Install new version of AutoCAD in 3 year cycle...

[BeKirra]

I have seen many threads concerning about AutoCAD 2015 in the forum.

Autodesk pushes out new version of its products each year for making money.

On the other hand, the users don't have to follow - they don't have to upgrade AutoCAD in yearly basis, but in a 3 year cycle. Even they are under the subscription.

IMO, upgrading AutoCAD every year just wastes time.

Why not skid the upgrade to 2015 release, even if SP1 is available?

[pendean]

Reality check: as of FEB 2015 Autodesk is moving to a subscription upgrade method.

So if you are not on subscription, you will have to buy AutoCAD at full price (no discount) PLUS one year of subscription. Whether you upgrade every two, three, five or ten years the cost to you is the same.

The old-school three-year cycle was a purely financial decision: you still got a big discount plus most of us upgraded our hardware too. Any other excuse for it was a coincidence really.

IMHO subscription is cheaper unless you hold out for 8+ years: subscription legally let's you operate up to four versions back plus you have the latest if you need it for whatever reason.

Don't hang on to old ideas and concepts for the wrong reasons: talk to your accountant and avoid wasting money instead (or get off the Autodesk train so to speak although all the other professional grade equivalents are doing the same or will do sooner than later).

Good luck.

[dgorsman]

Just for the sake of clarity: even if you are on subscription, that doesn't force users to install every single release.

[dmfrazier]

Excellent point, @dgorsman.

It is important to understand the distinction between upgrading the software and installing the software.

Due to Autodesk's pricing policies, we are compelled to upgrade annually (pre-annually, actually), but thanks (?) to their file format change schedule we can choose to install when we determine it is necessary to maintain compatibility with our customers and collaborators.

OP stated: "Autodesk pushes out new version of its products each year for making money."

Actually, Autodesk sells products and services "for making money", just like any other for-profit business.  The reason for "push[ing] out new version of its products each year" is to help keep the revenue stream more consistent from year to year (among other things, I'm sure).

(Oh, and by the way, in case it wasn't clear, I essentially agree with you.  But don't skip the upgrade - just the install. )

[volusiajim]

I would be willing to pay for service packs that didn't add new stuff for about 4 years and just focused on bugs.

-Jim

Volusia County

Public Works

[pendean]

It might happen that way once the pressure of trying to SELL each new version every year goes away once everyone is on Subscription.

Think about it:
Sell=Bells/Whistles
Subscription=Maintenance

That's how all other software companies that require subscription do it, just like your wishlist.

[dmfrazier]

"I would be willing to pay for service packs..."

You may be assuming SPs would be less expensive to buy than version upgrades, but that probably wouldn't be true.  It might actually cost software developers more time and energy to fix bugs than to add or change features (which helps to explain the way things are).

pendean stated:

"Think about it:

Sell=Bells/Whistles
Subscription=Maintenance"

I Agree with the first part.

I would change the second part to: Maintain=Higher Quality/Value (ideally)

But I doubt that will be true.

[pendean]

We can only hope 🙂

[BeKirra]

Thanks for everyone's inputs.

And surely there are some confusions in my 1st post.

Here is my clarification:

1) As some say "upgrading" is not "installing".

2) Even we are on subscription, we don't have to install each release.

That means - skid the R2015 and do our jobs smoothly.

[dmfrazier]

"That means - skid the R2015 and do our jobs smoothly"

When you wrote "skid" in your first post, I assumed it was a typo and you meant to write "skip".  You've written "skid" again, and now I have to assume it is not a typo.  What do you mean by "skid" (in this context)?

How you handle the "upgrade" issue should be based on a thorough understanding of all the factors involved, some of which will be unique to your situation/environment/circumstances. Upgrading (installing a new verion) yearly may be a "waste of time" for some, but for others it might be the most efficient way to deal with the issue.  There are valid arguments in support of both strategies.

[dmfrazier]

We can also choose.

[pendean]

Always.

There seems to be some confusion about subscription. You the customer choose:
- you can be stupid and pay +/-$4500 every two-three years to upgrade,
- Or pay that same amount over 8+ years and decide when and where to upgrade.
- Or you the customer can stick with your version until you retire.
- Or you the customer can go get another software.

Repeating the same "I'm being forced to..." and "... I have no choice.." is just pointless and sad. Act like a customer, not a patsy. It's your money. use it to your benefit, no one else'.

Try it: be THE CUSTOMER. it works for the rest of the world quite well.

[pkolarik]

Dean,

You seem to keep missing the one that most everyone in this thread is talking about (which is also what we do):  only installing the yearly upgrades every few years.

We typically install new versions of all our autocad platforms once every file format change. We've found over the years that that is the most efficient way to use the software in our company. Yeah, we're on subscription. No, we don't install every version they send out.

[dmfrazier]

"There seems to be some confusion about subscription."

Not on my part.

"Repeating the same 'I'm being forced to...' and  '.. I have no choice..' is just pointless and sad. Act like a customer, not a patsy. It's your money. use it to your benefit, no one else'."

You do have a way with words.  Sheer poetry...

I assume this little "lecture" has to do with my use of the word "compelled", by which you appear to assume I mean "forced" or "no choice".  But that is both unfair and incorrect.  There is no denying that we are compelled (to choose) to purchase and use Autodesk products (by their obvious quality and value as well as several other "forces" you and I and other readers could probably list), and (to choose) to maintain them through the necessary (and perhaps not-so-necessary) and positive (and perhaps not-so-positive) changes they undergo.  Autodesk's policies and practices are designed to compell us to choose (and continue to choose) their products while still maximizing their profits.  This is not a criticism - just an observation that applies to just about any prosperous business.