TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: Jeff H on January 11, 2016, 02:03:14 PM
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
more need to do this, AND most importantly post about it in someway online so that a wave of people see and read about it,
make same choice, and also publicly blog it, such that Autodesk sees and hears about it, as well as feels it in their quarterly sales figures
that will be when the customers truly start to WIN!
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
Careful with that - they may read that differently than you intend. For example, they could see it as the particular product not being popular any more and lean towards cancelling further investment. That means less work on it in the future, and so a new wave of people moving off that product because they don't see any benefits, and around and around it goes.
You might want to ask "them" what they are planning to do at the next OS upgrade. Chances are what you have now won't work properly, or at all. That could be a huge expense not just in renewing licensing but potentially migrating to a different system.
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
Careful with that - they may read that differently than you intend. For example, they could see it as the particular product not being popular any more and lean towards cancelling further investment. That means less work on it in the future, and so a new wave of people moving off that product because they don't see any benefits, and around and around it goes.
You might want to ask "them" what they are planning to do at the next OS upgrade. Chances are what you have now won't work properly, or at all. That could be a huge expense not just in renewing licensing but potentially migrating to a different system.
They do what ever they want, they know everything better than everyone else does. I just informed them of the changes being done to licenses and forwarded them invoices.
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
Careful with that - they may read that differently than you intend. For example, they could see it as the particular product not being popular any more and lean towards cancelling further investment. That means less work on it in the future, and so a new wave of people moving off that product because they don't see any benefits, and around and around it goes.
You might want to ask "them" what they are planning to do at the next OS upgrade. Chances are what you have now won't work properly, or at all. That could be a huge expense not just in renewing licensing but potentially migrating to a different system.
possibly, unless of course the 'message' was delivered very clearly to the reseller
as in
Sorry we will NOT be upgrading and or 'subscribing' any longer as the VALUE for our INVESTMENT is retrograde to the COST.
However be sure to have Autodesk contact us directly so that we may inform them of how disproportionate the cost of each new version is to
the relative 'benefits' of and lack of actual 'new' features each provides.
or something similar...then there should be little confusion that the customer is NOT seeing the 'value' due to the forced yearly upgrade cycle and lack of actual
product enhancements, and or number of new bugs or work-arounds that must be dealt with each year.
-
LMAO!
Guy got fired and new one coming in, and just asked me to remove other guy and setup for new one coming in.
I would normally handle it through the subscription center, but now I don't know how we are going to handle licenses.
-
We let all subscriptions lapse and not renewing.
I am a little surprised and do not encourage either way but I guess they got tired of paying for software and see no benefit in upgrading.
Careful with that - they may read that differently than you intend. For example, they could see it as the particular product not being popular any more and lean towards cancelling further investment. That means less work on it in the future, and so a new wave of people moving off that product because they don't see any benefits, and around and around it goes.
You might want to ask "them" what they are planning to do at the next OS upgrade. Chances are what you have now won't work properly, or at all. That could be a huge expense not just in renewing licensing but potentially migrating to a different system.
possibly, unless of course the 'message' was delivered very clearly to the reseller
as in
Sorry we will NOT be upgrading and or 'subscribing' any longer as the VALUE for our INVESTMENT is retrograde to the COST.
However be sure to have Autodesk contact us directly so that we may inform them of how disproportionate the cost of each new version is to
the relative 'benefits' of and lack of actual 'new' features each provides.
or something similar...then there should be little confusion that the customer is NOT seeing the 'value' due to the forced yearly upgrade cycle and lack of actual
product enhancements, and or number of new bugs or work-arounds that must be dealt with each year.
Actually the conversion goes like this.
It's time to upgrade.
..
..
..
Can we all get back on 2005?
I will check.
People heard 2005 and they all start walking in saying I hate new versions of AutoCAD I wish we could go back to 2000
-
And that is just about the year I started WARNING people about the consequences of 'subscription' no matter what phrase autodesk was using at the time.
I knew then, the return for our 'investment' would be diminished, and their (Autodesk) responsiveness to what we really wanted or needed as well
as actual product development would suffer, due to the decoupling of sales to actual product capability as a result of 'locking' the customers in to each
successive release through this model.
-
LMAO!
Guy got fired and new one coming in, and just asked me to remove other guy and setup for new one coming in.
I would normally handle it through the subscription center, but now I don't know how we are going to handle licenses.
This 'should' be a matter of adding new guy's user profile to old fired guys workstation....as the cad license doesn't care whom is utilizing it.
-
Actually the conversion goes like this.
It's time to upgrade.
..
..
..
Can we all get back on 2005?
I will check.
People heard 2005 and they all start walking in saying I hate new versions of AutoCAD I wish we could go back to 2000
FWIW -
My surveyor (and VP of the company) is still using 2000 + Eagle Point... He uses RDP from his Win8.1x64 machine into his WinXPx86 Pro machine. I'm already planning on converting his WinXP machine to a VM, and store on his 64-bit workstation to consume via Client Hyper-V; just need a USB over IP device. :-D
The only reason the other folks at my office aren't still using Land Desktop 2004 (without the Land component installed; I know!), is because I didn't reinstall it when I did a clean install of Win8.1x64. :2funny:
*Plays the song "Lucifer" by Jay Z*
-
more need to do this......such that Autodesk sees and hears about it, as well as feels it in their quarterly sales figures
Autodesk pays a lot of smart people a lot of money to analyze the situation before making major business decisions like this. They are fully prepared to lose customers like you.
However, I'm quite sure the total percentage of lost customers will be impossible to notice and difficult to even measure.
-
^^
interesting way of saying you are a insignificant bug
:tongue2:
-
Krushed.
-
And that is just about the year I started WARNING people about the consequences of 'subscription' no matter what phrase autodesk was using at the time.
I knew then, the return for our 'investment' would be diminished, and their (Autodesk) responsiveness to what we really wanted or needed as well
as actual product development would suffer, due to the decoupling of sales to actual product capability as a result of 'locking' the customers in to each
successive release through this model.
Your argument is old now. Autodesk is moving forward. Please try and keep up.
1.5 Why is Autodesk discontinuing some perpetual licenses?
With this change, Autodesk is continuing its transition to subscription-based products, which offer customers a lower entry price, greater choice of tools, and the ability to pay-as-you-go. With its shift away from selling perpetual rights to use a specific version of software, Autodesk plans to continually innovate and improve its Desktop Subscription, Cloud and “network subscription” products & services, more tightly integrate them with cloud services, allow access from multiple devices at any time, make them easier to deploy and manage, and reduce file compatibility issues.
2.1 What is Desktop Subscription? Does Desktop Subscription use the cloud to store applications and data?
Desktop Subscription gives you access to Autodesk software—the same full version as with a perpetual license—but with a flexible, pay-as-you-go approach for a software budget that’s easier to manage. The desktop software application delivered through Desktop Subscription, as well as associated user data, continue to be stored on a local machine.
-
more need to do this......such that Autodesk sees and hears about it, as well as feels it in their quarterly sales figures
Autodesk pays a lot of smart people a lot of money to analyze the situation before making major business decisions like this. They are fully prepared to lose customers like you.
However, I'm quite sure the total percentage of lost customers will be impossible to notice and difficult to even measure.
perhaps they should hire more smart people and pay them a lot of money to actually improve the product offering year on year?
-
And that is just about the year I started WARNING people about the consequences of 'subscription' no matter what phrase autodesk was using at the time.
I knew then, the return for our 'investment' would be diminished, and their (Autodesk) responsiveness to what we really wanted or needed as well
as actual product development would suffer, due to the decoupling of sales to actual product capability as a result of 'locking' the customers in to each
successive release through this model.
Your argument is old now. Autodesk is moving forward. Please try and keep up.
1.5 Why is Autodesk discontinuing some perpetual licenses?
With this change, Autodesk is continuing its transition to subscription-based products, which offer customers a lower entry price, greater choice of tools, and the ability to pay-as-you-go. With its shift away from selling perpetual rights to use a specific version of software, Autodesk plans to continually innovate and improve its Desktop Subscription, Cloud and “network subscription” products & services, more tightly integrate them with cloud services, allow access from multiple devices at any time, make them easier to deploy and manage, and reduce file compatibility issues.
2.1 What is Desktop Subscription? Does Desktop Subscription use the cloud to store applications and data?
Desktop Subscription gives you access to Autodesk software—the same full version as with a perpetual license—but with a flexible, pay-as-you-go approach for a software budget that’s easier to manage. The desktop software application delivered through Desktop Subscription, as well as associated user data, continue to be stored on a local machine.
Their model and or name for this model may have changed; the argument against remains equally valid.
-
perhaps they should hire more smart people and pay them a lot of money to actually improve the product offering year on year?
I totally agree. I would love to see the massive list of bugs fixed and (real) new features added. But, you have to remember this:
"The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else."
-sboon (Autodesk Forums)
-
^^
interesting way of saying you are a insignificant bug
:tongue2:
whereas I may be insignificant to autodesk, the business decision regarding reduced value for the price of the product is not unique to me
as evidence by events which sparked this topic of discussion.
-
Their model and or name for this model may have changed; the argument against remains equally valid.
How so? IMO, and I wish someone from Autodesk would pipe-in here, their model is completely different.
Come on Michael ..... lets go ...... we're not in 2001 anymore. :-)
-
perhaps they should hire more smart people and pay them a lot of money to actually improve the product offering year on year?
I totally agree. I would love to see the massive list of bugs fixed and (real) new features added. But, you have to remember this:
"The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else."
-sboon (Autodesk Forums)
that is the root of my premise as well, shareholders do not products buy, and those of us that do are not pleased
-
Their model and or name for this model may have changed; the argument against remains equally valid.
How so? IMO, and I wish someone from Autodesk would pipe-in here, their model is completely different.
Come on Michael ..... lets go ...... we're not in 2001 anymore. :-)
no, it's still a 'subscription' , and it still disconnects them from being responsive to customer needs
however I guess if they are counting on people merely 'renting' a product as if it were a motel room,
then of course quality or enhancements are not their primary concern anymore.
-
perhaps they should hire more smart people and pay them a lot of money to actually improve the product offering year on year?
I totally agree. I would love to see the massive list of bugs fixed and (real) new features added. But, you have to remember this:
"The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else."
-sboon (Autodesk Forums)
Plus, one persons "great new feature" is another's "useless waste of my money"; one persons useful feature is another's bug (*cough*linetypes*cough). Its absolutely essential for all to realize that they aren't the only ones using the program, nor is their work process the latest, greatest, and only True Path.
-
90% of Autodesk customers DO NOT CARE about bugs or even know how find them probably.
Autodesk is catering to the majority of customers who just want new shiny things.
-
perhaps they should hire more smart people and pay them a lot of money to actually improve the product offering year on year?
I totally agree. I would love to see the massive list of bugs fixed and (real) new features added. But, you have to remember this:
"The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else."
-sboon (Autodesk Forums)
Plus, one persons "great new feature" is another's "useless waste of my money"; one persons useful feature is another's bug (*cough*linetypes*cough). Its absolutely essential for all to realize that they aren't the only ones using the program, nor is their work process the latest, greatest, and only True Path.
yeah, except when it (the bug, or broken feature) is acknowledged by all users with any knowledge at all that the 'bug' or feature is in fact 'broken'in such cases
the company producing said software should be far more responsive to removing said bugs and or providing actual functionality that the broken feature was claimed to perform.
Case in point ask a few Civil 3d users what really doesn't 'work' and or what is missing, it wont take many to get a consensus.
And to be clear, not talking about any form of 'wish list', just stuff that really should be fixed.
And I'm pretty sure one could do the same for most if not all of autodesk's' offerings.
Further when ones work flow, is more like a drunken country line dance due to the functioning or lack thereof, the software is at fault not your processes. IMO
And not to digress too far, I don't know of anyone that sees, linetypes as a bug, other than perhaps not to generate their pattern relative to the view rather than direction the stupid line was drawn in. If that is the issue, yes it should have been 'fixed' like 15 years ago.
-
I like shiny bugs.
-
I don't know of anyone that sees, linetypes as a bug
IMHO, they were not designed properly from day one. The change to a default LTScale of .5 pretty much says that they admit that they made them all too big.
-
I don't know of anyone that sees, linetypes as a bug
IMHO, they were not designed properly from day one. The change to a default LTScale of .5 pretty much says that they admit that they made them all too big.
yeah...and isn't in nice that autodesk basically ignored, or denied there was an issue for so long, only to basically slap a very small band-aid on it, and carry on ignoring an actual fix to the issue?
rhetorical of course
-
<snip> not designed properly from day one. <snip>
<snip> only to basically slap a very small band-aid on it <snip>
Funny story, I got an opportunity to meet one of the original authors of AutoCAD once. Apparently most stuff was but was quickly redesigned to meet deadlines. This caused a ripple which essentially tied their hands into not ever being able to fix things without a serious overhaul (-e.g. apparently annotative text was "the plan from the start" and now we just have a kludge of a system).
-
<snip> not designed properly from day one. <snip>
<snip> only to basically slap a very small band-aid on it <snip>
Funny story, I got an opportunity to meet one of the original authors of AutoCAD once. Apparently most stuff was but was quickly redesigned to meet deadlines. This caused a ripple which essentially tied their hands into not ever being able to fix things without a serious overhaul (-e.g. apparently annotative text was "the plan from the start" and now we just have a kludge of a system).
And precisely why they would be best served to STOP this madness of ANNUAL release cycle.
As more and more crap programming gets piled on top of crap programming.
They would really do well to pick one or two things customers really want added, and FIX everything else before the next release, even IF that means the next version
doesn't come out per calendar year. I think most of us would be far happier getting a product that works without surprises, and surprises us with fixes to longstanding issues.
Something like that might restore peoples loyalty to them. As opposed to the current model breeding animosity and dissatisfaction.
-
Regardless of what Autodesk may be saying, the reason for going to a subscription based licensing model is to build a client base that is dependent upon them for their software needs. Its quite smart from a business perspective. The BS statement about making it less costly for folks to get into the software is just spin designed to put a nice face on the stick they are shoving up your ass.
Its all about money .. a subscription model is a great way to increase revenues for the developer, provided it is priced correctly.
Every company I've worked for had not upgraded for many years after getting the original licenses. This is not what Autodesk wants. One company upgraded after 11 years, another to my knowledge still has not upgraded and that has been 16 years. If you amortize their software expenses over the life of their use of perpetual licensing, you will see why subscription based licensing does not make sense, plus the software they were using did exactly what they needed .. upgrading to a new version of software is not only bad economics, but its also bad on production, especially for a completely in-house operation ... and these were not mom and pop companies .. these were multi-million dollar companies. Besides the issue with the cost of AutoCAD, each new upgrade of software may require upgrades in OS and hardware just to be able to use the pricy software whose bells and whistles you don't really need.
I guess the subscription service might be ok if you are just starting out and don't have the capital to invest in a perpetual license, but I promise you that in the long run, you will end up on the losing end, especially when you decide that you no longer want to pay their fees for the privilege of continuing to use the software.
Yep, Autodesk is smart and will make money on this deal ... but smarter people who cannot get perpetual licenses will move on to other products.
-
And precisely why they would be best served to STOP this madness of ANNUAL release cycle.
As more and more crap programming gets piled on top of crap programming.
They would really do well to pick one or two things customers really want added, and FIX everything else before the next release, even IF that means the next version
doesn't come out per calendar year. I think most of us would be far happier getting a product that works without surprises, and surprises us with fixes to longstanding issues.
Something like that might restore peoples loyalty to them. As opposed to the current model breeding animosity and dissatisfaction.
Why? Again, and again, and again one more time: Why would/should they? People keep buying so they keep selling. You are not going to get people to stop buying because it's written into the standard contract of the business. You are not fighting a loosing battle, you are fighting the locked door to get into the arena where the fight was held ~25+ years ago.
EDIT: Added quote to make context more understandable.
-
Oh, and I forgot that whole cloud based crap ... you put stuff "on the cloud" under the premise of not losing it .. then find out that gaining access to it is dependent upon having a good internet connection and the remote servers to be functional and a whole list of other potential problems.
If I keep everything stored locally with a decent backup scheme, I only have to sorry about my equipment .. and if my workstation crashes, I can be up and running in no time with minimal downtime. What happens when someone does some unexpected gardening?
-
Keith, Adobe made a bucket full of cash and Autodesk is scrambling to do the same; they don't care about your data loss chances (that's your responsibility).
-
I don't know of anyone that sees, linetypes as a bug
IMHO, they were not designed properly from day one. The change to a default LTScale of .5 pretty much says that they admit that they made them all too big.
I think that comes from another source - people using the imperial acad.lin file in metric drawings with a global LTSCALE of 10. When you switch over to the metric acadiso.lin file, the HIDDEN line is now off by that factor of ~ 2 and the HIDDEN2 linetype has to be used.
-
I think that comes from another source - people using the imperial acad.lin file in metric drawings with a global LTSCALE of 10. When you switch over to the metric acadiso.lin file, the HIDDEN line is now off by that factor of ~ 2 and the HIDDEN2 linetype has to be used.
IME, having always used imperial. Any dashed linetype required us to use the "2" version as a standard. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
It would be interesting to see the topic debated, and not the individual offering that opinion.
Or as they say, "play the ball, not the player".
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time, and how or if they respond
to a customer base willing too use things like Bricscad, or Blender, or FreeCad.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
It would be interesting to see the topic debated, and not the individual offering that opinion.
Or as they say, "play the ball, not the player".
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time, and how or if they respond
to a customer base willing too use things like Bricscad, or Blender, or FreeCad.
*really big sigh* I'm sorry but you just don't seem to be understanding the situation.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
It would be interesting to see the topic debated, and not the individual offering that opinion.
Or as they say, "play the ball, not the player".
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time, and how or if they respond
to a customer base willing too use things like Bricscad, or Blender, or FreeCad.
*really big sigh* I'm sorry but you just don't seem to be understanding the situation.
LOL
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time
Adobe has the same model and they don't seem to be losing any market share.
-
The people who take time to say anything or read what others say make up such a small fraction of their customer base they do not care and from point of view of a company making money their decisions make sense to me.
-
Yes, however Adobe did not move entirely to a subscription only based model, one can still by boxed versions of their product.
Further, from my experience Adobe has a better track record of delivering product updates and fixes to their products.
Along those lines...IF
I could use every product Autodesk made for less than $100/month, I would have far less to complain about.
And even less if they fixed the broken crap, and made sure NEW features actually worked when delivered to my desktop.
-
(https://trying2bmomtastic.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/94dd0-tumblr_mfr8ijye7s1s0jcwqo1_500.gif)
I tried to stop myself. I really did.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
Most of them (the many) aren't nearly as smart as you are.
-
Watch it Rob... That last comment (sarcasm) treads on thin ice as far as I'm concerned and I'm sick of the fighting (I don't want to deal with that crap again).
-
Actually, it was an off handed compliment. Most of the people that rant about the programmers cannot back up their arguments like Mr Farrell can.
-
Okay. You guys have a history so I hope you'll forgive me for checking the levelness of that line.
-
Of course, and thank you for doing that.
-
Watch it Rob... That last comment (sarcasm) treads on thin ice as far as I'm concerned and I'm sick of the fighting (I don't want to deal with that crap again).
Here's something a little more palatable: how do we measure those who are *not* speaking out? There could be many who don't care; there could be very few who really like the new system. Without a measuring stick, comparisons won't (stick).
-
Watch it Rob... That last comment (sarcasm) treads on thin ice as far as I'm concerned and I'm sick of the fighting (I don't want to deal with that crap again).
Here's something a little more palatable: how do we measure those who are *not* speaking out? There could be many who don't care; there could be very few who really like the new system. Without a measuring stick, comparisons won't (stick).
They may not be saying much or anything, as this small example shows, those that question often face a chorus of shouts of negativity.
Not an environment that encourages open, honest discourse on any subject at any level.
And it would be equally hard to tell if those that say nothing, are doing so because they are not decision makers, have no influence on those that are, or otherwise
feel removed from the affects of such things. For example a NON Adobe user would have no idea or even care anything about Adobe's licensing strategy.
This thing is a bit like a Schroedinger's Cat experiment, the only way to know for sure is to open the box, and kill the cat.
-
In my office there are 8 other people who use AutoCAD at least half a day or more, and never learn anything, care to learn about the product, members of any cad forum. etc.....
80% of paying customers never will get in discussion and do not care.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
-
...
3. For the greater good.[/i]
[Edit] - Added quote for context.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/cc095211810085232678f5203f04cf43/tumblr_inline_nnbv3m4fPe1sdgkr8_540.gif)
#HotFuzz
-
Just to remind ALL y'all, this particular area in TheSwamp is open for viewing to anyone with an internet connection, so a bit of discretion in your posts, responses and attachments, while in here especially, would be in order ... please take a few seconds prior to hitting the post button to review your post.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
It would be interesting to see the topic debated, and not the individual offering that opinion.
Or as they say, "play the ball, not the player".
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time, and how or if they respond
to a customer base willing too use things like Bricscad, or Blender, or FreeCad.
*really big sigh* I'm sorry but you just don't seem to be understanding the situation.
LOL
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time
Adobe has the same model and they don't seem to be losing any market share.
The Adobe market is considerably different than the Autodesk market.
... and just like Autodesk, there are competing software packages available that create PDF content much like there are competing software packages that create drawings.
The biggest difference is that the end product for Adobe is the electronic file, for Autodesk the end product is usually the printed copy of the document.
If I'm providing a PDF to a client, I might be convinced that the originators of the PDF format are the best bet when choosing software to create the document, but if I am providing a set of plans printed on ARCH-D, I might just look for any software that happens to produce the desired output, that being a printed copy, after all it will be OCE, HP, KIP or some other printer manufacturer that is actually producing the end product.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three is one reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
Fixed that for you ...
I have always believed that people are inherently self-centered and everything we do is motivated by some sort of ROI. i.e. "what do I get out of it"
I've only ever heard of a few things that someone might do that I don't see the motivation behind it, but if it isn't for money, respect or recognition, it is usually for the warm fuzzies that you get when you self-aggrandize.
-
It doesn't take much searching to see, that my opinion and reasons are echoed by many.
It would be interesting to see the topic debated, and not the individual offering that opinion.
Or as they say, "play the ball, not the player".
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time, and how or if they respond
to a customer base willing too use things like Bricscad, or Blender, or FreeCad.
*really big sigh* I'm sorry but you just don't seem to be understanding the situation.
LOL
We will see who or what starts eating at their market share in a short time
Adobe has the same model and they don't seem to be losing any market share.
The Adobe market is considerably different than the Autodesk market.
How so? They are so much more than just Acrobat.
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/catalog/desktop.html?promoid=KOVFF
-
Paid membership continues to accelerate – adding a record 833,000 new subscribers in the past quarter (almost 65,000 new customers each week) – which means that total number of subscribers has now surpassed 6.1 million since the CC product line replaced Creative Suite in June 2013.
http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html
-
Autodesk's large customer base (at 85% market share more than 8 million AutoCAD users) is itself a competitive advantage.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Autodesk_(ADSK)
-
In my office there are 8 other people who use AutoCAD at least half a day or more, and never learn anything, care to learn about the product, members of any cad forum. etc.....
80% of paying customers never will get in discussion and do not care.
I can second this idea. Of the 14 people in my office who use AutoCAD, I'm not one of them, me the developer is the only one who participates in any type of Autodesk community. Typical users don't care.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
Actually addressing weakness, defects, or deficiencies in their product would benefit them, as they would have a user base
so satisfied with their product or service that they would never look for alternatives to what they offer.
Something like that is far cheaper than needing to mobilize sales, and marketing efforts to retain or acquire additional users.
Similarly, Harley Davidson, facing more than 3 quarters of negative growth despite global brand recognition, why?
All analyst point to perceived value of the product driving customers to shop other brands. And the why is that
while they do make motorcycles, they do not seem to offer value and performance users (riders) are after, and they
have yet to 'fix' their 'broken' product, and they will continue to hemorrhage customers until they do.
Granted there is a difference between a software company, and one that makes motorcycles, however not much is different about their customers.
Some point out that the 'typical' users doesn't care, however their employers, those that write the checks do.
It''s a reason we have basically dropped a product that worked, yet cost money every year for an open source solution for some services we provide.
It had little to do with performance, and much to do with perceived value of what the product did for us.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three is one reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
Fixed that for you ...
I have always believed that people are inherently self-centered and everything we do is motivated by some sort of ROI. i.e. "what do I get out of it"
I've only ever heard of a few things that someone might do that I don't see the motivation behind it, but if it isn't for money, respect or recognition, it is usually for the warm fuzzies that you get when you self-aggrandize.
Of course, Keith. But people can get `warm fuzzies' by doing things for any of the reasons I mentioned above (not just doing things for themselves); I was speaking about motivations to do things not reasons why (let's not play the semantics game). I was also being sarcastic; of course, Autodesk will only do something that they (the corp) will benefit from.
-
Perceived value is huge.
A company can have the best product among all producers of that particular product, but if the perceived value isn't there users will go elsewhere for their needs.
Users typically view software as a purchased product. They pay a certain amount of money once for the rights to use the software forever. With the subscription model, users get the ability to use the software for a specific period of time. It would be more appropriate to call it renting or leasing. When companies view it in that aspect, renting doesn't instill the permanence and stability that they expect, especially for a product that is perceived as a necessary evil.
One thing they are doing is pricing themselves out of small companies and individual shops. If I didn't have a perpetual license already, you can bet I'd be using a different product.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
Actually addressing weakness, defects, or deficiencies in their product would benefit them, as they would have a user base
so satisfied with their product or service that they would never look for alternatives to what they offer.
Something like that is far cheaper than needing to mobilize sales, and marketing efforts to retain or acquire additional users.
Similarly, Harley Davidson, facing more than 3 quarters of negative growth despite global brand recognition, why?
All analyst point to perceived value of the product driving customers to shop other brands. And the why is that
while they do make motorcycles, they do not seem to offer value and performance users (riders) are after, and they
have yet to 'fix' their 'broken' product, and they will continue to hemorrhage customers until they do.
Granted there is a difference between a software company, and one that makes motorcycles, however not much is different about their customers.
Some point out that the 'typical' users doesn't care, however their employers, those that write the checks do.
It''s a reason we have basically dropped a product that worked, yet cost money every year for an open source solution for some services we provide.
It had little to do with performance, and much to do with perceived value of what the product did for us.
Ha! Yeah, I wish it were so (I really do) but, in all honesty, Autodesk will never have a good enough reason to fix things (they are on the profit train, not the benevolence train). They are quite happy with "it works good enough" (and apparently, so is most of the market). I would personally like to use alternatives but I know that will never happen. The bosses, of most firms, like to think they have a level playing field in the job market (they don't want to have to say "DWG like" or "DWG (version)" in proposals/contracts). This is why Autodesk will always have a lion's share of the market.
-
MJ, you still haven't addressed the most important aspect: what's the motivation for Autodesk to fix anything. The user base isn't going anywhere and if anything I will only grow so one would need to make a "valid" argument for them to invest a lot of money into something with very little--to zero--return (in the current situation).
Pro tip: there are three is one reasons why someone does anything.
1. For me.
2. For us.
3. For the greater good.
Fixed that for you ...
I have always believed that people are inherently self-centered and everything we do is motivated by some sort of ROI. i.e. "what do I get out of it"
I've only ever heard of a few things that someone might do that I don't see the motivation behind it, but if it isn't for money, respect or recognition, it is usually for the warm fuzzies that you get when you self-aggrandize.
Of course, Keith. But people can get `warm fuzzies' by doing things for any of the reasons I mentioned above (not just doing things for themselves); I was speaking about motivations to do things not reasons why (let's not play the semantics game). I was also being sarcastic; of course, Autodesk will only do something that they (the corp) will benefit from.
No semantics ... but you did say reasons :-)
Yes, Autodesk does things only because it helps them in some way, you can bet that even a net neutral action by a company such as Autodesk is perceived as being beneficial in the long game even if we can't see it now.
People are no different.
-
<snip>
People are no different.
I remember creating a discussion about this topic called "people are greedy" (or something like that) and getting an awful lot of flack for pointing out that very same thing. And, just so you know, I was also a Psych major and Maslow's hierarchy and the like really fascinated me for quite some time. ...we can have *this* discussion later if you really want (but it will get quite heated, I'm sure so we'll probably want to have it in a more private forum).
-
<snip>
People are no different.
I remember creating a discussion about this topic called "people are greedy" (or something like that) and getting an awful lot of flack for pointing out that very same thing. And, just so you know, I was also a Psych major and Maslow's hierarchy and the like really fascinated me for quite some time. ...we can have *this* discussion later if you really want (but it will get quite heated, I'm sure so we'll probably want to have it in a more private forum).
Sounds like fun!
-
<snip>
People are no different.
I remember creating a discussion about this topic called "people are greedy" (or something like that) and getting an awful lot of flack for pointing out that very same thing. And, just so you know, I was also a Psych major and Maslow's hierarchy and the like really fascinated me for quite some time. ...we can have *this* discussion later if you really want (but it will get quite heated, I'm sure so we'll probably want to have it in a more private forum).
Sounds like fun!
sounds like swimming in a pool filled with Cholla Cacti!
-
Okay guys let dig deep and give this a try.
Boss man asked for reasons to keep subscription and can anyone give reasons why without arguing against it. We all know why people think it's bad let's just go over the good reasons to.
-
Okay guys let dig deep and give this a try.
Boss man asked for reasons to keep subscription and can anyone give reasons why without arguing against it. We all know why people think it's bad let's just go over the good reasons to.
Ohh no you didn't.
I think it would be easier to build a ship with warp speed.
-
Okay guys let dig deep and give this a try.
Boss man asked for reasons to keep subscription and can anyone give reasons why without arguing against it. We all know why people think it's bad let's just go over the good reasons to.
Top Good Reason:
It's like seeing a hooker, at least you know how much it's going to cost.
-
Not having to mess with converting to new file formats? We had an in house application that only ran on AutoCAD 2009 .. I spent A LOT of time converting files from clients to that version.
-
And expanding on ronjonp's example; being able to accept all contracts with no problems (don't have to worry about if contract specifies version not in house).
I think dgorsman gave a good(ish) example about the upgrade to newer computers/os' (post #2).
-
According to Autodesk, some tech support comes with subscription.
-
According to Autodesk, some tech support comes with subscription.
Yeah, so good all online support forums are redundant, right?
-
#1 reason to stay on subscription. Access to current version software. whether it's a good reason or not will depend on your situation, if you primarily work in a non-collaborative space (eg all work is done in-house, from conceptual to final) and the perpetual use license you have is adequate, then it's not a measurable benefit.
If you work as a prime, with subs at varying upograde levels contributing to the final product, the having the latest version can ensure that you can use their material with minimal issues. If you're typically working as a sub, the current version will cause problems when the prime or other team members are not using that same latest-n-greatest.
#2 reason, access to bonus/add-ons from Autodesk that are released as sub-only. Value is probably marginal, but something may (or may not) po[p up that way that would improve your operation.
#3 -- i don't think there are any others....
-
According to Autodesk, some tech support comes with subscription.
Correct. It always gets answers here, even if its to confirm that there is a problem and there isn't an immediate solution.
-
According to Autodesk, some tech support comes with subscription.
Yeah, so good all online support forums are redundant, right?
That was just a lipstick on the pig moment.
-
Why? Again, and again, and again one more time: Why would/should they? People keep buying so they keep selling. You are not going to get people to stop buying because it's written into the standard contract of the business. You are not fighting a loosing battle, you are fighting the locked door to get into the arena where the fight was held ~25+ years ago.
Thank you.
You nailed it.
-
And precisely why they would be best served to STOP this madness of ANNUAL release cycle.
As more and more crap programming gets piled on top of crap programming.
They would really do well to pick one or two things customers really want added, and FIX everything else before the next release, even IF that means the next version
doesn't come out per calendar year. I think most of us would be far happier getting a product that works without surprises, and surprises us with fixes to longstanding issues.
Something like that might restore peoples loyalty to them. As opposed to the current model breeding animosity and dissatisfaction.
You're missing the point.
* They are _best_ served by keeping the shareholders pleased.
* Bug fixes and completing previously half-baked features - does not sell new licenses. (New Ad: "AutoCAD 2017, we've fixed all the broken stuff!" - kind of hard for the marketing people to sell it that way)
Once again....
The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else.
-
And precisely why they would be best served to STOP this madness of ANNUAL release cycle.
As more and more crap programming gets piled on top of crap programming.
They would really do well to pick one or two things customers really want added, and FIX everything else before the next release, even IF that means the next version
doesn't come out per calendar year. I think most of us would be far happier getting a product that works without surprises, and surprises us with fixes to longstanding issues.
Something like that might restore peoples loyalty to them. As opposed to the current model breeding animosity and dissatisfaction.
You're missing the point.
* They are _best_ served by keeping the shareholders pleased.
* Bug fixes and completing previously half-baked features - does not sell new licenses. (New Ad: "AutoCAD 2017, we've fixed all the broken stuff!" - kind of hard for the marketing people to sell it that way)
Once again....
The basic premise which you must keep in mind is that the
interests of the shareholders supersede everything else.
"AutoCAD 2017, we've fixed all the broken stuff!"
Actually something like that would make the marketing peoples job easier, than trying to deflect questions about previous bugger ups.
Moreover imagine how happy the shareholders would be when they started gaining market share because people actually LIKED the way their products WORKED!
Not just buying it because they needed some tool, even if that tool was junk (Harbor Freight anyone?)
-
Not just buying it because they needed some tool, even if that tool was junk (Harbor Freight anyone?)
You ever go into a Harbor Freight store? They are usually PACKED with customers.
-
Not just buying it because they needed some tool, even if that tool was junk (Harbor Freight anyone?)
You ever go into a Harbor Freight store? They are usually PACKED with customers.
Yes, and there is a reason Snap-On and MAC tools and others exist....Quality tools that work and don't break on you.
-
mj -- one thing you are missing is that Autodesk customers, and AutoCAD users, are _not_ the same set of people. Yes, in smallish organizations they can be - or at least on speaking terms, but in larger firms, the people authorizing the purchases have bupkiss to do with actually using the software.
-
mj -- one thing you are missing is that Autodesk customers, and AutoCAD users, are _not_ the same set of people. Yes, in smallish organizations they can be - or at least on speaking terms, but in larger firms, the people authorizing the purchases have bupkiss to do with actually using the software.
nope, well aware of that facet to this gem
and one might believe some communication does occur, between those that use the software
and those that sign the P.O./check
-
Not just buying it because they needed some tool, even if that tool was junk (Harbor Freight anyone?)
You ever go into a Harbor Freight store? They are usually PACKED with customers.
Yes, and there is a reason Snap-On and MAC tools and others exist....Quality tools that work and don't break on you.
Actually, not all of the stuff in Harbor Freight is garbage. You have to be careful what you get, but you can find some decent tools.
-
nope, well aware of that facet to this gem
and one might believe some communication does occur, between those that use the software
and those that sign the P.O./check
Certainly no meaningful communication is going on here - with 10K+ licensed seats of various Adesk products. C-suite has zero interest in digging into the morass of licensing, features, subscription, and alternatives.
Nor at any of the other large companies I've worked at or with.... YMMV
-
Change has a cost, proportional to the size of the company. Even a modest-sized company can see more expenses in changing software vendors than a price increase in licenses.
-
nope, well aware of that facet to this gem
and one might believe some communication does occur, between those that use the software
and those that sign the P.O./check
Certainly no meaningful communication is going on here - with 10K+ licensed seats of various Adesk products. C-suite has zero interest in digging into the morass of licensing, features, subscription, and alternatives.
Nor at any of the other large companies I've worked at or with.... YMMV
And it is precisely companies of this size that could have the most influence on matters such as this.
A more active communication with the users (satisfaction with the products) has the potential to help those persons buying (paying for) that many seats of the product
better understand what they are buying, and potentially use that information as LEVERAGE when doing so.
Apathy is a disease that spreads....and kills profits and motivation.
-
The users in the larger companies do not have to weigh cost vs. satisfaction in the way you are saying. They don't pay for the software, therefore, are for the most part satisfied or, as you say, apathetic to the situation.
What kind of influence would they be able to provide?
-
The users in the larger companies do not have to weigh cost vs. satisfaction in the way you are saying. They don't pay for the software, therefore, are for the most part satisfied or, as you say, apathetic to the situation.
What kind of influence would they be able to provide?
Lost productivity due to software non-performance - just how long does it take to figure out a work around, or hack to 'fix' or develop work flows to compensate for product defects/deficiencies?
see next
time lost to debugging issues with software features
I would have a hard time believing everyone is 'satisfied' with the way this stuff 'works'
Most likely there is culture that discourages open discourse of this nature.
So while it may appear that most are satisfied, the truth is there is no means to hold this dialog in the open without fear of losing one's job, or angering one's manager(s).
-
Wow, I'd hate to live in your world. Mine is quite different with a bunch of satisfied users that do not have a need to find workarounds or do any debugging and trust me, there are plenty of people that have no fear of expressing their opinions, no matter how unfounded they are.
-
Wow, I'd hate to live in your world. Mine is quite different with a bunch of satisfied users that do not have a need to find workarounds or do any debugging and trust me, there are plenty of people that have no fear of expressing their opinions, no matter how unfounded they are.
Not the world I live in, it's a world others may live in (with).
And I will reserve further comment(s)
-
Not to start this one back up but now they decide to renew all licenses.
:-D
-
Not to start this one back up but now they decide to renew all licenses.
:-D
-
Let the subscription games begin, Autodesk is forcing their hand: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/moving-to-subscription/bd-p/2017
-
Here is a Bloomberg interview from last week. Mr. Anagnost is very clear that the goal is to move users from perpetual to rental, rapidly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-03-04/autodesk-co-ceos-confident-about-long-term-growth (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-03-04/autodesk-co-ceos-confident-about-long-term-growth)
-
Did anybody else catch when Andrew Anagnost almost let the cat out of the bag when he said "People pay us a bunch of..." and then he caught himself. It was like he was going to finish with "...money for a subscription that isn't worth a steaming pile of s**t."
It's not like Autodesk has ever been exactly responsive to end user concerns or needs (I remember when they wouldn't provide ANY support except through third-party resellers), but this is getting a bit money grubbing, don't ya think? This is the problem with wall street and the investment model in general - everything is great so long as your company can keep growing. Once you have saturated your marked and your stock prices stop increasing, then the only way to make money for your investors is to screw your existing customers with ever increasing prices for "value-based" crap most of them will never need or use.
Maybe it's time for those of us in the Civil Engineering field to give Microstation and the other Bentley products another chance. I'm not really crazy about that idea, but last I checked, at least they still offer perpetual licenses.
-
Did anybody else catch when Andrew Anagnost almost let the cat out of the bag when he said "People pay us a bunch of..." and then he caught himself.
Yeah, I had to chuckle at that.
-
Maybe it's time for those of us in the Civil Engineering field to give Microstation and the other Bentley products another chance. I'm not really crazy about that idea, but last I checked, at least they still offer perpetual licenses.
You do realize Bentley has been doing online licensing for some time, well in advance of Autodesk, right? They don't cut you off at the number of licenses you have rights to either. If you have a couple of people "just trying to learn something" over the lunch hour without your knowledge, the bill at the end of the month for the extra licenses can be a bit of a shock.
-
If you have a couple of people "just trying to learn something" over the lunch hour without your knowledge, the bill at the end of the month for the extra licenses can be a bit of a shock.
Another feature missing with SelectServer is the auto-license release. If you open Microstation on Monday, and leave it open til Friday - you've used 100+ hours of that app.
The overage fees are calculated by peak usage too. So if you have 10 licenses and 20 users, and let's say you are compliant for 99% of the billing period, but then one day for whatever reason, you have 20 people open the application for 10 minutes. BOOM - you get to pay for 20 licenses for the entire billing period.
-
Did anybody else catch when Andrew Anagnost almost let the cat out of the bag when he said "People pay us a bunch of..." and then he caught himself. It was like he was going to finish with "...money for a subscription that isn't worth a steaming pile of s**t."
It's not like Autodesk has ever been exactly responsive to end user concerns or needs (I remember when they wouldn't provide ANY support except through third-party resellers), but this is getting a bit money grubbing, don't ya think? ...
That money grabbing attitude goes all the way back to the 'flying founders' era and the company's founding -- when their vision was the development of what would now be a clone of MS Office. (hence the name -- Walker thought he could use a computer to do everything business people normally did at a desk. Their first app was IIRC an electronic rolodex-style application - the character-driuven equivalent of Wi ndows 2.0 Card application.
Remember when dimensioning was not included in the eleven hundred dollar price tag, and Walker wanted to charge an extra $300 for adding it?