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.
