Topic: LT Add-on, 3rd Party software

[CADaver]

Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets.  Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal.  If you need the full function software, buy it.

Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

My integrity is not dependant upon anyone else's in any way.

[pmvliet]

Is the price for LT getting closer to the price for the full version because of the 3rd part add-ons?

Will AutoDesk eventually quit with the LT product due to the 3rd part add-ons?

I know it is a stretch, but maybe worth thinking about.

That is a good point. If LT is about $1k and these add-ons are roughly $500.
You are at half the cost of a full version...
Attend Any AU and there will be talk amongst groups about the life expectancy for vanilla Autocad as well...
In a way it's all relative. If they don't provide an entry level system, they will loose market share.
Users will go to Datacad or some of the cheaper or free systems. Once someone or a company
makes a decision, it is much harder to get them to switch, especially vendors of this nature.

It's hard to know unless we talk to AutoDesk directly on the legalness and ethics of using these add-ons.
I know when LT first came out back during r12 days (seems about right)
there was much todo about these add-ons. Today, there doesn't seem to be much anymore...
Kind of fizzled out.

Pieter

[Josh Nieman]

Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets.  Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal.  If you need the full function software, buy it.

Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?

[Mark]

Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets.  Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal.  If you need the full function software, buy it.

Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?

Sorry, does not compute!

[Greg B]

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

Which way is cheaper?

[Mark]

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

Which way is cheaper?

For the consumer or manufacturer?

[Josh Nieman]

Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets.  Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal.  If you need the full function software, buy it.

Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

So I guess the thief is the innocent because you didn't put bars on your windows?

Sorry, does not compute!

Autodesk is the homeowner.  A law is passed that says a person cannot break into their home.  Criminal breaks into the home because he believes the law is stupid.

You spoke negatively of Autodesk creating a legally binding document that states that the user is to not do something, rather than changing the software to disallow the user to circumvent their document's mandates.

Thus I equate it to a homeowner relying on the law of breaking and entering, but being scolded because they did not change their house to make it unable to break in to.

[M-dub]

Instead, the perp uses one of those long, grabby bar things to reach in through the window and grab what they want. 

[Josh Nieman]

Instead, the perp uses one of those long, grabby bar things to reach in through the window and grab what they want. 

haha I could see it now... one of those gator-claw things like grandma uses to reach the stuff on the top shelf of the cabinet... but big enough for a plasma TV

[M-dub]

Yeah, a LISP enabling Gator-Claw. 

[Greg B]

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

Which way is cheaper?

For the consumer or manufacturer?

Manufacturer of course...

[Kate M]

So I wonder....

Is the price for LT getting closer to the price for the full version because of the 3rd party add-ons?

No, it's inflation, and LT getting more features. We get fields in this next version, and the action recorder...

Will AutoDesk eventually quit with the LT product due to the 3rd party add-ons?

Never -- it's waaaaay too big a market.

[Kate M]

Everyone knows the intent of LT was to provide a less robust version of AutoCAD to those with less than robust budgets.  Certain aspects of the applications were crippled to accomplish that goal.  If you need the full function software, buy it.

Integrity is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

So instead of Adesk changing their software so these 3rd party apps can't be used they make you the bad guy by adding that statement to EULA. Oh yeah, that's integrity.

C'mon, Mark, you know that as soon as they build a more secure program, some one else will build a better hacker...

[Bob Wahr]

I'm done with this thread for three reasons

1) Mark's uncommonly irrational "because if the world ran like I wished" arguments
2) Gazza's repeated failure to cite anything whatsoever and limiting his points to "nuh-uh, you're wrong."
3) the most important one, Randy said something that I agreed with completely and didn't annoy me.

The first two make the discussion completely pointless because one side is trying to ascertain facts and the other is banking entirely on emotions, and the third just makes me feel queasy.

As far as I'm concerned, at this point, the burden of proof as to the legality rests on the pro-hack side.  In the mean time, to me these programs are illegal hacks and I hope that the swamp doesn't start going down that road.  Either that or I hope the Swamp puts up some space for mp3 sharing.

[Josh Nieman]