More AIP news...

[dan_mayers]

Hopefully this won't create another huge thread of griping, but give all of our concerns and the miscommunication that we seem to be having with Autodesk, I thought I should pass this along.

Last night Peter Adams (Product Marketing Manager, just under Andrew Anagnost in the chain) gave a presentation at my local user's group on AIP. In the presentation he stated explicitly that "significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG translation were the targets of "the next release". He also acknowledged that we don't seem to be taking to the whole idea of AIP as well as Autodesk hoped. 🙂

From the presentations, the discussion that followed, and the postings here on the board, and far more marketing experience than any engineer should be forced to endure, I would like to make the following guess as to what is the disconnect between what we are saying and what they are saying:

Their marketing people decided that this new product should be called "Professional" because it sounded good and made it easier to ask for more money. What they should have called it is "Specialist" or "Adjunct" or something like that (I never said I was any GOOD at the marketing stuff).

From the presentation and discussions, AIP is just AIS with some plug-ins. For a variety of (marginally) valid reasons they are simply selling all of the plug-ins as a package rather than letting us buy the individual pieces. They are doing this largely because each of the new features in AIP constitutes the purchase of some company that produces the feature software and they need to recoup the costs.

It sounded like they genuinely understood that we were angry and frustrated and that they are trying to respond. Unfortunately, it did not appear that they quite grasped why we were so ticked. I expect that we will see how well they understood when they show us the next release.

[dan_mayers]

Wow. That was sure formatted better when I was writing it. I guess that is what you get with a web browser. 🙂

Dan

[Anonymous]

The root of the problem for our company is: 
we have been paying every year for a product that has NOT delivered the promises
that we bought into...oh but wait the next release will REALLY be the
substantial release, just you wait and see.  I personally bought into the
fact that IV would have good, call it what you want - piping, tubing,
wiring - basically a useable 3D pathing tool.  When I read that AIP had
tubing, THAT caused me to say enough is enough.  I can wait a few years
with what we are using now and we'll decide later.  Legacy data is of NO
consequence, heck IV proves that by not being compatible now.......straying off
the point......

Heck the 50,000 plus AutoCAD drawings that we have
are not dependant on anything different that what we have now.  Hey adesk
don't tell me the line again that it is going to cost me more if I end my
subscription.  That is a NON threat!

Keith Bradford

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"dan_mayers" <
href="mailto:dan_mayers@excite.com">dan_mayers@excite.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Hopefully
this won't create another huge thread of griping, but give all of our concerns
and the miscommunication that we seem to be having with Autodesk, I thought I
should pass this along.

Last night Peter Adams (Product Marketing Manager, just under Andrew
Anagnost in the chain) gave a presentation at my local user's group on AIP. In
the presentation he stated explicitly that "significant improvements" in the
IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG translation were the targets of "the
next release". He also acknowledged that we don't seem to be taking to the
whole idea of AIP as well as Autodesk hoped. 🙂

From the presentations, the discussion that followed, and the postings here
on the board, and far more marketing experience than any engineer should be
forced to endure, I would like to make the following guess as to what is the
disconnect between what we are saying and what they are saying:

Their marketing people decided that this new product should be called
"Professional" because it sounded good and made it easier to ask for more
money. What they should have called it is "Specialist" or "Adjunct" or
something like that (I never said I was any GOOD at the marketing stuff).

From the presentation and discussions, AIP is just AIS with some plug-ins.
For a variety of (marginally) valid reasons they are simply selling all of the
plug-ins as a package rather than letting us buy the individual pieces. They
are doing this largely because each of the new features in AIP constitutes the
purchase of some company that produces the feature software and they need to
recoup the costs.

It sounded like they genuinely understood that we were angry and frustrated
and that they are trying to respond. Unfortunately, it did not appear that
they quite grasped why we were so ticked. I expect that we will see how well
they understood when they show us the next
release.

[Anonymous]

Offer 1 product and add-on features
such as PCB and piping.  Provided that 1 product is a solid stable platform
and only make the add-ons things that the masses wont use on a regular
basis. 

The problem is there are no
Engineering minds in areas of AD that matter.  

Sort of reminds me of the TV
commercial with the cardboard software salesman (persons), they just don't
listen......

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"dan_mayers" <
href="mailto:dan_mayers@excite.com">dan_mayers@excite.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Hopefully
this won't create another huge thread of griping, but give all of our concerns
and the miscommunication that we seem to be having with Autodesk, I thought I
should pass this along.

Last night Peter Adams (Product Marketing Manager, just under Andrew
Anagnost in the chain) gave a presentation at my local user's group on AIP. In
the presentation he stated explicitly that "significant improvements" in the
IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG translation were the targets of "the
next release". He also acknowledged that we don't seem to be taking to the
whole idea of AIP as well as Autodesk hoped. 🙂

From the presentations, the discussion that followed, and the postings here
on the board, and far more marketing experience than any engineer should be
forced to endure, I would like to make the following guess as to what is the
disconnect between what we are saying and what they are saying:

Their marketing people decided that this new product should be called
"Professional" because it sounded good and made it easier to ask for more
money. What they should have called it is "Specialist" or "Adjunct" or
something like that (I never said I was any GOOD at the marketing stuff).

From the presentation and discussions, AIP is just AIS with some plug-ins.
For a variety of (marginally) valid reasons they are simply selling all of the
plug-ins as a package rather than letting us buy the individual pieces. They
are doing this largely because each of the new features in AIP constitutes the
purchase of some company that produces the feature software and they need to
recoup the costs.

It sounded like they genuinely understood that we were angry and frustrated
and that they are trying to respond. Unfortunately, it did not appear that
they quite grasped why we were so ticked. I expect that we will see how well
they understood when they show us the next
release.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info Dan,

Maybe its just me but justifying AIP by
needing more money to recoup the cost of the company purchases does not wash
with me. I see it like this. Autodesk has been charging me a (IMO very high
cost) subscription charge for many releases of MDT and INV. This cost multiplied
by the amount of people on subscription of MDT and Inventor over the years adds
up to some serious dollars I'll bet.

So with INV not "catching up" like we all expected
to by now where has this money gone? Also at the same time releasing INV7 with
basically nothing in terms of new features I find it hard to believe that all
the subscription pool of money has been spent on the programming
team.

As I see it there are only 2 ways to increase the
functionality of INV.

1: Build it yourself with your programming
team.

2: Buy it by purchasing other companies technology
and adding it to Inventor.

Either way the cost to get x amount of
functionality should be around the same.

So justification of AIP being an extra cost product
at the time of getting nothing in a major release, combined with the fact that
Inventor is getting better but not really catching up to the rest of the
MID-Ranged CAD industry, is never going to go down well with
me.

Autodesk is constantly tooting the fact that AIS is
the widest used (or at least more companies have, I would dispute that everyone
is using it) Mid ranged MCAD product in the world. Surely this must mean that if
we can get the best all round single product on the market with 1 subscription
cost over so many people there should be enough money for development and profit
to go around.

If I add up the amount of money I have paid on
subscription since MDT5 then look at where we are in the industry in terms of a
feature set, I cant help but think that my money would have been better going to
the competiton, which is a hard pill to swallow. We trusted Autodesk that INV
was going to be the way of the future now we just get more wait and
see.

Even if R8 gets a good IDW environment and good DWG
trans is this going to make us feel that Inventor is the best product on the
market or simply just a better version of Inventor.

And don't even get me started on getting ANOTHER
"Wait 'n' see" from an Autodesk employee

just my 2c

P.S there is another way to get extra
functionality, that is to rely on the great user apps from charles and kent and
the like, which is very shameful of Autodesk.

[Anonymous]

They advertised a *complete* solution in Inventor as part of the
subscription program. The release of Inventor Pro coupled with a demand for
more money on top of the subscription made them liars.

Personally, I think they understand fully what they've done.

Steve


"dan_mayers" wrote in message
news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

(snip)

Unfortunately, it did not appear that they quite grasped why we were so
ticked. I expect that we will see how well they understood when they show us
the next release.
>

[Anonymous]

They fully understand what they have done, but do not understand why we are
so disgusted and upset.

Ed R


"Steve" wrote in message
news:4DD71F652CD0369D1029A81B9C4B79CF@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> They advertised a *complete* solution in Inventor as part of the
> subscription program. The release of Inventor Pro coupled with a demand
for
> more money on top of the subscription made them liars.
>
> Personally, I think they understand fully what they've done.
>
> Steve
>
>
> "dan_mayers" wrote in message
> news:f17f49e.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> (snip)
>
> Unfortunately, it did not appear that they quite grasped why we were so
> ticked. I expect that we will see how well they understood when they show
us
> the next release.
> >
>

[Anonymous]

If autodesk cant understand why we are (Edited by Moderator), they
are just plain stuipid.
 
1.5 years ago...............
 
Me : "Why should I upgrade to AIS?"
 
Autodesk Rep : "Inventor is our flagship mechanical
desgin software, its a complete solution package, you will never need another
CAD package."
 
Me : "Why should I join your subscription
program?"
 
Autodesk Rep : "Joining our subscription program
will ensure that you all ways have the latest and greatest Autodesk has to
offer.  We are commited to the continuing development of Inventor, we will
be added new features on a regular basis, never again will you have to pay for a
major upgrade, you will just recieve all the new features as they are
released."
 
Me : "Sound great, never having to beg managment
for upgrade money would be nice, have an "all-in-one" package that does
everything sound even better! Its a deal !!!!!"
 
1.5 years later........
 
Autodesk : "We lied, we need more money so we
are creating another version on Inventor, you need to crawl back to
managment on you knee's begging for another major upgarde budget.  But we
will give you a discount on the upgrade for a few extra months, arnt we
nice!"
-- Paul HoulkerRimex Supply Ltdwww.rimex.com

[Anonymous]

"significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG translation were the targets of "the next release".

Of AIP? & not AIS. This would be very foolish. One of the very reasons we are frustrated.

[Anonymous]

I think we are going a little overboard aren't we? They would not do
that. Any improvements in the IDW environment I have no doubt will show
up in AIS. Remember AIP is just addins to AIS.

--
Kent Keller
http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm

Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program

"orchdes" wrote in message
news:f17f49e.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG
translation were the targets of "the next release".
> Of AIP? & not AIS. This would be very foolish. One of the very reasons
we are frustrated.
>

[Anonymous]

Furthermore it was marketed like this worldwide. A conscious decision
in tactic played out to the full.

[xavierl]

autodesk put itself in the no 1 pos. with autocad LT. ie more features than the oposition for less money.
in the us$5000 mcad area. you compete with 3 others. if you have less features, guess what, the people are going to vote with their feet.
I would suggest, quickly put more features into IV or reduce the price. simple market dynamics.
frans x liebenberg

[Anonymous]

I think one of the main reasons people are so upset is that they see AIP as
a different Product: it's not.

Apart from being promised one thing and getting another, of course (glad
that hasn't been the case here).

AIP is just AIS with added module, plugins, whatever you want to call it.
So if there is added functionality to core features, they'll show on both.
There aren't 2 divisions developing sheetmetal or surfacing, for example.

AD's Marketing didn't comprehend the effect that a new name would have.....

It's like Pro/E or CATIA: just because you use more modules, doesn't mean
you're not using one or the other. Maybe AD should have gone the same road.
Personally, I don't like the LITE idea either.

Just call it AD IV and have a PIPING module called AD IV Piping, or .....


BTW: I don't think the strategy will change.......be prepared: there are
more I think


Just my pitch.

__

RuiF



"Kent Keller" wrote in message
news:D0FEDD1C3D2D74A38FB52DAB3CA35375@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I think we are going a little overboard aren't we? They would not do
> that. Any improvements in the IDW environment I have no doubt will show
> up in AIS. Remember AIP is just addins to AIS.
>
> --
> Kent Keller
> http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm
>
> Assistant Moderator
> Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
>
> "orchdes" wrote in message
> news:f17f49e.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > "significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG
> translation were the targets of "the next release".
> > Of AIP? & not AIS. This would be very foolish. One of the very reasons
> we are frustrated.
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

So you just buy features instead of a tool to get
your job done? Surely some features are worth more to you then others..... How
do you set a price for that then?

Jerry

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"fxlxd" <
href="mailto:xavierl@iafrica.com">xavierl@iafrica.com> schreef in
bericht
href="news:f17f49e.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f17f49e.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

autodesk
put itself in the no 1 pos. with autocad LT. ie more features than the
oposition for less money.
in the us$5000 mcad area. you compete with 3
others. if you have less features, guess what, the people are going to vote
with their feet.
I would suggest, quickly put more features into IV or
reduce the price. simple market dynamics.
frans x
liebenberg

[Anonymous]

I don't think the strategy will change, either. The silence from Mr.
Anagnost is simply too roaring...!
But that doesn't mean I accept that as being fair or right.
No matter what they call it - Pro / Lite / Add-in / whatever - the fact
remains that we were promised one thing, bought into it and then was
shamelessly denied what we was promised.

Received a fat envelope from an SW VAR yesterday, and I'm looking to forward
to dive into that info tonight....Despite all the defects, I like IV and I
hate the idea of starting over with another package. But there is no way in
h... I'm going to put up with the way Adesk is treating their customers at
the moment. The clock is ticking......

Peter

"RuiF" skrev i en meddelelse
news:9F95A2509F5308845A3A5F5BE53ABFC9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I think one of the main reasons people are so upset is that they see AIP
as
> a different Product: it's not.
>
> Apart from being promised one thing and getting another, of course (glad
> that hasn't been the case here).
>
> AIP is just AIS with added module, plugins, whatever you want to call it.
> So if there is added functionality to core features, they'll show on both.
> There aren't 2 divisions developing sheetmetal or surfacing, for example.
>
> AD's Marketing didn't comprehend the effect that a new name would
have.....
>
> It's like Pro/E or CATIA: just because you use more modules, doesn't mean
> you're not using one or the other. Maybe AD should have gone the same
road.
> Personally, I don't like the LITE idea either.
>
> Just call it AD IV and have a PIPING module called AD IV Piping, or .....
>
>
> BTW: I don't think the strategy will change.......be prepared: there are
> more I think
>
>
> Just my pitch.
>
> __
>
> RuiF
>
>
>
> "Kent Keller" wrote in message
> news:D0FEDD1C3D2D74A38FB52DAB3CA35375@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I think we are going a little overboard aren't we? They would not do
> > that. Any improvements in the IDW environment I have no doubt will show
> > up in AIS. Remember AIP is just addins to AIS.
> >
> > --
> > Kent Keller
> > http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm
> >
> > Assistant Moderator
> > Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
> >
> > "orchdes" wrote in message
> > news:f17f49e.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > "significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG
> > translation were the targets of "the next release".
> > > Of AIP? & not AIS. This would be very foolish. One of the very reasons
> > we are frustrated.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Maybe this is exactly what Autodesk wants?

To get rid of bothersome customers, and keep those customers that do not
mind being squeezed for money.
(and those that are too buried in legacy data to change their CAD-tool.


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 02:04:32 -0700, Peter Blazejewicz
wrote:
> Received a fat envelope from an SW VAR yesterday, and I'm looking to
> forward to dive into that info tonight....Despite all the defects, I like
> IV and I hate the idea of starting over with another package. But there
> is no way in h... I'm going to put up with the way Adesk is treating
> their customers at the moment. The clock is ticking......


--
Jorgen Bjornes
----------------------------------------------
Visit the Scandinavian Discussion-forum
For Inventor at www.bjornes.org
----------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

I too have gotten calls and letters from SWX, I plan on attending a SWX
2004 demo the end of the month.

On a funnier note with SWX. I registered on one of the SWX BB's (ENG-TIPS)
and raised the question of issues they have with SWX. Face it we all know
that all software has issues. I raised this question, fully explaining I
was a IV user that was toying with the idea of switching based on the
outcome of AIS AIP. I was not bad mouthing either software just looking for
possible answers and to see if the grass was any different color. Well the
post went on for 1 day then with good info provided, then all of a sudden I
was booted from the BB, the post removed, and I have yet to receive a reason
why. (shame on me, lol)

FWIW : SWX has issues just like IV. Poor translation, hardware quirks, they
send out a lot of SP. Nothing seemed to different than IV except that their
"office" version seemed to have more base features. (Cosmos lite,
presentation, etc)


"Peter Blazejewicz" wrote in
message news:F3CB49C69E8EFC1253ECF1C32F492F57@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I don't think the strategy will change, either. The silence from Mr.
> Anagnost is simply too roaring...!
> But that doesn't mean I accept that as being fair or right.
> No matter what they call it - Pro / Lite / Add-in / whatever - the fact
> remains that we were promised one thing, bought into it and then was
> shamelessly denied what we was promised.
>
> Received a fat envelope from an SW VAR yesterday, and I'm looking to
forward
> to dive into that info tonight....Despite all the defects, I like IV and I
> hate the idea of starting over with another package. But there is no way
in
> h... I'm going to put up with the way Adesk is treating their customers at
> the moment. The clock is ticking......
>
> Peter
>
> "RuiF" skrev i en meddelelse
> news:9F95A2509F5308845A3A5F5BE53ABFC9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I think one of the main reasons people are so upset is that they see AIP
> as
> > a different Product: it's not.
> >
> > Apart from being promised one thing and getting another, of course (glad
> > that hasn't been the case here).
> >
> > AIP is just AIS with added module, plugins, whatever you want to call
it.
> > So if there is added functionality to core features, they'll show on
both.
> > There aren't 2 divisions developing sheetmetal or surfacing, for
example.
> >
> > AD's Marketing didn't comprehend the effect that a new name would
> have.....
> >
> > It's like Pro/E or CATIA: just because you use more modules, doesn't
mean
> > you're not using one or the other. Maybe AD should have gone the same
> road.
> > Personally, I don't like the LITE idea either.
> >
> > Just call it AD IV and have a PIPING module called AD IV Piping, or
.....
> >
> >
> > BTW: I don't think the strategy will change.......be prepared: there are
> > more I think
> >
> >
> > Just my pitch.
> >
> > __
> >
> > RuiF
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kent Keller" wrote in message
> > news:D0FEDD1C3D2D74A38FB52DAB3CA35375@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > I think we are going a little overboard aren't we? They would not do
> > > that. Any improvements in the IDW environment I have no doubt will
show
> > > up in AIS. Remember AIP is just addins to AIS.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kent Keller
> > > http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm
> > >
> > > Assistant Moderator
> > > Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
> > >
> > > "orchdes" wrote in message
> > > news:f17f49e.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > "significant improvements" in the IDW environment and in IDW<->DWG
> > > translation were the targets of "the next release".
> > > > Of AIP? & not AIS. This would be very foolish. One of the very
reasons
> > > we are frustrated.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

No I do not think so. Based on this group it seems that many do not use idw<->dwg. So does that mean we will get a fully funtional translater in AIP because a select set of users require it? I am sorry but they have raised suspicion in the minds of many users as to what will in the future be added to pro. They could do the same thing that they did with autocad. Remove the iges translator and sell as a seperate. Or upgrade to mechanical to get it.

[StewartMills]

We have been a users of MDT for 4 years and INV for 2 years.

When we initially purchased MDT we were suckered into paying +£500 for the power-pack version, only to find that it was absorbed into the main product within a year or so. This is likely to happen to INVP as soon as the SW and ProE vars smell blood.

If the 'Pro' option were sold as a floating site licence the proposition may be more palitable. We only have 14 seats but it takes a lot of faith to payout the extra x 14, for features that will be bugged for the first two versions and then absorbed into the main product anyway.

Regards,

Stewart

[Anonymous]

"orchdes" wrote in message
news:f17f49e.18@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> No I do not think so. Based on this group it seems that many do not use
idw<->dwg.

Huh??? From this group I think one of the BIGGEST problems with IV is bad
idw-->dwg. I know many of us, including our company, was sold on how well IV
translated to ACAD. After all, it's the same company, right?

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com