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 ...