The software in turn became so heavy that it would crash.įor us, we preferred to use older versions of the software which offered speed and efficiency. Customers had no choice but to accept software they did not want or need into their existing licence agreements. The purpose of giving away software to existing licence holders was to justify increasing the Maintenance plan charges. Indeed Autodesk chose to package multiple software together, not desired by users. This was exemplified by the software becoming slow and unwieldy to use. Unfortunately, Autodesk over this whole period has been more concerned with profit than advancing the software by addressing issues raised by customers. We accepted this arrangement and have paid the Maintenance plan on our seats for many years. As our company grew more seats were acquired again with perpetual licences.Īutodesk then introduced a Maintenance plan, whereby updates were given in exchange for an annual fee of RM2-3k per seat. We invested in several seats of Revit/ Autocad at over RM20,000 each which came with perpetual licences. We use Autocad and Revit while utilising rendering software (3d Studio Max). From day one our most important software was produced by Autodesk. Our work involves using CAD software and graphic software to illustrate our designs. We offer architectural services to a number of clients in Malaysia.
I run a small company called Stylom Sdn Bhd which was incorporated in 2005. Autodesk as a result came after me! I have been reported to BSA and have just drafted this letter to BSA: I stopped paying the Maintenance plan and will rely on my perpetual licence. Let them know your thoughts on the Autodesk forum here: It is critical that the Autodesk user base (in all flavors) have Autodesk know that their current model is flawed, and we the users will be forced to walk away. My objection, by itself, is meaningless, however. Unlike Adobe's move to subscription pricing, Autodesk is doing in the most user unfriendly way possible. I simply can't afford to deal with punitive and valueless pricing as they are putting forward. If Autodesk does not change its position, I will find another piece of software to do what I must failing that, I will walk away from this business. Fundamentally, though, they want to take our permanent licenses away from us one way or another. Since the development in Autodesk software has dramatically decreased over time, one can only assume that this new model will only lead to higher costs with dramatically less value per dollar. They want what any shareholder driven company wants: lots of revenue, with next to no cost. Suggesting doing so will get rid of piracy is simply naive. Citing costs related to maintaining two separate delivery models is pure hogwash. Their stated reasons for doing this seem pretty disingenuous. I expect that after these increases, they will phase out permanent licenses completely. In other words, if you don't move over to the vastly more expensive subscription options laid out, they will be dramatically increasing maintenance dues. To do this, it is trying to phase out permanent licenses, and increase the cost to maintenance punitively in order to achieve compliance. Recently, Autodesk has made the decision that it has to become profitable again through any means necessary. Note #2: if your'e a permanent license holder, please scroll to the link at the bottom for timely (and time sensitive) new information! The link will be added to the end of this article. Note: an addendum to this piece has been written, after having talked to "Head Office".
0 kommentar(er)
