Subscription renewals

[Gary_J_Orr]

So many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding themselves carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their subscription will cost them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up (especislly considering the looming change in upgrade pricing).

I just sent the following email to AutoDesk Customer care and am wondering if anyone else would support such an effort...

A Plea to AutoDesk...

Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when funds are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified" upgrade pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to Subscription. I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had been introduced that way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing policy", but that's beside the point). I have recommended Subscription to every Employer and then to every Client (once I started by consulting firm) since it became available.

You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers. These customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and subsequently maintaining that investment, through purchasing your products and paying annual subscription fees. There are less expensive products, and they can be even less expensive to maintain, yet your loyal customers continue to stay your customers because they believe in you and your products.

So to the point of this communication:

I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be aware of the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I make it on behalf of my Clients.

I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions have ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some have collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is theirs. Yet you have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy. Your customers are not very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to look into alternative products).

Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.

Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an example):

Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.

Customer lays off 20 people.

Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.

As is now:

Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be back up to full strength and choose one of these options:

• 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they can't make use of, or
• 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the subscription contract.
• 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find new "less expensive" product.

Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further animosity.

Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost on you in terms of lost revenue):

Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they know that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for the remaining licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license authorizations to the Customer and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When the customer is ready to put 10 licenses back on "active" status they pay the subscription (prorated for remaining contract length) for those 10 licenses and receive 10 more "active" license Authorizations (reducing the "Inactive" by the corresponding count of course). Such can continue until they have restored all "inactive" licenses back to "active" status.

This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that adds subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would help a great number of your customers in this time of need (not to mention having a flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the Hero instead of the Villain.

Thank you for your time,

Gary

Gary J. Orr

(Your Friendly Neighborhood)

CADD/BIMM Manager

(314) 704-4453

Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com

*GOMO*

-CADD/BIMM- Stuff

St. Louis, MO

http://www.gomostuff.com/

[Anonymous]

BTW, I just think the option to sell should be appended to your idea. I
like the idea of having a greatly reduced fee to keep a license as a
placeholder.

I wonder if, in general, they actually are warming to this type of
change. Did you notice they will offer a discounted price to newly
purchases seats if you hire someone enrolled in the Assistance Program?

Mason >> wrote:
> I suppose it could be, with piracy issues (since Adesk software doesn't
> suffer from that) and people finding ways to abuse the system (that
> doesn't happen now either).
>
> There has got to be a way to allow businesses to transfer their licenses
> with full Autodesk oversight. Shoot, I don't even care if Autodesk
> takes a fee, even up to 5% of the sale price.
>
> It *is* technically possible to transfer licenses now. I've done it
> myself. It's just that the current rules are insanely ridiculous and
> prohibitive.
>
> Gary_J_Orr wrote:
>> Boy, that's a whole other can of worms there...
>>
>> Gary

[Anonymous]

I agree, we should never expect a company that has made us no promises, to give us breaks.
Their job is to get all the money they can, and keep it coming in through time.

Its just the slimy "we asked for it" marketing that I was amazed at. I bet Adesk increases prices even more as the
Civil industry gets more and more integrated with BIM type designs that cut out much hand work of the past.
Fewer people making same product means fewer seats but demand per seat to go up.
The interesting thing is the vaccuum is becoming stronger and stronger for competing vertical products to C3D.
With popularity of .net, it will happen in next couple years for civil design at least.
Autodesk actually needs competition to keep it healthy - and to give them ideas when designing features.

Dean Saadallah
|>LT is available as a subscription purchase as well, so the problem remains:
|>how do you set aside licenses you are not using and pick them up later
|>without a financial hit?
|>
|>Well, someone has to take that financial hit, us or Autodesk. So reading
|>between the lines, we want to pass the buck and let the software creator
|>take the hit on our behalf. So that we can benefit in the short-term and
|>long-term.
|>
|>I like it: a bail-out at the consumer side, but one that hits only one
|>company, the one we all rely on for our gains in good times. Hmmm.
|>
|>--
|>Dean Saadallah
|>http://LTisACAD.blogspot.com
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[bjohnson1]

Dang, this is a long discussion...

I used to be a reseller and know a lot of autodesk reps and almost all the rules.

Anyone here remember revit before it was owned by autodesk? It was a monthly fee for the number of licenses you owned... FANTASTIC IDEA concerning this economy... pay as you go for the exact number of licenses you need.

That is the only real fix.

As for what autodesk will do.... don't expect anything... The concept is cool to save us money on licenses, but it is unrealistic. It would be the honor system to show them how many seats you need, and then folks would take advantage if it were to happen... so it realistically cannot.

If you currently lapse, you can call your reseller and pay an additional fee to get it back up to date when you are ready, and that will let you get your license back without buying a new one. On vertical products, there are no more upgrades... either buy with subscription, or pay full price next time.

Autodesk is accountable to their stockholders first... not the user base. Even resellers are not able to negotiate with them any more... it is a take-it or leave it proposition..... If there were only another real alternative to buying their software....

There is some good stuff in europe, but not enough good tools for the USA marketplace with imperial units... and no truly strong links to the MEP for BIM... so that makes it hard to go elsewhere.


I would look at any software that is half the price and works even half as good.... Lord knows we only actually use 10% of the functionality in Autocad. When is some enthusiastic entreprenuer gonna figure that out.???


BAJ- STL- MO

[Gary_J_Orr]

I'm only going to address:

> but it is unrealistic. It would be the honor system to show them how many seats you need, and then folks would take advantage if it were to happen... so it realistically cannot.
>
> If you currently lapse, you can call your reseller and pay an additional fee to get it back up to date when you are ready, and that will let you get your license back without buying a new one.
>
> Autodesk is accountable to their stockholders first... not the user base. Even resellers are not able to negotiate with them any more... it is a take-it or leave it proposition.....
Part one: It's unrealistic because it relies on the honor system...
No it doesn't, or at least no more so than dropping licenses from subscription. They track each and every authorization that comes across their desk. Yes, there is room for "fudging" with differing software versions and the like, but not any different than someone dropping subscription entirely on the same number of licenses... This proposal simply allows the customer to maintain the investment that has already been made. Some of the other productive suggestions will insure that AutoDesk doesn't loose money and would in fact come out better than even.

Part two:
Resellers can petition for lapsed subscriptions to be renewed, but there is no guarantee that it will be granted, this proposal would allow for that "assurance" to the customer.

Part three:
The rest of your "anti" Autodesk discourse is the very persuasion for those Investors: Be customer friendly and keep the customers and keep making money from them... or don't and loose them and their money. Which provides a healthier bottom line?

Gary

[Gary_J_Orr]

Mason,
In response to both of your messages regarding the option to sell:
I agree whole heartedly. This whole "you don't own it, you just have permission to use it" bs is for the birds. If you pay 4-6 grand for something up front, then it should be yours to do with as you please, regardless of your choice on the subject of subscription. But see the problem with this concept is that it really would "cost" them money. Not the fact that you're selling it, but the fact that someone else is buying it (from you instead of from them)...

They keep posturing themselves (and comparing themselves) to software that is paid for annually, yet they forget that those other software packages do not have an up front purchase price... So they justify their "apples" by comparing them to the other guys' "oranges" and simply say that they are all fruit so shut up and pay...

Gary

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is that Autodesk saw the economic
writing on the walls and common sense said that many people would be "missing"
their subscription renewal this year (ours would average abour $19k for 24
seats) in exchange for keeping some folks working or keeping the lights on. So
in an effort to "sway" those folks in to staying with the subscription plan,
they come up with this outrageous idea - a complete
kick-in-the-pants, poke-in-the-eye, transparent attempt to make your
cash flow their cash flow.

They just keep herding customers towards the cliff
and all it will take is some "upstart" like Bentley, Google, Graphisoft, or
Nemetschek to fine tune their product to a point the competes with AD products
and customers will change direction. And I think everyone's definition of what
it will take to "compete" is getting looser and looser as AD's fingers reach
deeper into our pockets.

Instead of using extortion to keep customers on
subscription, they could try making long term plans more attractive... Something
like if the customer commits to a year of subscription, it's full price, Two
years - save 10%, 3 years - 20%, 4 years 30%. AD could still increase the
subscription price each year, but keep it to a cap of 5% a year. For example 10
seats at $500 a seat (just to keep the math simple) - a one year plan would cost
$5000, 2 years $9225, 3 years $12,610, 4 years $15,085.44- again, just an
example (don't criticize my math).

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

"Gary_J_Orr" wrote in message
href="news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com...

So
many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding themselves
carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their subscription will cost
them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up (especislly considering the
looming change in upgrade pricing).

I just sent the following email to
AutoDesk Customer care and am wondering if anyone else would support such an
effort...

A Plea to AutoDesk...

Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when funds
are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified" upgrade
pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to Subscription.
I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had been introduced that
way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing policy", but that's beside the
point). I have recommended Subscription to every Employer and then to every
Client (once I started by consulting firm) since it became available.

You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers. These
customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and subsequently
maintaining that investment, through purchasing your products and paying
annual subscription fees. There are less expensive products, and they can be
even less expensive to maintain, yet your loyal customers continue to stay
your customers because they believe in you and your products.

So to the point of this communication:

I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be aware of
the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I make it
on behalf of my Clients.

I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to
dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions have
ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some have
collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is theirs. Yet you
have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy. Your customers are not
very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to look into alternative
products).

Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial
subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.

Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an example):

Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.

Customer lays off 20 people.

Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.

As is now:

Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be back
up to full strength and choose one of these options:

• 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they can't
  make use of, or
  
• 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they
  recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the subscription
  contract.
  
• 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find new
  "less expensive" product.

Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further
animosity.

Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost on you
in terms of lost revenue):

Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they know
that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for the remaining
licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license authorizations to the Customer
and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When the customer is ready to put 10
licenses back on "active" status they pay the subscription (prorated for
remaining contract length) for those 10 licenses and receive 10 more "active"
license Authorizations (reducing the "Inactive" by the corresponding count of
course). Such can continue until they have restored all "inactive" licenses
back to "active" status.

This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that adds
subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would help a
great number of your customers in this time of need (not to mention having a
flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the Hero instead of the
Villain.

Thank you for your time,

Gary

Gary J. Orr

(Your Friendly Neighborhood)

CADD/BIMM Manager

(314) 704-4453

Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com

*GOMO*

-CADD/BIMM- Stuff

St. Louis, MO

http://www.gomostuff.com/

[Anonymous]

There used to be provisions that if a company went bankrupt, their software
could be transferred to another company. THat had to be done through the
graces of Autodesk and a reseller - it wasn't just something you could do on
your own. It would be nice if you could "transfer" some licenses away for a
fee to firm that could use (and afford) them...


"Mason >" <""antmanremove to reply12697 \"@ gmail dot com"> wrote in
message news:6217805@discussion.autodesk.com...
How about just allowing us to sell our licenses that are no longer in use?

Gary_J_Orr wrote:
> So many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding
> themselves carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their
> subscription will cost them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up
> (especislly considering the looming change in upgrade pricing).
>
> I just sent the following email to AutoDesk Customer care and am
> wondering if anyone else would support such an effort...
>
> A Plea to AutoDesk...
>
>
> Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when
> funds are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified"
> upgrade pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to
> Subscription. I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had
> been introduced that way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing
> policy", but that's beside the point). I have recommended Subscription
> to every Employer and then to every Client (once I started by consulting
> firm) since it became available.
>
>
> You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers.
> These customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and
> subsequently maintaining that investment, through purchasing your
> products and paying annual subscription fees. There are less expensive
> products, and they can be even less expensive to maintain, yet your
> loyal customers continue to stay your customers because they believe in
> you and your products.
>
>
> So to the point of this communication:
>
> I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be aware
> of the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I
> make it on behalf of my Clients.
>
> I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to
> dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions
> have ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some
> have collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is
> theirs. Yet you have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy.
> Your customers are not very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to
> look into alternative products).
>
>
> Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial
> subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.
>
>
> Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an example):
>
> Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.
>
> Customer lays off 20 people.
>
> Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.
>
>
> As is now:
>
> Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be
> back up to full strength and choose one of these options:
>
> * 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they
> can't make use of, or
> * 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they
> recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the
> subscription contract.
> * 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find
> new "less expensive" product.
>
> Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further
> animosity.
>
>
> Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost on
> you in terms of lost revenue):
>
> Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they
> know that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for
> the remaining licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license
> authorizations to the Customer and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When
> the customer is ready to put 10 licenses back on "active" status they
> pay the subscription (prorated for remaining contract length) for those
> 10 licenses and receive 10 more "active" license Authorizations
> (reducing the "Inactive" by the corresponding count of course). Such can
> continue until they have restored all "inactive" licenses back to
> "active" status.
>
>
> This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that adds
> subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would
> help a great number of your customers in this time of need (not to
> mention having a flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the
> Hero instead of the Villain.
>
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> Gary J. Orr
>
> (Your Friendly Neighborhood)
>
> CADD/BIMM Manager
>
> (314) 704-4453
>
> Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com
>
>
> *GOMO*
>
> -CADD/BIMM- Stuff
>
>
> St. Louis, MO
>
> http://www.gomostuff.com/
>

[Anonymous]

They have done that in the past, with three year sub deals.
They keep changing their license policy though, which actually has some very negative effects if you are on sub.
IMO, its better to choose a version, stay on it for three years, then buy back in at 50%.
If you have to drop any seats after three years, you saved the subscription cost.
You also can run those seats on that version for a long time. On sub, you get off for a year and must jump to current
version by license agreement.

So AutoDesk is managing to balance the good with bad, and probably has no clue of the real damage they are doing to
relationships with their customers.

pkirill
|>

|>
|>

The bottom line is that Autodesk saw the economic
|>writing on the walls and common sense said that many people would be "missing"
|>their subscription renewal this year (ours would average abour $19k for 24
|>seats) in exchange for keeping some folks working or keeping the lights on. So
|>in an effort to "sway" those folks in to staying with the subscription plan,
|>they come up with this outrageous idea - a complete
|>kick-in-the-pants, poke-in-the-eye, transparent attempt to make your
|>cash flow their cash flow.

|>
|>

They just keep herding customers towards the cliff
|>and all it will take is some "upstart" like Bentley, Google, Graphisoft, or
|>Nemetschek to fine tune their product to a point the competes with AD products
|>and customers will change direction. And I think everyone's definition of what
|>it will take to "compete" is getting looser and looser as AD's fingers reach
|>deeper into our pockets.

|>
|>

Instead of using extortion to keep customers on
|>subscription, they could try making long term plans more attractive... Something
|>like if the customer commits to a year of subscription, it's full price, Two
|>years - save 10%, 3 years - 20%, 4 years 30%. AD could still increase the
|>subscription price each year, but keep it to a cap of 5% a year. For example 10
|>seats at $500 a seat (just to keep the math simple) - a one year plan would cost
|>$5000, 2 years $9225, 3 years $12,610, 4 years $15,085.44- again, just an
|>example (don't criticize my math).

|>

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

"Gary_J_Orr" wrote in message
|> href="news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com...

So
|> many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding themselves
|> carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their subscription will cost
|> them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up (especislly considering the
|> looming change in upgrade pricing).

I just sent the following email to
|> AutoDesk Customer care and am wondering if anyone else would support such an
|> effort...


|>

A Plea to AutoDesk...

|>

Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when funds
|> are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified" upgrade
|> pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to Subscription.
|> I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had been introduced that
|> way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing policy", but that's beside the
|> point). I have recommended Subscription to every Employer and then to every
|> Client (once I started by consulting firm) since it became available.

|>

You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers. These
|> customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and subsequently
|> maintaining that investment, through purchasing your products and paying
|> annual subscription fees. There are less expensive products, and they can be
|> even less expensive to maintain, yet your loyal customers continue to stay
|> your customers because they believe in you and your products.

|>

So to the point of this communication:

|>

I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be aware of
|> the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I make it
|> on behalf of my Clients.

|>

I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to
|> dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions have
|> ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some have
|> collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is theirs. Yet you
|> have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy. Your customers are not
|> very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to look into alternative
|> products).

|>

Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial
|> subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.

|>

Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an example):
|>

|>

Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.

|>

Customer lays off 20 people.

|>

Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.

|>

As is now:

|>

Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be back
|> up to full strength and choose one of these options:

|>

|>
• 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they can't
  |> make use of, or
  |>
• 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they
  |> recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the subscription
  |> contract.
  |>
• 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find new
  |> "less expensive" product.

|>

Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further
|> animosity.

|>

Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost on you
|> in terms of lost revenue):

|>

Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they know
|> that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for the remaining
|> licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license authorizations to the Customer
|> and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When the customer is ready to put 10
|> licenses back on "active" status they pay the subscription (prorated for
|> remaining contract length) for those 10 licenses and receive 10 more "active"
|> license Authorizations (reducing the "Inactive" by the corresponding count of
|> course). Such can continue until they have restored all "inactive" licenses
|> back to "active" status.

|>

This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that adds
|> subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would help a
|> great number of your customers in this time of need (not to mention having a
|> flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the Hero instead of the
|> Villain.

|>

Thank you for your time,

|>

Gary

|>

Gary J. Orr

|>

(Your Friendly Neighborhood)

|>

CADD/BIMM Manager

|>

(314) 704-4453

|>

Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com

|>

*GOMO*

|>

-CADD/BIMM- Stuff

|>

St. Louis, MO

|>

http://www.gomostuff.com/
|>

|>

James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

They will only see the damage when the $$$ stop coming in.

Paul

"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:6226196@discussion.autodesk.com...
They have done that in the past, with three year sub deals.
They keep changing their license policy though, which actually has some very
negative effects if you are on sub.
IMO, its better to choose a version, stay on it for three years, then buy
back in at 50%.
If you have to drop any seats after three years, you saved the subscription
cost.
You also can run those seats on that version for a long time. On sub, you
get off for a year and must jump to current
version by license agreement.

So AutoDesk is managing to balance the good with bad, and probably has no
clue of the real damage they are doing to
relationships with their customers.

pkirill
|>

|>
|>

The bottom line is that Autodesk saw the
economic
|>writing on the walls and common sense said that many people would be
"missing"
|>their subscription renewal this year (ours would average abour $19k
for 24
|>seats) in exchange for keeping some folks working or keeping the lights
on. So
|>in an effort to "sway" those folks in to staying with the subscription
plan,
|>they come up with this outrageous idea - a complete
|>kick-in-the-pants, poke-in-the-eye, transparent attempt to make
your
|>cash flow their cash flow.

|>
|>

They just keep herding customers towards the
cliff
|>and all it will take is some "upstart" like Bentley, Google, Graphisoft,
or
|>Nemetschek to fine tune their product to a point the competes with AD
products
|>and customers will change direction. And I think everyone's definition of
what
|>it will take to "compete" is getting looser and looser as AD's fingers
reach
|>deeper into our pockets.

|>
|>

Instead of using extortion to keep customers
on
|>subscription, they could try making long term plans more attractive...
Something
|>like if the customer commits to a year of subscription, it's full price,
Two
|>years - save 10%, 3 years - 20%, 4 years 30%. AD could still increase the
|>subscription price each year, but keep it to a cap of 5% a year. For
example 10
|>seats at $500 a seat (just to keep the math simple) - a one year plan
would cost
|>$5000, 2 years $9225, 3 years $12,610, 4 years $15,085.44- again, just an
|>example (don't criticize my math).

|>

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

"Gary_J_Orr" wrote in message
|>
href="news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com...

So
|> many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding
themselves
|> carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their subscription
will cost
|> them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up (especislly considering
the
|> looming change in upgrade pricing).

I just sent the following
email to
|> AutoDesk Customer care and am wondering if anyone else would support
such an
|> effort...


|>

A Plea to AutoDesk...

|>

Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when
funds
|> are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified" upgrade
|> pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to
Subscription.
|> I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had been
introduced that
|> way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing policy", but that's
beside the
|> point). I have recommended Subscription to every Employer and then to
every
|> Client (once I started by consulting firm) since it became available.

|>

You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers.
These
|> customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and
subsequently
|> maintaining that investment, through purchasing your products and paying
|> annual subscription fees. There are less expensive products, and they
can be
|> even less expensive to maintain, yet your loyal customers continue to
stay
|> your customers because they believe in you and your products.

|>

So to the point of this communication:

|>

I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be
aware of
|> the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I
make it
|> on behalf of my Clients.

|>

I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to
|> dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions
have
|> ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some have
|> collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is theirs.
Yet you
|> have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy. Your customers are
not
|> very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to look into alternative
|> products).

|>

Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial
|> subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.

|>

Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an
example):
|>

|>

Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.

|>

Customer lays off 20 people.

|>

Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.

|>

As is now:

|>

Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be
back
|> up to full strength and choose one of these options:

|>

|>
• 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they
  can't
  |> make use of, or
  |>
• 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they
  |> recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the
  subscription
  |> contract.
  |>
• 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find
  new
  |> "less expensive" product.

|>

Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further
|> animosity.

|>

Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost
on you
|> in terms of lost revenue):

|>

Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they
know
|> that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for the
remaining
|> licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license authorizations to the
Customer
|> and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When the customer is ready to put
10
|> licenses back on "active" status they pay the subscription (prorated for
|> remaining contract length) for those 10 licenses and receive 10 more
"active"
|> license Authorizations (reducing the "Inactive" by the corresponding
count of
|> course). Such can continue until they have restored all "inactive"
licenses
|> back to "active" status.

|>

This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that
adds
|> subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would
help a
|> great number of your customers in this time of need (not to mention
having a
|> flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the Hero instead of
the
|> Villain.

|>

Thank you for your time,

|>

Gary

|>

Gary J. Orr

|>

(Your Friendly Neighborhood)

|>

CADD/BIMM Manager

|>

(314) 704-4453

|>

Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com

|>

*GOMO*

|>

-CADD/BIMM- Stuff

|>

St. Louis, MO

|>

http://www.gomostuff.com/
|>

|>

James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

Potential low-cost AutoCAD replacement killers
are:

- AcceliCAD($400)/IntelliCAD($350)
href="http://www.autodsys.com/indexh.html">http://www.autodsys.com/indexh.html

- Other CAD based on IntelliCAD:

    GStarCAD($1,000)
href="http://www.staricad.com/">http://www.staricad.com/

    ProgeCAD
href="http://www.progesoft.com/en/">http://www.progesoft.com/en/

Paul

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

"pkirill" <pkirill @ kdcad dot com> wrote in message
href="news:6225792@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6225792@discussion.autodesk.com...

The bottom line is that Autodesk saw the economic
writing on the walls and common sense said that many people would be "missing"
their subscription renewal this year (ours would average abour $19k for
24 seats) in exchange for keeping some folks working or keeping the lights on.
So in an effort to "sway" those folks in to staying with the subscription
plan, they come up with this outrageous idea - a complete
kick-in-the-pants, poke-in-the-eye, transparent attempt to make your
cash flow their cash flow.

They just keep herding customers towards the
cliff and all it will take is some "upstart" like Bentley, Google, Graphisoft,
or Nemetschek to fine tune their product to a point the competes with AD
products and customers will change direction. And I think everyone's
definition of what it will take to "compete" is getting looser and looser as
AD's fingers reach deeper into our pockets.

Instead of using extortion to keep customers on
subscription, they could try making long term plans more attractive...
Something like if the customer commits to a year of subscription, it's full
price, Two years - save 10%, 3 years - 20%, 4 years 30%. AD could still
increase the subscription price each year, but keep it to a cap of 5% a year.
For example 10 seats at $500 a seat (just to keep the math simple) - a one
year plan would cost $5000, 2 years $9225, 3 years $12,610, 4 years
$15,085.44- again, just an example (don't criticize my math).

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

"Gary_J_Orr" wrote in message
href="news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6216622@discussion.autodesk.com...

So
many companies have let go of employees that they are now finding themselves
carrying too many licenses, yet dropping any from their subscription will
cost them a fortune when (if) they can staff back up (especislly considering
the looming change in upgrade pricing).

I just sent the following
email to AutoDesk Customer care and am wondering if anyone else would
support such an effort...

A Plea to AutoDesk...

Everyone knows how hard times have become. And in these times, when funds
are so hard to come by, AutoDesk announces this "simplified" upgrade
pricing... We all know that the real reason is to push people to
Subscription. I'm fine with that (I would have appreciated it if it had been
introduced that way instead of as a "simplified upgrade pricing policy", but
that's beside the point). I have recommended Subscription to every Employer
and then to every Client (once I started by consulting firm) since it became
available.

You (AutoDesk) have a large number of current Subscription customers.
These customers have shown their loyalty to you by investing in, and
subsequently maintaining that investment, through purchasing your products
and paying annual subscription fees. There are less expensive products, and
they can be even less expensive to maintain, yet your loyal customers
continue to stay your customers because they believe in you and your
products.

So to the point of this communication:

I'm now asking you to reciprocate this loyalty. I want you to be aware of
the fact that this request will not directly benefit me in any way. I make
it on behalf of my Clients.

I am personally aware of a number of companies that have had to
dramatically reduce their staff in the last few months. These reductions
have ranged from 20 to 60 percent of their numbers of last year. Some have
collapsed entirely. This is not your fault any more than it is theirs. Yet
you have chosen this time to make yourself appear greedy. Your customers are
not very appreciative of it (I even had one ask me to look into alternative
products).

Here is your chance to make it right. I'm asking you to offer partial
subscription deferrals to current subscription customers.

Take the following example (pick your product(s) this is only an
example):

Customer has 60 licenses of AutoCAD on subscription.

Customer lays off 20 people.

Customer is faced with subscription renewal cost.

As is now:

Heretofore loyal Customer must try to determine when they hope to be back
up to full strength and choose one of these options:

• 1) Customer must either pay subscription for 20 licenses that they
  can't make use of, or
  
• 2) Customer must lose half the value of 20 licenses (even if they
  recover completely in a single year) by dropping them from the
  subscription contract.
  
• 3) Customer drops subscription entirely and uses "savings" to find new
  "less expensive" product.

Any Choice will cost the customer and earn you nothing but further
animosity.

Here is how it could work (and yes this will place some of the cost on
you in terms of lost revenue):

Customer pays the full subscription fee for the 40 licenses that they
know that they will be using and pays 10% of the subscription fee for the
remaining licenses. You would provide 40 "active" license authorizations to
the Customer and maintain 20 "inactive" licenses. When the customer is ready
to put 10 licenses back on "active" status they pay the subscription
(prorated for remaining contract length) for those 10 licenses and receive
10 more "active" license Authorizations (reducing the "Inactive" by the
corresponding count of course). Such can continue until they have restored
all "inactive" licenses back to "active" status.

This could be offered to anyone currently on subscription or that adds
subscription prior to the scheduled upgrade pricing change. It would help a
great number of your customers in this time of need (not to mention having a
flock of new Subscription customers) and make you the Hero instead of the
Villain.

Thank you for your time,

Gary

Gary J. Orr

(Your Friendly Neighborhood)

CADD/BIMM Manager

(314) 704-4453

Gary_Orr@GOMOStuff.com

*GOMO*

-CADD/BIMM- Stuff

St. Louis, MO

http://www.gomostuff.com/

[Randy_Culp]

Excellent post and idea Gary. (personally, I'd drop the negative jabs at AD, but that's me). If enough users bang that drum it may draw attention, unfortunately, Autodesk, like many large corporations, takes time to implement changes. "Large" and "nimble" don't seem to co-exist commonly. The last change in upgrade pricing was moving long before the current economic downturn and came to fruition at a poor time. Any change resulting for your effort here may come too late for many that have to make hard decisions in the next few months. But still a worthy effort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An aside: as an old user and peruser of these boards and others, I've been reading about the ultimate demise of Autodesk for its oh so horrible pricing policies for two decades.
"As soon as a cheaper alternative shows up AD is dead."

20 years
(only AD is now bigger) okay ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another aside: Pricing - have any of you guys really priced "real" competitive 3D alternatives? In process/power there are dang few alternatives and pricing is insane. A seat of PDS leases at $650 a month, SP3D at $700, A seat of Tekla (Engineering) leases at $5000 a year. Aveva products are more. Selling our Autodesk budget is easy. Edited by: randyculp5621 on Jul 29, 2009 9:20 AM

[Randy_Culp]

Interesting timing:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/l2kmjy