Topic: Bentley, Schmentley!

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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.

[Keith™]

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.

[mjfarrell]

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!

[CADaver]

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 ...

[CADaver]

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.

[M-dub]

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!!!!    w00t!!!!!

[mjfarrell]

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!!!!    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.

[M-dub]

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.

[Atook]

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..

[M-dub]

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?

[CADaver]

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!!!!    w00t!!!!!

Okay, what was the final cost to upgrade both seats to current?

[CADaver]

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!!!!    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.

[CADaver]

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)