full price for each year's new version on every seat.
I own stock.

[ron.sanpedro]

I think everyone should pay full price for each year's new version on every seat.
I own stock.

I always thought that every seat of an Autodesk product should come with a single share of Autodesk stock. Then, Carl would work for US, and I bet different decisions would get made, eh? ;)

Gordon

[Wes Macaulay]

The reality is that Autodesk is coaxing you into giving them a steady stream of cash for development (and for Aaron and the rest of the stockholders).

The problem with getting back on Subscription is that Autodesk's terms for doing so are positively punitive.

It's the carrot vs the stick: Autodesk is using the stick. The carrot approach would be make the software so much better every year that people are happy to pay Subscription. And if they can't pay this year, make the penalties something like:

half a year's Subscription for the first year missed
one-third for the second year missedAutoCAD 2011 offers little in the way of new features (except higher hardware requirements! hurray!), so it's harder to make a case for Subscription there.

For Revit, we've always got new good stuff every year, so I've seen carrots instead of sticks.

Autodesk needs to trade in their sticks for more carrots.

[Scott D Davis]

Before Autodesk took over Revit had this nifty feature where I could buy the number of seats I needed on (I believe) a monthly basis. You know, an approach that SUPPORTS the customer.

Gordon

I didn't pick the analogy. Read the post prior to mine. The old Revit Technology subscription model was abandoned around Revit 2.0, well prior to Autodesk ever being involved. Yes, it supported the customer, but was not sustainable as a business model as the revenue stream was highly unpredictable. If RTC had tried to stick with this customer friendly month to month subscription model, there wouldn't have been any customers because there wouldn't have been Revit.

[Munkholm]

I think everyone should pay full price for each year's new version on every seat.
I own stock.

Could not agree more 8) Did you buy your stocks back in `85 too ? :Puffy:

BTW: Notice what happend when Revit 2011 was released :lol:

[ron.sanpedro]

I didn't pick the analogy. Read the post prior to mine. The old Revit Technology subscription model was abandoned around Revit 2.0, well prior to Autodesk ever being involved. Yes, it supported the customer, but was not sustainable as a business model as the revenue stream was highly unpredictable. If RTC had tried to stick with this customer friendly month to month subscription model, there wouldn't have been any customers because there wouldn't have been Revit.

Hmm, maybe make subscription worth something, not just blatant extortion. Something along the lines of an office can add up to 20% to their license count, using a month to month payment system. For subscribers only. Now as a subscription dupe, I can actually ramp up for a project without having to spend a ton of money and worrying that those new licenses will soon be junk I don't need (cause more new work didn't come in) and can't sell (because Autodesk is a whiny git that won't let me). And I am giving money to Autodesk at a time when they can't even properly staff the team that is building the new web (un)Help system. Hmm, win/win, carrot not a stick, thinking long term customer satisfaction.
See, it doesn't have to be a simple as going back to the (as you mention, un-sustainable as the ONLY revenue stream) old approach, nor does it have to be a simple as continuing to jack your customer. I would be OK with Autodesk not thinking outside the box, if they would just get bigger box! ;)

Oh, by the way, if you want to not royally screw your subscription customer who buys lots of seats, you damned well fix the broken license timeout. Two years running that's been broken and no meaningful effort to fix it. Bollocks!

Gordon

[Wes Macaulay]

If RTC had tried to stick with this customer friendly month to month subscription model, there wouldn't have been any customers because there wouldn't have been Revit.
And I hated that you always had to pay for the software -- for most companies Revit is cheaper (after two years, I think) under the Autodesk stick than under the RTC carrot?!

At least with Autodesk I can have the illusion that once I've paid for something, I own something...

[trombe]

The reality is that Autodesk is coaxing you into giving them a steady stream of cash for development (and for Aaron and the rest of the stockholders).

The problem with getting back on Subscription is that Autodesk's terms for doing so are positively punitive.

It's the carrot vs the stick: Autodesk is using the stick. The carrot approach would be make the software so much better every year that people are happy to pay Subscription. And if they can't pay this year, make the penalties something like:

half a year's Subscription for the first year missed
one-third for the second year missedAutoCAD 2011 offers little in the way of new features (except higher hardware requirements! hurray!), so it's harder to make a case for Subscription there.

For Revit, we've always got new good stuff every year, so I've seen carrots instead of sticks.

Autodesk needs to trade in their sticks for more carrots.

Wes, unfortunately, this was one of the most precise reasons - in fact it was THE top reason, why I refused to put money aside to save up and buy Max and then maintain it, when deciding how to approach the purchase of dedicated viz software when most of the opinion and much of the resultant output favours a Revit-Max-VRay workflow.
trombe

[iankids]

Without doubt, the current subscription model is not customer friendly. Over the past year or so I have been weighing the cost benefits of holding on to a subscription I don't need at the moment.

I can perfectly understand that Autodesk would want to ensure that their revenue stream is stable, and in normal circumstances, growing. Unfortunately, that revenue stability, is at the expense of their customers who face this dilemma and in hard times is asked to pay for something that is not being used. For us in Oz, the GFC has not had a great impact overall and the general ecomony, and therefore jobs, have held up well. Thus for me, at the moment, I have paid the extra $1000 odd dollars and kept the licence up. I would certainly hate to confront this question if I lived in one of the many countries around the world still doing it tough.

It would seem to me that the vast majority of us have thrown our lot in to the Revit ship and have a long term commitment to continue to use the software.

What I would hope to see from Autodesk is a softening of the current subscription model with maybe something along the lines of....

"if you sign up for x years for y seats, you can add and subtract from the base as your workload requires for the cost of the additional subscriptions with a small additional fee but no penalties of paying for seats that you didn't use during the hard times."

This way, they get a long term revenue stream and we get some flexibility in the way we use the seats.

Just a thought.

Ian

[twiceroadsfool]

Not to completely sidetrack the thread, but i have to wonder what will happen to subsciption models for softwares like ArchiCAD and Revit, as Software as a Service on a Server keeps getting more popular.

Subscription models are very different per user on Office Management tools, and Collaboration tools, where team numbers fluctuate greatly, and theres no actual software changing hands since its all running on the Manufacturers servers.

Throw that in with the added benefit of not needing serious hardware anymore, and i have to wonder when were going to see Revit shift to a SaS solution.

[r.grandmaison]

It seems we're all eventually heading down that "cloud" rabbit hole. Have you looked at Autodesk's Butterfly project? You will soon be able to view and edit your dwg files from your iPad or iPhone. To be released soon.

And, their Neon service in the labs allows you to render with their renderfarm at Autodesk HQ as another labs project.

I remember in the old days we had "main frame" computers and terminals...then we went to a distrubuted network system, more power PC's, etc...seems we might eventually get back to a centralized BIGASS computer one day with everyone just hooking into the cloud to push image data and application instructions back and forth, with all the real data out of harms way and out of real reach.

I think it's about that time when Skynet becomes self-aware.

[trombe]

Not to completely sidetrack the thread, but i have to wonder what will happen to subsciption models for softwares like ArchiCAD and Revit, as Software as a Service on a Server keeps getting more popular.
..............Throw that in with the added benefit of not needing serious hardware anymore, and i have to wonder when were going to see Revit shift to a SaS solution.

Well AD Labs have stated this is not something to be forced on the customer and they do not plan to do this, in response to a direct feedback query from me, and I am prepared to take them at their word.
I DO NOT WANT to be forced to accept that system. I want the software on my machine as it is now. Its not about licensing / theft and its not about currency / maintenance. I want to avoid things like reliance on other people, reliance on a server, reliance on an ISP, reliance on a manufacturer, a "secure" system. I want to maintain the software on my machine without interference and without penalty for doing so. I cannot see why this cannot be done and done easily.
The web download thing is purely about economics for the manufacturer.
A by product of that policy is instant access by the customer.
Its not the reason for providing the system..the flow on is the web only download / opting out of sending a pre-packaged product, shipping costs, handling, delivery etc. - again, that is economics and ;ittle to do with service to the customer.
The software on a server thing is purely a thing about control.

I am OK about hardware needs and for sure, not all application will necessarily run this way for a long long time yet and, there seems to me to be no good reason not to allow copies of the software to be deployed however the customer sees fit.
Service what service ?
trombe

[Dave Jones]

Last year I paid $595 for a one year subscription (which seemed high at the time). This year the cost went up to $695. The rate hike is very demoralizing. I hope this is not the beginning of a trend. Autodesk has a long history of squeezing their users for everything they can get. If you work in a big office where someone else is paying the bills I am sure that you will chime in saying "Quit complaining! Revit is so worth it". However, if you are a one man shop you feel the pain. What are others paying for their subscriptions?

same as you...I make enough money as a one man shop thanks to the power of Acad and Revit that $695 a year is a mere drop in the bucket for me. Granted, I wouldn't complain if it was free or cheaper but come on...you could go back to the boards where I started in '69 and deal with that productivity nightmare again. I guess that there would be a price point (I hate that term) where Acad and Revit would not be of value to me anymore but it's way way more than $695.00

[twiceroadsfool]

Understandable. A lot of people are afraid to give up the control. I guess i understand, but im looking forward to the day when its at least an option. We work with a few applications that work this way now, and im the first to admit: i was staunchly in your camp of not wanting to turn over control, until i saw how it would really work.

Sure, you suddenly care about the providers redundancy system, and their reaction time to critical failures on their end. Were working with a collaboration software that runs as a service, and its amazing. In our first conversation with the provider they explained that they have an entire real time redundant system, located in two entirely different regions of the country, in case of a failure. They switch to the other system instantly.

I suppose access is an issue as well, since you need an internet connection to use the system, but in my very humble opinion, this is becoming less and less of an issue as time moves forward. Im surprised when i find a place that im NOT connected, versus a place that i am.

In the end, im sure it would take a monumental shift for Model Authoring tools to move that way, but i hope all of the key players in the industry are at least considering it. Its one thing for all of US to need rediculous machines to open models, but what about the people downstream? Open an IFC file with all of the subcontractors shop models in it, and watch a 3000 dollar computer grind to a halt.

Just the other day i saw one opened on a 600 dollar consumer laptop, running a Verizon 3G wireless internet connection. For the capability to permeate our entire industry AND everyone our industry touches? Yeah, ill give up a SMALL amount of control for that. :)

[iru69]

The software on a server thing is purely a thing about control.
Control is about how you're allowed to use/consume it... that war has already been lost for the most part (open source being an exception). Whether the software lives on your computer or in the cloud doesn't matter.

[r.grandmaison]

Control is about how you're allowed to use/consume it... that war has already been lost for the most part (open source being an exception). Whether the software lives on your computer or in the cloud doesn't matter.

iru69,

It could matter if you HAVE to be connected to the cloud to do your work...and for whatever reasons (Comcast lines down, Network Server connection issues, working remotely where there's no wifi) someone may have for wanting to HAVE the software available locally, I can understand that. So, it could matter to some.

[iru69]

I think you're missing the point. What you speak of is merely a (literal) technicality.

It could matter if you HAVE to be connected to the cloud to do your work...and for whatever reasons (Comcast lines down, Network Server connection issues, working remotely where there's no wifi) someone may have for wanting to HAVE the software available locally, I can understand that. So, it could matter to some.

[twiceroadsfool]

iru69,

It could matter if you HAVE to be connected to the cloud to do your work...and for whatever reasons (Comcast lines down, Network Server connection issues, working remotely where there's no wifi) someone may have for wanting to HAVE the software available locally, I can understand that. So, it could matter to some.

This is my point, though. Its getting harder and harder to find places that you ARENT connected, and the TYPE of connection you need is getting less and less. Im telling you, i saw a full Construction Model spun in real time, over a WIRELESS PHONE CARD. LOL.

So maybe telecom isnt COMPLETELY there yet, but were saying to NOT be able to connect: Im in a black hole with no internet, AND my cell phone cant connect, AND theres no wireless. Or, i have an iphone and cant tether, bwahahahahaha.

[trombe]

Control is about how you're allowed to use/consume it... that war has already been lost for the most part (open source being an exception). Whether the software lives on your computer or in the cloud doesn't matter.

For you, this might be the case. You might live in a world where internet costs are super cheap and wonderfully fast and never **** out. I do not live in that world. The world I live in has rubbish speed internet for the general public and only fast for lot more money. It is many years behind most other countries in terms of speed and pricing and will be for at least another 3-5 years we are led to believe. It is also not reliable and our country faces many hurdles of geology and topography and economies of scale that perhaps, your world does not. These are some of the reasons a cloud model is not desirable to me as a customer. The pricing aspect alone would need to drop enormously and reliability increase as much, to even consider small operators working in such a manner.


However despite this reality, I don't care if some of you think its cool or a done deal for cloud everything. Just because commercial interests determine the next iteration of the model to be x or y as its in their best interests to do so, , does not at all make it desirable to everyone nor should their opinions be dissed as if it is borne out of total ignorance of the developments surrounding how manufacturers plan to extract more money out of a market while reducing overhead and risk, possible copyright infringements,, hacking and so on.
This is an observation about how I like to work given the current and near future conditions in my country and the general desire to be in control of my work tools / my plant at all times.
trombe

[Lashers]

I didn't pick the analogy. Read the post prior to mine. The old Revit Technology subscription model was abandoned around Revit 2.0, well prior to Autodesk ever being involved. Yes, it supported the customer, but was not sustainable as a business model as the revenue stream was highly unpredictable. If RTC had tried to stick with this customer friendly month to month subscription model, there wouldn't have been any customers because there wouldn't have been Revit.
Scott, I don't think that is the case, I recall having V4 or 4.5 whilst still paying monthly (here in UK). I definitely paid monthly up until the takeover by Autodesk.

[Lashers]

Just thought of a world solution to the lapsed subscription issue (I'll have 10% of any profit for the idea ha)

Start a subscription customer share service! If Joe has too many licenses for his needs, he can lend them to Jim who needs some additional licenses - Jim will pay monthly the cost of the subscription of said licenses and return them when finished! No profit is made so it is not a hire arrangement ?? . . . and everyone is happy . .ha ha ha ha . . .

Ah no, ADESK have probably ruled this out . . . . . I am grateful for the continued development of Revit, but am always left with the feeling that more effort is spent stopping rather than encouraging customer loyalty. The interest seems to be more about customer control and lock in.
Back to filing . . . .
Andy

[iru69]

First, I sense a hostility towards my (and others) understanding of the future direction of cloud computing. I don't have any control over where this is all headed - I'm just pointing out the reality, not making a judgment whether it's "desirable to everyone." If you think I (or Arron) are sitting in the proverbial ivory tower, you haven't been paying attention.

Second, that cloud computing is presently compromising computer usability. I don't actually see where Autodesk is forcing you to use a cloud version of Revit? Microsoft forcing you to use a cloud version of Office? Photoshop? Eventually they may, but they're not presently.

You mention that it's going to be a few years before some parts of the world have a reliable internet connection. As I (and Aaron) pointed out, that's merely a present day obstacle. Objecting to cloud computing because your internet connection doesn't support the model is pointless - it eventually will support the model. Objecting to cloud computer because you lose control - I appreciate that objection, but as I previously stated, you already have. You don't "own" your software. You can't sell your license. You can't even (legally) share your license as Lasher cleverly suggests. If you're at the north pole and need to reinstall Revit because your computer crashed and you need to finish the plans for your igloo, good luck.

:beer:


For you, this might be the case. You might live in a world where internet costs are super cheap and wonderfully fast and never **** out. I do not live in that world.

[ron.sanpedro]

Hmm, Autodesk and cloud computing. This is the company that EVERY YEAR manages to have a server meltdown when a new product is made available. And EVERY YEAR manages to have a server meltdown when AU registration begins. And can't manage to get a web based help system to suck anything short of royally nearly a half year after release. Does anyone REALLY want to trust their day in day out production to a company with a track record like that? Maybe if they farmed out all their web services to someone who can do it right, maybe.
But for the moment, Revit on the Cloud looks WAY too much like another Microsoft Sidekick fuster cluck just waiting to happen. And when our small little business has a major deadline in four hours, and Autodesk's cloud goes down or is unavailable, do you think anyone there is going to give a flying fornication about us? Yeah, right. The same people who fixed that license timeout bug in a timely fashion (i.e. still waiting) are gonna really step up and keep our businesses afloat.
Sorry, I don't trust any corporation that much, and Autodesk less than most. I want my software on my equipment. Period. When Autodesk manages to get a few YEARS of heavy web driven stuff FLAWLESSLY right, then I will start to reconsider. But anyone wanting Revit on the cloud should try to register for AU right now, and ask yourself how happy you would be if it was your Revit licenses that where all jacked up and not working. For days.
Just something to think about. ;)

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Jesus man, i hope you dont wear that chip on your shoulder all the time, its got to be hard work being that tense.

I dont think *any of us* that are WONDERING about it, are incinuating that Autodesk- in their current infrastructure- are geared to handle it, but that doesnt mean that may not be one day. In fact, it makes a bit of sense to me that they have the trouble they have now, if theyre not built to handle the rediculous amount of traffic they get when AU registration opens. Its not like theyre the only ones plagued by such a thing: College campuses, Ticketmaster, Amazon.com... ive seen it happen to all of them.

And as ALSO mentioned in my first post when i brought it up, the companies that ARE moving in that direction have stellar redundancy thats NOT all handled in house, by data handlers who do it as their livelyhood.

But hey, to each their own. Youre missing out on some great tools in the industry, that- flat out- arent available to install on your system. :)

[ron.sanpedro]

Aaron,
I know there are companies out there that get this right. My point is that I think Autodesk just doesn't give @$#%, because if they did, they would not screw the pooch with every new product launch. If they can't get that right, which SHOULD be important to THEM now, why would they ever get something right that is important to ME?
It is not at all a technical problem, because as you say plenty of companies are doing this stuff well. I don't think Autodesk is, and I am not sure they can. I don't think Microsoft is, and I am pretty sure they can't. I think it is either a management problem, where they just don't care, or it is a calculated accounting problem, where they depend on our FUD to give them a pass and save money so as to stroke the stock holders. Either way, I don't trust Autodesk. Right now. If they step up and get these other things right, for a few years running, then I will be open to the notion. But they need to step up NOW, not roll out the new approach in two years and say "Trust us", because that is what they did with the new web based help, and that is a pile of @$#%. Based on that track record alone, I think we should not trust Autodesk. I do not in any way say the whole concept is flawed. Far from it.

My biggest fear is that autodesk is so full of themselves and such a dominant force that they just switch to cloud delivery for their own reasons with no other option for users, or some Subscription style extortion to make the "option" so painful it really isn't one. And I can easily see them totally failing to cover their bases, figuring "what could go wrong?" Just like Microsoft did with their Danger group and Sidekick users. And as we know, those Sidekick users just got royally shafted, and Microsoft basically said "Sucks to be you." And again, if autodesk can't pull their head out enough to solve their product launch theatrics, or registration for their "premier" industry conference, they are kinda saying they just don't get it. Because there is simply no excuse in this day and age to still be getting jacked up AU registrations other than corporate incompetence. It should be embarrassing. Seemingly it isn't. That speaks volumes.

Gordon

[trombe]

Actually,
I think Aaron Rumple is a knowledgeable, sensible, calm, friendly and supportive person around here.
trombe

[ron.sanpedro]

Actually,
I think Aaron Rumple is a knowledgeable, sensible, calm, friendly and supportive person around here.
trombe

Good lord, I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. Not my intention. In this case I think Aaron and I agree (Autodesk isn't ready to host cloud anything right now).
Aaron I think pretty much expects them to be ready some day. I am not gonna bet more than a quarter that they will ever be. That, and delivery, are where we differ. Well, that and he drivers a car, which I would never do. An excess of wheels on those things. ;)

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

I think theyll be ready someday (Im not Aaron R... Well, i am, but im Aaron R Maller, LOL), but regardless, i think at some point theyll be ready, becuase theyll HAVE to be.

Right now, i brought it up as a potential WHAT IF. But at some point, for the reasons i mentioned in my first post, i think eventually its going to change from a WHAT IF to a WHY NOT. That is, we the USER base are going to be irritated by the lack of Cloud.

Dont get me wrong, right now, i love where we are: I love my gazillion dollar laptop with 8 gigs of RAM. Its great. But if every other software for every other industry starts making it so people dont NEED great computers, and they- instead- make it so people can take their 400 dollars net-web-thing, and access everything from work (and access it well), who the heck is going to put up with having to front money and manage 4000 dollar laptops?

Anyway, its all just conjecture and me wondering. :)

[eric.piotrowicz]

Nothing against the concept of the cloud. But from a business model stand point (whether its working or not) when a company offers a service that saves the user money they charge a good portion of the savings. I.e. a firm with 100 Revit licenses can subscribe to use the cloud service and the next time they renew leases on their desk/laptops they are going from $4000 a user to $400 a user for hardware costs. The company providing the cloud know the potential savings and offers their cloud service for something like $2600 per user. Yeah, the firm has still cut their hardware costs but its an actual savings of about $100K and not the $360K that it looked like initially.
Then there are the costs that nobody forecasted. With all of out hardware in house we have quite a robust render farm. Move to the cloud and thats gone, but of course the cloud provider noticed this too and offers that service at a cost. Thats only one example but I bet there are others and it could add up to spending more money instead of saving money.

[aaronrumple]

And of course Autodesk won a big one a few days ago....

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/09/14/new_ruling_could_eventually_lead_to_blocking_of_used_game_sales

Now I just need to shrinkwrap my buildings so I can chage a fee every year for everyone looking at them.

[aaronrumple]

Scott, I don't think that is the case, I recall having V4 or 4.5 whilst still paying monthly (here in UK). I definitely paid monthly up until the takeover by Autodesk.

That is correct - I was a AE for a reseller. They had subscription and what they called paid up subscription. Subcription was a month to month only. No pay - no use. Paid up subscription allowed you to keep using the last version you got on subscription when you dropped subscription.

[Wes Macaulay]

...or charge a an additional architectural fee every time a renter or owner moves in or out or sells the building...

What defense is there for Autodesk's position on this? It seems like another punitive measure against their customers.

[STHRevit]

"[Y]ou must destroy the software previously licensed to you, including any copies resident on your hard disk drive . . . within sixty (60) days of the purchase of the license to use the upgrade or update . . . .
Autodesk reserves the right to require you to show satisfactory proof that previous copies of the software have been destroyed."

Lets hope this isn't in the current T&C for our subscriptions....with the inability to save back to earlier versions, it could make working for multiple clients and consultants a little difficult. As we know, not all people upgrade at the same time and not all files like to be upgraded.....

It's seems to be a large amount of cost and effort to chase one person down in relation to R14.

[jeffh]

"[Y]ou must destroy the software previously licensed to you, including any copies resident on your hard disk drive . . . within sixty (60) days of the purchase of the license to use the upgrade or update . . . .
Autodesk reserves the right to require you to show satisfactory proof that previous copies of the software have been destroyed."

Lets hope this isn't in the current T&C for our subscriptions....with the inability to save back to earlier versions, it could make working for multiple clients and consultants a little difficult. As we know, not all people upgrade at the same time and not all files like to be upgraded.

I believe if you are on subscription you are legally able to run up to 3 prior releases of the software. You would have to check the EULA/subscription agreement to be sure.