TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: M-dub on June 09, 2008, 04:28:44 PM
-
So here's a story for ya.
We have two seats of Microstation. They're old, as you can tell from my signature. My boss asked me to get a quote to upgrade one of them.
Turns out you can't. Well, you can, but you'll have to "surrender" the other seat. Apparently, the only alternative is to upgrade both. This, among a bunch of other things has me itching to send this quote back, requesting that he file it where the sun doesn't shine.... and that's not just to protect the inks from harmful UV light!
Also, is it true that they (Bentley) handles all of their own sales and have no registered resellers?
-
<embed source="../Bentley/WhoCares/crickets.wav">
:roll:
-
can you just buy two new seats? hey it's only money! and besides, you'll be supporting poor ol' bentley. :)
-
<embed source="../Bentley/WhoCares/crickets.wav">
:roll:
Alright, wiseguy... who asked you? Because they should be fired!
can you just buy two new seats? hey it's only money! and besides, you'll be supporting poor ol' bentley. :)
You'd think, wouldn't you?
Well, here's the thing; One of the bosses here, thought it was a great idea to opt out of Select (subscription for the 'deskers) so we now have these awesome "Back-Fees" of $940 per year / per license. At least they stopped calling them "Welcome Back Fees" and I'm not kidding! The quote I received back in February or maybe it was sometime last year... they called these things "Welcome Back Fees"... It's like punishing people for being return customers!!!
Anyway, they opted out of Select about 8 or 9 years ago and Bentley has done us the 'favour' of reducing it down to 4 years worth of back-fees. This equates to $3,760 plus the fee of $940 for THIS year. If we wanted to upgrade BOTH seats, we just double that. If we buy them brand spanking new, one seat of "Vanilla Microstation" is over $6,100, so we wouldn't save anything...
I used to be SO pro-upgrade it made me sick. Now, I would love just to tell them NO just to spite them. One of their selling features is Backwards Compatibility! We shouldn't have to upgrade for a long time! :laugh:
-
Tell 'em to ......
.....wait for it......
"Get Bent"
-
Too bad his name isn't Lee!
-
<embed source="../Bentley/WhoCares/crickets.wav">
:roll:
Alright, wiseguy... who asked you? Because they should be fired!
can you just buy two new seats? hey it's only money! and besides, you'll be supporting poor ol' bentley. :)
You'd think, wouldn't you?
Well, here's the thing; One of the bosses here, thought it was a great idea to opt out of Select (subscription for the 'deskers) so we now have these awesome "Back-Fees" of $940 per year / per license. At least they stopped calling them "Welcome Back Fees" and I'm not kidding! The quote I received back in February or maybe it was sometime last year... they called these things "Welcome Back Fees"... It's like punishing people for being return customers!!!
Anyway, they opted out of Select about 8 or 9 years ago and Bentley has done us the 'favour' of reducing it down to 4 years worth of back-fees. This equates to $3,760 plus the fee of $940 for THIS year. If we wanted to upgrade BOTH seats, we just double that. If we buy them brand spanking new, one seat of "Vanilla Microstation" is over $6,100, so we wouldn't save anything...
I used to be SO pro-upgrade it made me sick. Now, I would love just to tell them NO just to spite them. One of their selling features is Backwards Compatibility! We shouldn't have to upgrade for a long time! :laugh:
Exactly the reason the for years I've been barking about customers just saying NO to subscription from any source. You almost get the impression that they feel entitled to your money just because you have the product. The Welcome Back fees are indeed a laugh, as they are essentially back charging you for using the old product that you've already paid for. However because you opted out of the Select program they did not get their rent on the product for those years, and boy do you OWE them for that.
Every software user outthere, needs to just say NO, no new product, no new subscription, NO.
I'm willing to wager less than 6 months the forced subscription system would end. As well as the crappy release every year that goes along with.
To those that say it will cost more, great IF the product works as advertised, and is forward and backward com patable perfect. It can not cost more than paying for software you do not install or that fails to function as advertised.
-
Having been on the marketing side of software sales, let me give you a tidbit of information to consider ...
Lets say you have several clients, one upgrades at every upgrade cycle and pays a reduced rate per seat, another client upgrades every other cycle, and yet another upgrades only occasionally, whenever it is beneficial to them.
The way I see it is if you allow an occasional upgrader to upgrade without paying the same fees as the always upgrader, you risk losing business from the always upgraders. This is a fine line that is walked every day by software developers.
Some of the software I have out, is upgraded absolutely free at every upgrade cycle, so long as they maintain a support contract. If the support contract lapses, they pay the upgrade fee from the version they have for every version, up to the full retail of the current version. If this offends their sensabilities, they they are free to seek software elsewhere. I am not here to provide their business with software at a cheap rate. I am here to make a living.
-
Mike, cant you just buy 1 new seat, and carry on using the older versions? (or does that not fit into the "Bentley Way")
-
Having been on the marketing side of software sales, let me give you a tidbit of information to consider ...
Lets say you have several clients, one upgrades at every upgrade cycle and pays a reduced rate per seat, another client upgrades every other cycle, and yet another upgrades only occasionally, whenever it is beneficial to them.
The way I see it is if you allow an occasional upgrader to upgrade without paying the same fees as the always upgrader, you risk losing business from the always upgraders. This is a fine line that is walked every day by software developers.
Some of the software I have out, is upgraded absolutely free at every upgrade cycle, so long as they maintain a support contract. If the support contract lapses, they pay the upgrade fee from the version they have for every version, up to the full retail of the current version. If this offends their sensabilities, they they are free to seek software elsewhere. I am not here to provide their business with software at a cheap rate. I am here to make a living.
Don't punish anyone for upgrading, i.e. come up with a model that makes sense without offending your customers either way. Price the product for what it is worth. Price the support for what it worth. Don't force a subscription on anyone otherwide you have created the scenario described, and it does offend the customer.
Time for a shift in the business model....just because that is the way you do it, or it has been done, does not make it right, or the way it should be done.
Time for some creative thinking.
-
So you pay a subscription fee so when the next big version release comes out you get it free?
-
I used to work in manufacturing where I used CabinetVision Solid. (If you haven't seen it, it's like dynamic blocks on steroids) They had a $500/yr "support" fee. Problem was, they had no support. Supposedly, while I used it, there was an uprising and nearly all their support team quit. And when you called with a problem, they usually blamed it on your computer ("Well, it works on our end."). The support fee was supposed to include all minor versions that they would mail out for free. We received maybe 2 minor updates over 5 years.
I guess where I'm going with this is, support fees suck when the company sucks.
-
I understand Keith's point of making a living, but the feeling of being strong arm into and to continue to be in situation is what has sort of left a bad taste for us. It sort of feels like extortion.
-
Trust the 'support' from autodesk is virtually non existant. Also in the years since 'subscription' came out, on the civil side we have seen at best ONE 'extention' to the product each year. Now last year was different because they bought Inteli-solve and issued TWO extensions that were really only ONE that they shipped in two pieces.
Subscription is a scam to generate revenue stream period. It is not for or about serving the customer.
Make the product better, give us compelling new tools and features that actually function and we will buy the product without being forced into it. Make the product better and there will not be a need for strongarming the customer into the purchase, in fact we will be begging for it at any price,if you make the product better.
Stop putting it in a shiny new wrapper, and or changing the file format and telling us that it's new.
The new interface costs productivity, and the format change is just a tool to force users to upgrade because autodesk can't or wont design the product to be fully compatible with itself.
-
Trust the 'support' from autodesk is virtually non existant. Also in the years since 'subscription' came out, on the civil side we have seen at best ONE 'extention' to the product each year. Now last year was different because they bought Inteli-solve and issued TWO extensions that were really only ONE that they shipped in two pieces.
Subscription is a scam to generate revenue stream period. It is not for or about serving the customer.
Make the product better, give us compelling new tools and features that actually function and we will buy the product without being forced into it. Make the product better and there will not be a need for strongarming the customer into the purchase, in fact we will be begging for it at any price,if you make the product better.
Stop putting it in a shiny new wrapper, and or changing the file format and telling us that it's new.
The new interface costs productivity, and the format change is just a tool to force users to upgrade because autodesk can't or wont design the product to be fully compatible with itself.
You are correct ... subscription is all about generating a revenue stream. That is how we approach it, that is how many other companies approach it.
I suppose I could follow the lead of a few developers I know ... the software costs a certain amount of money, regardless. If you have V3 and you want V4, you pay the same as the guy who doesn't have V3. But then that wouldn't be considered fair practice either.
We have asked hundreds of clients what they felt would be the best method for them to have software provided. Many of them prefer subscription because in the long run it tends to be less expensive and they are always using the latest version. I suppose on the flip side is whether or not the client prefers to pay a little each year as opposed to a lump sum every few years. Many find the annual payments to be better and easier on the bottom line than a lump sum payment.
But then, if you were tasked to create a business model that protected the financial interests of a software vendor, while providing a useful product at a reasonable price, what would you do ... because we spent many days and weeks through trial and error to come up with a pricing scheme that we believe is fair, and according to many of our clients, fair to our clients.
The bottom line is that software is a tool that helps you do your job. Without it, you could likely still do it, albeit at a much slower pace. Thus the software makes you more productive. It is the ROI that you must look at to determine the value you are receiving. In the case of our software, the client has can have a 100% ROI after using the package just once.
-
I don't have the numbers with me and I've read so many now that I can't remember what they are, but we figured out that it would take 12 years of NOT buying an upgrade of AutoCAD to justify NOT going with subscription. Meaning the cost of subscription would take 12 years to accumulate and equal the price of a seat of AutoCAD. Now, for some reason, I was surprised by this, thinking that a number was off somewhere, but I don't think so. NOW, the numbers were different for LT and Raster Design...
Bentley, on the other hand... If one seat of Microstation is over $6100 and Select is $940 / year, that means that if you wait 6 - 7 years between upgrades and DON'T keep your Select fees up to date, you'll be about the same. Any sooner and it just pays to stay on Select.
So, in theory, it is twice as cost efficient to be on the subscription program with Autodesk as it is to be on Select with Bentley. Based on numbers we were quoted, anyway.
-
What is Select? Bentley's version a Subscription?
-
What is Select? Bentley's version a Subscription?
Yessir and their version of a network license is called a "perpetual license"
-
What is Select? Bentley's version a Subscription?
Yessir and their version of a network license is called a "perpetual license"
Lets use a pizza analogy here (I know software and pizza are not equal)
Subscription is a great idea for LOCKING your customer into their software decision.
Think about it, you walk into my pizza place, and order a pizza.
Then I force you to subscribe (by making it appear cost effective) by making it sound like paying for your next pizza from me is a good deal. Because your next pizza is going to cost you more than this one if you don't.
Then you get the pizza, and well it just isn't that good.
So you leave thingking the next one must be better.
The good news for me is,I have your money for the next pizza wether you eat it or not.
I also have your money even if you don't like the pizza.
For you the customer, then next time you think about a pizza, you come to me.
Why? Well it isn't because the pizza is any good, it's because I already have your money
and you keep thinking its a good deal. Why because the salesmen and the marketing folks have you believing it is a good deal.
This is how it works, they have convinced you that it is a good deal. It isn't, given that in most instances companies do not install the new version they paid for. No matter how much you think you saved you didn't.
Worse because you have bought in to this model, you remove the market incentive to produce a better product.
And because they have you money already they do not care if the market hates the new product. Because they have your money, and you do not matter after that.
A 'fair' practice would be more or less along these lines:
The cost of the product is whatever it is.
A new version will only be released when new tools or increased functionality is added to the product, and the product will remain compatible with itself so that version compatibility is not an issue.
When a new version is released, new customers pay full price.
Now here's the fair part:
Current users that have contributed to product development through involvement with the BETA team, and or active feedback with development team. (Error reports, emails, etc.) they get the product at 25%. Because they have helped develop the new thing I am selling. This way I am paying them for testing and suffering through the new stuff.
Users that upgrade after one (1) year of ownership or less without helping on product development they get the product at 35%.
Users that upgrade after two years get the product at 40%
Users that upgrade after 4 years get the product at 70%.
Users that do not upgrade after 5 years, are telling you that your product has no compelling reason for them to upgrade. And then you know that you need to work on a better product. Not a new interface, or forced file format change to make them upgrade. Either your product does all that they need, or your new product does not meet their needs or expectations.
If users want or need support, that is a different fee.
If a user wants to be in an active update mode, where they get any and all new features and or functions the instant they pass beta (subscription), they then pay Full price for the initial version PLUS 15%, with 15% of the new price each year thereafter.
I think that if you 'do the math' the software company still makes money on this arrangement, and the customer gets a better product.
As it stands no one can not say that their ROI, of any autodesk product is 100% the first time they use it.
Now this statement isn't true for SINCPAK3D, or perhaps even the product you sell. However if you think about, subscription is extortion. Pay us now, or pay us more later, even IF the only reason you are upgrading is because WE changed the drawing format on you, and all our other customers. Doesn't sound fair at all.
I do not even subscribe to magazines for similar reasons. There are some issues that I either can't or do not read, and If I do not actual get some utility for my money (read the magazine) I did not save anything. And this is often the case with autodesk and bentley and the subscription sales pitch, users have the new product, they do not install that new product, often running 3 releases behind in implementation. This folks is not saving money, this is spending money hoping the new product wont cost you more later when and or if it's is stable enough to transition to and not lose productivity along the way.
-
Pizza is a very poor analogy here. You consume the pizza and its gone, to get another you have to pay full price (or extortion by some definitions). It isn't extortion as you are quite free NOT to pay it, or buy something else (MicroStation), or pay upgrade fees instead of subscription, or draw with a pencil, or use one of the wonderful FOSS CAD applications.
Why 15% for an annual subscription? 15% of what number? What is your basis for that number? Does it cover the cost of development? What makes you think 15% is 'fair'? Why not 30%?
Why should I get a 75% discount for making a suggestion? Would ANY suggestion/participation qualify? Who evaluates the suggestions/participation? What does that cost?
Why should I be extorted out of an addition 10% just because I haven't the time to do a complete beta test of the product and want the next release this year?
Wait a minute I missed the cut-off date by a month and it cost me an additional 30% to upgrade?? That's extortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Basically your model is no different than the one Autodesk employs, except the numbers are a little different. To upgrade from R2006 (non-subscription) to R2009 is currently around $1500 (adding subscription), roughly 25%-30%. Subscription is $450 (about 8%), for a total of about $2000 or around 35% of retail at three years ... well maybe the numbers aren't that different. Seems, for all your complaining, you came up with Autodesk's business model.
Yes the numbers are there to generate revenue. Guess what, they are 'business' to generate revenue, big surprise. That's why I'm in business and I'm guessing its why you're in business.
-
Don't punish anyone for upgrading, i.e. come up with a model that makes sense without offending your customers either way.
Why is paying for an upgrade a punishment?
Price the product for what it is worth. Price the support for what it worth.
What' is it worth? If I'm only making pennies with the product, its only worth pennies to me, but if I'm making millions with the product its worth ...
Don't force a subscription on anyone otherwide you have created the scenario described, and it does offend the customer.
Subscriptions are NOT forced. I have a seat of R2006 that is not on subscription and I can upgrade it to R2009 without subscription at a discount until November, 2008 or with subscription until January 2009. After that I'll just buy a new seat and have two, one at R2006 and one at R2009.
Time for a shift in the business model....just because that is the way you do it, or it has been done, does not make it right, or the way it should be done.
Time for some creative thinking.
Cool, let's hear it.
-
>>Time for some creative thinking.
>>>>Cool, let's hear it.
Well, I'd like to see software be available like a heavy machinery hire service, ie. dry hire - they supply the machine, you supply the operator.
You can pay per month/quarter/year, whatever suits but you have access to the latest software available and the vendor is responsible for upgrades, development and support (training type support would obviously be extra). If you want to change, just adjust the hire rate/s to suit the application.
This could possibly be more profitable than a sales/subscription scheme. It would also enable the vendor to provide decent support/upgrades and realistic productive product enhancements rather than the big push for more bells and whistles for the next release.
I don't think you would even need a 'release' for that matter, just version upgrades, some with new features.
While I can't see companies like adesk adopting this sort of structure (they are too entrenched/shackled in their current business model) it would be a good basis for a new or more flexible business.
just my 2 cents.
-
Key point that you miss about the model I am discussing, and it throws your math out the window.
This model does not issue a NEW version every year. This model will release a new version only when application development warrants it. Thus we do not have people holding out (like R14) for 8 years or more and not upgrading.
The product is market driven, not the other way around as is current practice.
Product 'involvement' would require more than a single comment. The user must be actively engaged in the process.
This model actually pays the user in the form of a discount to participate in the beta. At present they seem to think that it is our privilege to beta test the product for them, and pay for the opportunity to do so. (Error report any one!)
So go do 'the math' over and consider that it is not an annual upgrade, and you will see the numbers are different.
-
So, Michael, is it your contention that there was no product improvement from R14 to R2000? I simply don't agree, in fact, IMHO, it was probably the best upgrade of all the Autodesk upgrades.
Regardless, people do have the choice, there is no extortion going on, period. You can choose to pay for the subscription or you can choose to not pay for it. You can choose to upgrade each year, intermittently or never. You are never forced to upgrade.
If you contend that the ROI for a seat does not warrant an annual upgrade, then perhaps you shouldn't be using the software.
I can pay for an annual subscription to Autodesk with the profits from a single client. Others may not have that luxury or ability. Perhaps they should look at cheaper alternatives or a different field.
-
So, Michael, is it your contention that there was no product improvement from R14 to R2000? I simply don't agree, in fact, IMHO, it was probably the best upgrade of all the Autodesk upgrades.
No I did not say there was no product improvement. I am saying that people are still using R14.
If the product was improved enough to justify needing or wanting to upgrade because there was sufficient improvements there would be no need to force users to upgrade with format changes and compatibility issues.
Make the product better with each release such that it justifies the upgrade, not because of interface, or file format issues. Make the product that much better that the customer INSISTS on upgrading because the tools are vastly improved.
As I said, no ROI from the initial use of the product. Sure over the life of a contract with a particular client, there should be some return unless your business model does not charge for the value of your services, in which case you need to be in another business, not just shopping for cheaper software.
Sure there is a choice, unfortunately the 'choice' is forced on you by the economic model they employ. It should not cost a user to not upgrade, and their product should not become incompatible thus forcing them to upgrade, and then paying the penalty for having not done so every year.
-
Sure there is a choice, unfortunately the 'choice' is forced on you by the economic model they employ. It should not cost a user to not upgrade, and their product should not become incompatible thus forcing them to upgrade, and then paying the penalty for having not done so every year.
I think that is a pessimistic viewpoint. You say that a person who does not upgrade with each release is penalized, by having to pay either full price for the seat or at very least a higher price than their neighbor who upgraded each cycle.
I tend to see it from another perspective. If the cost to upgrade is not on parity with those who choose to upgrade regularly and those who choose to upgrade infrequently, then you are indeed penalizing those who do what you want them to do. Upgrade cycles are timed to maximize profits, I don't think there is any debate about that. As such the software companies want you to upgrade at each cycle, there is also no debate about that. If you do what the software sompany wants and upgrade each cycle, you are rewarded with a lower price overall, however, if you do not upgrade each cycle, (i.e. you are not doing what the company wants you to do) then why should they feel compelled to treat you the same as those who are?
Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be ... but, if you play the game by the rules of those whose game it is you are playing, you will invariably be treated better than those who do not, or at least you should be.
Lets look at Microsoft for a minute ... For $300 per year, I can put just about every piece of software Microsoft produces on 5 computers and in some instances 10 computers. However, I must agree to do this yearly, on subscription. If I choose to do like most people and upgrade whenever the mood strikes me to do so, then I can expect to pay $279 for a seat of MS Office or $129 for an upgrade. Overall, I win and they win. Autodesk is no different.
I believe your contention that the product is poor and/or there is little new development is inaccurate, even if the enhancements are incorporation of already existing lisp tools into the base package.
-
Here are some numbers to chew on a bit.
I don't have the actual cost for one NEW seat of Microstation because they're "So Good" at getting back to me in a timely fashion. Maybe they're getting back AT me (for referring to their "Awesome back-fees") and not TO me. So, I'm just using the number that he gave to me verbally. $6,100 for a new seat of Microstation.
-
Does subscription costs change at all? Or do you lock in?
-
Does subscription costs change at all? Or do you lock in?
Well, that, I don't know. I was just assuming that all costs would stay the same. The chances of that happening, I would say, are slim.
-
>>Time for some creative thinking.
>>>>Cool, let's hear it.
Well, I'd like to see software be available like a heavy machinery hire service, ie. dry hire - they supply the machine, you supply the operator.
You can pay per month/quarter/year, whatever suits but you have access to the latest software available and the vendor is responsible for upgrades, development and support (training type support would obviously be extra). If you want to change, just adjust the hire rate/s to suit the application.
This could possibly be more profitable than a sales/subscription scheme. It would also enable the vendor to provide decent support/upgrades and realistic productive product enhancements rather than the big push for more bells and whistles for the next release.
I don't think you would even need a 'release' for that matter, just version upgrades, some with new features.
While I can't see companies like adesk adopting this sort of structure (they are too entrenched/shackled in their current business model) it would be a good basis for a new or more flexible business.
just my 2 cents.
There are a couple high-end packages that employ that model. Its a nightmare of management for the large user. If I need to add five seats to a project that is currently underway using several dozen seats, its on me to make sure the versions match and are compatible with the database application engine. I currently have four versions of the same application running on seven different projects, each employing a different database application version. We keep them on four separate application servers just to keep track of licensing. Throw on top of that the exponentially increased involvement of the applications vendor in heavily supporting older releases at the same time supporting the new releases and you wind up with an application that comes in over $600 per seat/per MONTH leased.
While it is flexible for us, add a seat when we need it, lose it at will, it is an overhead anchor for the vendor, one for which he doesn't mind charging.
-
Key point that you miss about the model I am discussing, and it throws your math out the window.
This model does not issue a NEW version every year. This model will release a new version only when application development warrants it. Thus we do not have people holding out (like R14) for 8 years or more and not upgrading.
What makes you think people won't hold out? If what they have is working for what they do, why upgrade? I know a guy still running R12 in production, it does everything he needs and more. Why should he pay another penny to upgrade or subscribe? I think you're confused over the reasons people don't upgrade. R2006 was a big 3D release, if you didn't do 3D, R2006 did very little for you and there was no business reason to upgrade. However if you were into 3D, or wanting to move that direction, R2006 was an excellent time to upgrade.
Each upgrade gives advantages for some, that others may not need, so who gets to determine "when application development warrants it"? You seem to think that there is only one use for the product; yours, and an upgrade is only warranted when 'you' need it.
The product is market driven, not the other way around as is current practice.
It is market driven, just not by your market.
Product 'involvement' would require more than a single comment. The user must be actively engaged in the process.
What's "activily engaged", three comments? What if I try it, like it and have no issues with it that require comments? Is my time wasted or do I still get a discount? Or do we now have to burn extra hours to fill out some rigid form to prove we actually tested the product? What's the overhead costs on managing and tracking "proof of engagement'?
So go do 'the math' over and consider that it is not an annual upgrade, and you will see the numbers are different.
Nope same ratios, only higher now.
-
No I did not say there was no product improvement. I am saying that people are still using R14.
R14 does all they need, why spend money?
If the product was improved enough to justify needing or wanting to upgrade because there was sufficient improvements there would be no need to force users to upgrade with format changes and compatibility issues.
No one is FORCED to upgrade. You keep saying that like its true, and its not. You just said above that some are still using R14, that is proof that they aren't forced to upgrade. I know a guy using R12 to drive a water-jet cutter to cut designs in synthetic stone. He doesn't do drawings, doesn't print, doesn't do 3D, doesn't share files with anyone. He hasn't upgraded (nor been forced to) because he doesn't need to upgrade.
Make the product better with each release such that it justifies the upgrade, not because of interface, or file format issues. Make the product that much better that the customer INSISTS on upgrading because the tools are vastly improved.
Some customers are insisting on the upgrades about which you complain. Do not think that because 'you' don't want the upgrade, that others agree. Each upgrade brings advantages to some users. If you don't see the advantage, don't upgrade. No ONE forces you to upgrade.
Sure there is a choice, unfortunately the 'choice' is forced on you by the economic model they employ. It should not cost a user to not upgrade, and their product should not become incompatible thus forcing them to upgrade, and then paying the penalty for having not done so every year.
You're confused. My R12 works just fine, as does my V2.6, R2002 and R2006. I have not been forced to upgrade them and they remain as compatible as they were when purchased, and I've paid NO penalties whatsoever. I'll be upgrading the R2006 this month to take advantage of the new features in R2009.
-
Clearly you can not imagine the paradigm that I am speaking of.
Its a thought exercise, and your thoughts and ideas still seam to be locked into comparing it to the autodesk or bentley model.
The product development path I imagine would not create any realease that would not serve the entire user base.
There would be some holdouts, however not to the extent of autodesk users because the product is advanced in a different manner. Your involvement with the product is quite easy to track, and if you use it and have no comments that simply means we made the product right for you, and you may never need to upgrade! Only you can't imagine that. If you do have comments that lead to product advances trust that the company will know it, and it isn't that difficult to log an IP address, email, or webform form.
Also we would not have products like r13 or 2009 where it seams the upgrade is worse for you than running the old version because of the active beta process employed. We would know that the product works, and delivers the functionality the customers asked for, without losing productivity (needless interface redesigns) or incompatibility issues (like MAP inside Civil 3D not working with any of the objects that Civil 3D creates).
There is no need to debate any of this, unless you can imagine something other than what you continue to compare it to.
It's obvious to me that you can't otherwise how or where are you inventing comparative upgrade costs?
As you and others have posted charts with respect to ANNUAL upgrade costs based on the current model.
How can you even begin to perform such cost analysis without knowing A)the cost of the product or B) the actual upgrade schedule. This could be every two years, or 18 months, or whenever the product was actually made to perform more functions better, not every year just because we want your money.
Perhaps Financially Coerced into buying into the Subscription program is the more correct phrase.
-
I still don't see it. Why should XYZ Industries get a cost break on upgrade fees from R2002 to R2009, when ABC Co. has upgraded at every cycle. It seems from a business perspective, that ABC Co. would be the better client, and the software developer would have more at stake keeping them happy over XYZ Industries. It is about making money ... you keep your best clients happy, those who moan and complain are managed on a 1 to 1 basis.
Personally, I would rather charge you more every 5 years to keep my other clients that pay me every year happy. If I charged you the same as them, they would soon become just like you and upgrade only every 5 years. In year 2, I would be seeking bankruptsy protection due to lack of cash flow.
-
I still don't see it. Why should XYZ Industries get a cost break on upgrade fees from R2002 to R2009, when ABC Co. has upgraded at every cycle. It seems from a business perspective, that ABC Co. would be the better client, and the software developer would have more at stake keeping them happy over XYZ Industries. It is about making money ... you keep your best clients happy, those who moan and complain are managed on a 1 to 1 basis.
Personally, I would rather charge you more every 5 years to keep my other clients that pay me every year happy. If I charged you the same as them, they would soon become just like you and upgrade only every 5 years. In year 2, I would be seeking bankruptsy protection due to lack of cash flow.
You can't imagine what I am speaking to.
The customer that doesn't upgrade is not getting the software for less, go read the model again.
The customer that does upgrade does get a break.
The customer that is happy with the product at any version is not coerced in any financial way to literally buy in to my business model. The product remains compatible r-1 to r-infinity so there are no issues with working with others data that do upgrade. When he does upgrade he pays full price, no break. And there are no 'you did not upgrade when I wanted you to fees' added on.
The thing you don't get is XYZ company should not and is not getting a break on 'upgrade fees', if the product worked for them, and there was no compelling reason for them to upgrade they should not be fined because they did not NEED the features of each new version. IF you had made a better product they would have upgraded sooner.
The fact that ABC willingly choose to upgrade because he wanted your offering does not mean the XYZ should then pay more money so that he pays for not upgrading. And thus the new price is higher for him than ABC and that is not his fault that your product A)met his needs so well that he did not want or need to upgrade or B)offered no new features or functions that met his needs. The fault is yours as the developer that your customer saw no compelling business case to buy your new product, and thus you should go out of the software business, and stay out of the extortion racket at the same time.
The customers that participate in developing the product to make it more desirable and more profitable for the developer do get a break and you will be taking better care of them. And you will make more money off of everyone, because your customers will not feel extorted upon to continuously upgrade or pay the price for not, (compatibility issues) and extra fees when they do decide that your new offering is right for them. Everyone is happy and you make more money because of it. Just because a company now places the subscription as a budget item does not indicate they are 'happy' with your product or service. They may, like many, simply accept that that is the game, and those are the rules, and so they send a check every year.
Thus the reason many user sites have 'rules' about why you can not discuss the things we are discussing.
They know their customers are not happy with the impacts their business model has on them, and don't want to hear it, bentley nor autodesk want to hear it, because they censor, delete, or otherwise discourage any such open discourse on their sites, it even spills over into the puppet kingdom known as augi. Go read their rules and you'll see that they do not want to hear about customer dissatisfaction because they know the customers are not happy.
Your customers may not be has happy as their checks make you think they are.
Thankfully The Swamp is not controlled by any such corporate influences, or we would not be able to even have this discussion.
Thank You Mark!
-
The product development path I imagine would not create any realease that would not .
The ENTIRE user base?? Architects, machinists, artists, fabrication detailers, home builders, and nuclear plant engineers?? PLEASE name that product, name one close, heck name one that will serve the needs of half those guys. You're fantasizing about an impossible product.
There would be some holdouts, however not to the extent of autodesk users because the product is advanced in a different manner. Your involvement with the product is quite easy to track, and if you use it and have no comments that simply means we made the product right for you, and you may never need to upgrade!
The 'beta' version is the version with which I may have no issue, which means I may wish to upgrade to that version. Please attempt some consistancy here. How do you track my involvement with a beta test? Be specific, cite costs.
Only you can't imagine that.
ummm... I'm the one that pointed out that some folks are quite happy not upgrading beyond R12 and see no need for anything else.
If you do have comments that lead to product advances trust that the company will know it, and it isn't that difficult to log an IP address, email, or webform form.
Log what IP address? the one from which I download the beta version? How do you track my usage/testing? What is the proof of involvement, an email saying I'm involved?
Also we would not have products like r13 or 2009 where it seams the upgrade is worse for you than running the old version because of the active beta process employed.
I beta tested R2009 for several months and have had no performance issues with the tests I've run.
We would know that the product works, and delivers the functionality the customers asked for, without losing productivity (needless interface redesigns) or incompatibility issues (like MAP inside Civil 3D not working with any of the objects that Civil 3D creates).
Have you signed up for Autodesk Feedback and their Beta program? You could have tested those issues prior to release.
There is no need to debate any of this, unless you can imagine something other than what you continue to compare it to.
I'm waiting on you to show me something different, so far you've accurately described the status quo of the product. Give me some details that ARE different.
It's obvious to me that you can't otherwise how or where are you inventing comparative upgrade costs?
Inventing?? I just got the quote from my reseller last week.
As you and others have posted charts with respect to ANNUAL upgrade costs based on the current model.
I've posted no schedule, please keep up.
How can you even begin to perform such cost analysis without knowing A)the cost of the product or B) the actual upgrade schedule.
I know the cost of the product I currently own. You, as yet have provided NO details of this imaginary "end-all-be-all" application or its cost and upgrade schedule. But that again begs the question that if it truly is a product that would "serve the entire user base", how could there possibly be an upgrade?
This could be every two years, or 18 months, or whenever the product was actually made to perform more functions better, not every year just because we want your money.
You don't have to give it to them, you know. Just don't write the check, its pretty simple.
Perhaps Financially Coerced into buying into the Subscription program is the more correct phrase.
IF you're going to upgrade every release (your choice, BTW) then it may be cheaper to subscribe. If you're not going to upgrade every release maybe a subscription is not what you want. NO one is forcing you to do anything. Its your money spend it how you wish.
You seem to be complaining that they are cutting you a break on cost, and thereby 'forcing' you to buy the subscription ... because you save money that way ... ???
-
You can't imagine what I am speaking to.
The customer that doesn't upgrade is not getting the software for less, go read the model again.
The customer that does upgrade does get a break.
I've read your model several times now, its still the same.
The customer that is happy with the product at any version is not coerced in any financial way to literally buy in to my business model.
Which is the current status quo for AutoCAD. What's different with your model?
The product remains compatible r-1 to r-infinity
BA-loney, where have you been the last three decades? The OS is not going to be compatible to something thirty years from now, much less "infinity". How do you write a product at R1 that already KNOWS ALL the advances in ALL hardware and ALL software that will be made thirty or fifty or a hundred years from now? You're going to develop something that reads the future first?
When he does upgrade he pays full price, no break.
Wait a minute, your other model had all kinds of discounts, now no break. You WANT to pay more for the product??
And there are no 'you did not upgrade when I wanted you to fees' added on.
They are not added on now, the discounts for upgrading THEN are removed and you pay full price, just like you want to in the sentence above.
The thing you don't get is XYZ company should not and is not getting a break on 'upgrade fees', if the product worked for them, and there was no compelling reason for them to upgrade they should not be fined because they did not NEED the features of each new version.
Again you're confused. No one is fined for anything, their discounts are lost by not upgrading at a specified time and they pay full price just your model two quotes above.
IF you had made a better product they would have upgraded sooner.
Not if they didn't need the new features. Why upgrade if it does all you need?
The fact that ABC willingly choose to upgrade because he wanted your offering does not mean the XYZ should then pay more money so that he pays for not upgrading.
You're confused again. He doesn't pay more, he pays full price, just like your model four quotes above. The guy that upgrades at every release gets a discount. You do realize that you can buy the subscription and NOT install each upgrade, right?
And thus the new price is higher for him than ABC and that is not his fault that your product A)met his needs so well that he did not want or need to upgrade or B)offered no new features or functions that met his needs.
Its his fault he didn't apply for his discount under the specified time table. "50% off today only", if you wait until tomorrow, that's your fault.
The fault is yours as the developer that your customer saw no compelling business case to buy your new product, and thus you should go out of the software business, and stay out of the extortion racket at the same time.
yep that's where Autodesk is headed alright. Right out of business. Again you're misusing words in an attempt to paint this business model dark. There is no extortion, no forcing you to buy anything, nothing of the kind. If you want the discount, purchase under the timetable, otherwise pay full price, just like you wanted above.
Thankfully The Swamp is not controlled by any such corporate influences, or we would not be able to even have this discussion.
I'm still waiting for the discussion. So far you've complained about the plan Autodesk currently uses, then outlined the very same plan as a replacement <other than the feature that sees the future>, you're just confused over the difference between discounts and penalties. They that do not upgrade are not paying penalties, they are merely paying full price.
Thank You Mark!
Yes, quite.
-
After whining about their "Welcome Back Fees" as they used to be called, they finally folded and gave us the second license instead of making us 'surrender' it. That's the short story...
And I got an 'attaboy' out of it, too. :)
I can't tell you how pumped up I am to Click Uninstall on Microstation '95!!!! :-D w00t!!!!!
-
After whining about their "Welcome Back Fees" as they used to be called, they finally folded and gave us the second license instead of making us 'surrender' it. That's the short story...
And I got an 'attaboy' out of it, too. :)
I can't tell you how pumped up I am to Click Uninstall on Microstation '95!!!! :-D w00t!!!!!
Now you folks can see that part of the model I was discussing actually works. It makes the the customer happy (see above quote) and they do not feel extorted upon, and thus they will buy your product willingly.
And to bentley's credit they do a fair approximation of complete product compatibility, including import functionality of various autocad releases.
-
It makes the the customer happy (see above quote) and they do not feel extorted upon, and thus they will buy your product willingly.
There is SOME truth to that, but I still can't believe what their "Plan A" is!
A) Screw 'em
if customer resists,
B) Lubrify it up a bit with a small discount and a smile
if customer is still not happy,
C) Admit guilt, then trick customer into thinking that they're getting a really good deal.
Plan C should be their original Plan A, in my (the customer's) opinion. If I'm Mr. Bentley, Plan A works because you can fool some of the people some of the time.
-
A) Screw 'em
if customer resists,
B) Lubrify it up a bit with a small discount and a smile
if customer is still not happy,
C) Admit guilt, then trick customer into thinking that they're getting a really good deal.
Plan C should be their original Plan A, in my (the customer's) opinion. If I'm Mr. Bentley, Plan A works because you can fool some of the people some of the time.
Man, that's standard business practices in some places. Negotiating a price is part of the process. Hell, some people get upset when you take 'option A' because they figure they could have gotten more from you.. :)
-
Oh, I know, but it's a matter of just how bad Plan A looks to the customer.
Short story:
We have two old licenses and want to upgrade one.
Sure, you can do that, but you have to give us your old one.
"Not bloody likely!"
Also, does anyone know if when 're-entering' autodesks subscription program years after opting out of it, do you have to pay "back-fees" of any kind?
-
After whining about their "Welcome Back Fees" as they used to be called, they finally folded and gave us the second license instead of making us 'surrender' it. That's the short story...
And I got an 'attaboy' out of it, too. :)
I can't tell you how pumped up I am to Click Uninstall on Microstation '95!!!! :-D w00t!!!!!
Okay, what was the final cost to upgrade both seats to current?
-
After whining about their "Welcome Back Fees" as they used to be called, they finally folded and gave us the second license instead of making us 'surrender' it. That's the short story...
And I got an 'attaboy' out of it, too. :)
I can't tell you how pumped up I am to Click Uninstall on Microstation '95!!!! :-D w00t!!!!!
Now you folks can see that part of the model I was discussing actually works. It makes the the customer happy (see above quote) and they do not feel extorted upon, and thus they will buy your product willingly.
<snort> okay, let me get this straight. In your model you WANT the vendor to tell you he is fixing to screw the bejeebers out of you, so that you'll be happy when he doesn't??
BTW, in the quote above he is happy to UNinstall the old crappy version.
And to bentley's credit they do a fair approximation of complete product compatibility, including import functionality of various autocad releases.
You have apparently rarely used the product. The did a fair job of compatibility by remaining in an EXTREMELY outdated (and inaccurate) interger-based graphics format until V8, that should have been abandoned in the mid-eighties (when everyone else bailed on it). If you don't ever change the the program, it will remain compatible, it will also remain stagnant with outdated processes. A lesson Bentley finally learned and moved away from "connect-the-dot" concepts with V8.
V8 is more compatible with AutoCAD than it is with Bentley's previous versions. If you save a DGN in V8, earlier versions will not open it.
-
Also, does anyone know if when 're-entering' autodesks subscription program years after opting out of it, do you have to pay "back-fees" of any kind?
Upgrading from an earlier release without subscription (and remaining unsubscribed) costs a little more than updating the same seat and adding subscription.
The price of upgrading an R2006 seat to R2009 without subscription is about $1550 (plus tax)
Upgrading that same seat, and adding Subscription is about $1440 (plus tax), then you have to pay for the subscription at $450. Adding the subscription give you a little over a $110 discount on the upgrade.
Had you gone with subscription with the R2006 purchase, the total upgrade costs to R2009 would have been just under $1400, a little over $150 discount from updating every three years without subscription. (plus the other minor bennies from subscription)
-
After whining about their "Welcome Back Fees" as they used to be called, they finally folded and gave us the second license instead of making us 'surrender' it. That's the short story...
And I got an 'attaboy' out of it, too. :)
I can't tell you how pumped up I am to Click Uninstall on Microstation '95!!!! :-D w00t!!!!!
Okay, what was the final cost to upgrade both seats to current?
Had to wait until I received the official quote to answer this one.
We ended up coming back at just under $9,000. Not bad, considering that the first quote was over $25,000! Scary to know that there are people out there who will just say 'yes' to the first offer.
-
What is Select? Bentley's version a Subscription?
Yessir and their version of a network license is called a "perpetual license"
Apparently, perpetual license is... something else. They actually just refer to it generically as a concurrent license. In my conversation with our sales rep, it also appears that there's no extra charge for a concurrent license like there is with Autodesk. So, maybe there's somewhat of a tradeoff between Bentley's back-fees and Autodesk's Network license fees. ?
-
:-o
this has to be the most excitement I've seen in here.
GO M-dub!
-
LOL
YAY Me! :-D
-
I believe at one time Bentley had the option of "renting" the software on an as-needed basis.
I could get a license for 3 months or a set period of time. I don't know if this is still an option
today or not as this was a few years ago when I first started my business.
I'm not sure about Bentley reseller either. I deal directly with Bentley now, when and
if I ever have an issue.
I will be calling them up as I just got an email to renew my Bentley Select
and it seems they want to do two years at a time. That part doesn't make me
very happy as it will be twice the amount as I have projected.
On thing mentioned is the yearly releases and the quality or lack thereof with the yearly releases.
I agree that stability is an issue with yearly releases. Not everyone one will utilize every release.
One reason not mentioned for yearly releases is competition. Since Microstation came out with
DWG capability (V8), Autodesk has changed there release schedule so that once Bentley caught up
to Autocad features, a new release came out.
As far as the best deal, I bounce around from so many versions that are set by the client that subscription
makes the most sense for me. I bought vanilla 2007 and when 2009 came out, I upgraded to MEP 2009
and I'm working in Building Systems 2006. I only installed vanilla 2008 to preview the software to do a proposal
of AU. I'm a small company and trying to come up with $4k+ for software is hard. A yearly charge of $1k is
much more manageable.
Pieter