Good discussion here. When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current. After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk. I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs. The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.
Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015. The top of the list was sketchy lines. Read that again: Sketchy Lines. I was convinced it was an April fools joke. When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.
I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription. We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.
None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions. If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole? If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency? At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.
There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour. This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long. But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.
It really forces me to take a step back and ask: Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession? For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?
-------------------------------------------
Angelo Marasco AIA
Architect/Owner
Cadence Design Studio
Denver CO
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-17-2014 09:12
From: Ryan Clarke
Subject: How often do you really benefit from upgrading Autodesk.....
Wow, this is like deja vu from 10 years ago.
I now live in Israel but in the past I was heavily involved in the AIA at city, state and national levels. 10 years ago, while serving on the AIANYS board of directors this question of autodesk milking the profession was raised, informally of course, by several board members during after meeting dinner. This was at the introduction of their "subscription" model.
This same subject came up again at the conference....again, firm principals and IT specialists were beginning to get the big picture: Autodesk is leaning hard on its customer base to maximize profit.
Let's not be fooled here, Autodesk is a business. One that spent many years becoming the defacto tool of the industry. But, as a consequence they can now dictate and dominate their "customers". With the introduction of the "subscription" model they now make it almost impossible, for all but the tech savvy, to buy a legal non-subscription version (no bells or whistles) and upgrade at a later date.
The Solution (for me at least):
As Carlos Blum stated before, is to buy a Mac and start using Vectorworks, ArchiCAD, Microstation or another of the more than competent CAD/BIM platforms out there. I'm not here to shill for any particular CAD/BIM solution, but I have experience with Vectorworks and Microstation, both of which are more than capable solutions.
The challenge that AIA faces, and has always faced, is putting words to action and utilizing their incredible numbers.
The problem of the software vendors is that they are sometimes short sighted or lack the vision to see the long term impact of the following:
One solution would be to engage in a discussion with them about providing free training to at least two or three team leaders per firm. These "team leaders" would then act as mentors or support for other firm members who are switching to the new platform. Once the optimized strategy is defined it can be rolled out across the AIA or even the industry. The problem is that vendors tend to just think of that initial sale and rely on localized sub-contractors to do training. They need to eat the initial training costs in order to disrupt Autodesk's iron grip on the industry.
None of this is impossible. Nor is it illegal. Just takes action, and not another round of committee talks.
I have always valued the time and energy I spent in the AIA and I have always fought for the organization to "add value" to its membership. This would be a HUGE value-add.....no?
Good luck.
-------------------------------------------
Ryan Clarke
Brooklyn NY
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2014 09:29
From: Darrel Odom
Subject: How often do you really benefit from upgrading Autodesk.....
...software. How often is the upgrade process, learning curve, etc. really worth the benefits received? We are a four person firm, I have used Autodesk products for over thirty years, and I can't remember many times at all that I went "man this is great, I am really glad I upgraded." I did think that when I dumped Autocad and bought Revit in 2004 but Revit wasn't owned by Autodesk then, Revit had those extremely helpful real Architects you could call for help, and it was worth every penny plus every inch of the learning curve.
The reason I ask this is next January, Autodesk has announced they will no longer upgrade anything if you are not on Subscription. At the beginning of the Recession, we dumped our Subscriptions and, knock on wood, have never regretted it. Now that the economy is better and cash is flowing better, we were considering going back on Subscription (more because of all the dire financial consequences implied by Autodesk and not because we really want to upgrade), but, now are having second thoughts.
The cost of upgrading and the (unused and unmissed Subscription services) fee, right now, are not that much less than buying a new seat. Our present software works just fine and we are not even sure we will want to upgrade all of our seats even if we get the upgrades. So, if it ain't broke why fix it? Autodesk seems to say "we will get every penny that you would have paid for Subscription PLUS a late fee so you will be very sorry" but there may be another option.
We are thinking about upgrading one seat to the Building Design Suite Pro thingy that has the latest Revit, Autocad, Revit MEP, etc., etc. keeping it on subscription and leaving the rest of our seats alone. We can then import, export, open anyone else's file, render in the cloud, use the cloud memory, etc. (if we want or need to) to our hearts content from that one seat. When Autodesk produces a new and improved version of its Software that we really want (we are guessing every ten years based on past history) we buy new seats then for the best price we can find and do it all over again. At that time, probably all of the Autodesk software will be in the cloud, only available through Subscriptions, so I don't really expect to do this again but do expect it all to work long enough to make it the better choice financially.
I would be happy for anyone (including those of you madly in love with Autodesk or extremely reliant on them for your income and who feel the need to always defend them) to tell me why this is a stupid idea.
-------------------------------------------
Darrel Odom AIA, LEED AP
President
Odom Peckham Architecture, Inc.
Little Rock AR
-------------------------------------------