<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: AutoCAD 2016 in AutoCAD Forum</title>
    <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-forum/autocad-2016/m-p/5543087#M337215</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Maybe I'm reading this chart wrong, but it seems as though they conveniently left out the yearly subscription on the perpetual license in the first option, even though it is in the $4740.00 price:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.autodesk.com/store/autocad/subscribe-or-buy" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.autodesk.com/store/autocad/subscribe-or-buy&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That first price of $4740.00 is a perpetual license with subscription. If your subscription is $545.00/year then you are up to $6375.00 after 4 years, which is less than the 4x1680.00 = $6720.00 for 4 year of desktop subscription. And every year after that you are only paying $545.00 vs $1680.00. Seems like a win-win for Autodesk and a lose-lose for the end user. Maybe I'm reading it wrong (but I don't believe so), but anyone even considering AutoCAD for a long term investment would be&amp;nbsp;much better off buying a perpetual license with&amp;nbsp;subscription before you no longer can in 2016.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:07:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-03-16T17:07:22Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
</rss>

