Topic: Label Sizes

[Mark]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Is there any software that you actually like?

[mjfarrell]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Is there any software that you actually like?

It is NOT the software that I dislike...

It's the damnable subscription model that allows such craptastic programming to persist without influence from market forces.
As once they have you locked in to the product there is little to NO incentive to actually fix the broken crap that is in it, or ever make it EXCEEDINGLY better.
Instead of this glacially slow incremental (at best) improvements and or upgrades.

[mjfarrell]

add the fact that MAP still doesn't really work with Civil 3D objects, and you've just pissed me off for the next 96 days all over again!     

[Dinosaur]

add the fact that MAP still doesn't really work with Civil 3D objects, and you've just pissed me off for the next 96 days all over again!     

As I recall, it was while evaluating the 2006 release that the MAP interoperability (or lack thereof) was discovered.  I think i obvious the 2005 and 2004 pre release suffered the same.  That means over the entire product history and numerous complaints with not only zero in the way of solutions, but I don't think there has been a shrug to acknowledge that it is a problem that should be addressed by Autodesk.

[mjfarrell]

add the fact that MAP still doesn't really work with Civil 3D objects, and you've just pissed me off for the next 96 days all over again!     

As I recall, it was while evaluating the 2006 release that the MAP interoperability (or lack thereof) was discovered.  I think i obvious the 2005 and 2004 pre release suffered the same.  That means over the entire product history and numerous complaints with not only zero in the way of solutions, but I don't think there has been a shrug to acknowledge that it is a problem that should be addressed by Autodesk.

A discussion with an autodesk product person at AU and again later at a Vendor's office yielded not even the concession that it was even 'known' to be a problem.
Translation:

It isn't a problem unless we(Autodesk) say it is.

Same sort of reaction when discussion corridor object's failure to follow OFFSET Alignment stationing...
which would be a huge improvement to corridors for highways and other types of alignment based designs...however it was dismissed as " that's a Grading challenge not a corridor issue".

Failure to define a problem correctly almost always results in failing to resolve the problem.

[BlackBox]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Perpetual licenses are still available, and subscriptions hasn't even turned 5 yet, so... WTF are you even talking about?

Did you see how old this thread is before continuing the rant we see in nearly all of your threads?

Autodesk is the reason this particular issue exists, and has yet to be resolved; it has nothing to do with subscription to-date (not saying it looks more promising for future, but subscription didn't get us here Haha).

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Perpetual licenses are still available, and subscriptions hasn't even turned 5 yet, so... WTF are you even talking about?

Did you see how old this thread is before continuing the rant we see in nearly all of your threads?

Autodesk is the reason this particular issue exists, and has yet to be resolved; it has nothing to do with subscription to-date (not saying it looks more promising for future, but subscription didn't get us here Haha).

Cheers

To the contrary, 'subscription' has been around far longer than 5(five) years.  If you take the time to research I have been against it from the beginning.
For all the same reasons I continue to list.

Yes I saw how old this was, and it perfectly illustrates how subscription allows autodesk to ignore problems, defects, lack of functionality.  Because they have already convinced
companies to commit money to their product with the promise of a future discount.  The product doesn't have to get any better ....because they are no longer competing on functionality.

[cadtag]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Perpetual licenses are still available, and subscriptions hasn't even turned 5 yet, so... WTF are you even talking about?

Did you see how old this thread is before continuing the rant we see in nearly all of your threads?

Autodesk is the reason this particular issue exists, and has yet to be resolved; it has nothing to do with subscription to-date (not saying it looks more promising for future, but subscription didn't get us here Haha).

Cheers

Uhm,,, yea.  subscription has been around more like 15 years, not 5.  IIRC it was mid 90's that I first got involved with the start of subscription, then called 'VIP' or something to that effect.  Heck, Adesk still hast 'PointA.autodesk.com' as a valid URL.

And yes, subscription has been a driving factor in the weakness of improvements and fixes since R14.  Fundamentally, it's poor business to spend extensive amounts of resources doing upgrades, if a vendor has already been paid for that upgrade, yet is absolved by the EULA of the subscription of having to produce or create anything.

The sole benefit(s) to customers of the original subscription program were predictable annual costs (coupled with completely unpredictable benefits) and a change in taxation basis -- since subscription costs are directly deductible, and upgrades/license costs over $1K have to b3e treated as capital expenses and amortized.

The desktop subscription, on the other hand, encourages businesses to treat staff as disposable components -- hire on more temps & add a seat license when busy, then get rid of them as soon as the job is completed.  It's consistent with a sociopathic view of business ethics.

[BlackBox]

And this is where the ill effects of SUBSCRIPTION really show themselves.

Whereas IF autodesk had not already acquired the users MONEY they would be forced to deliver a better product to the user to get the money.

Perpetual licenses are still available, and subscriptions hasn't even turned 5 yet, so... WTF are you even talking about?

Did you see how old this thread is before continuing the rant we see in nearly all of your threads?

Autodesk is the reason this particular issue exists, and has yet to be resolved; it has nothing to do with subscription to-date (not saying it looks more promising for future, but subscription didn't get us here Haha).

Cheers

Uhm,,, yea.  subscription has been around more like 15 years, not 5.  IIRC it was mid 90's that I first got involved with the start of subscription, then called 'VIP' or something to that effect.  Heck, Adesk still hast 'PointA.autodesk.com' as a valid URL.

And yes, subscription has been a driving factor in the weakness of improvements and fixes since R14.  Fundamentally, it's poor business to spend extensive amounts of resources doing upgrades, if a vendor has already been paid for that upgrade, yet is absolved by the EULA of the subscription of having to produce or create anything.

The sole benefit(s) to customers of the original subscription program were predictable annual costs (coupled with completely unpredictable benefits) and a change in taxation basis -- since subscription costs are directly deductible, and upgrades/license costs over $1K have to b3e treated as capital expenses and amortized.

The desktop subscription, on the other hand, encourages businesses to treat staff as disposable components -- hire on more temps & add a seat license when busy, then get rid of them as soon as the job is completed.  It's consistent with a sociopathic view of business ethics.

So what?

Autodesk's legacy programs that offer 'services'... Wait for it... For a 'fee', does not _this_ "Subscription" make (as is defined and experienced in the current iteration of Autodesk policy). If that's all the basis for 'subscription's been around for 15 years', then methinks this a non sequitur, as I (in my limited experience) disagree with you premise, and don't really care that much, frankly. Haha

Besides, if that were all that is necessary to qualify for the 'same' subscription as a service concept, then you (perhaps through side work?), I, definitely MJF through his ranting, yet informative teaching sessions, if not myriad others, _all_ offer 'subscription' as it applies to the CAD-related service(s) being contracted.


Poor MJF (not beating you down, you just keep raising your hand for this, as it were), has been b!tching about this since the dawn of "Subscription" (and it's predecessors), and it's accomplished nothing as it pertains to what we currently have available.

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

yes because all others seem to have drank too much of the marketing cool-aide and believe it is good for them,, when it fact it isn't good for the development of the software.