Autocad's high pricing debate.

[cupax]

Hello.

I would like to open a debate about Autocad or all other Autodesk's pricing politics.

Of course I'm aware that they are a private firm and the market decides the final price, but being a (non official) industry standard it is hard to avoid their software if you want to be taken seriously.

Personally I think their software is way way too expensive. While a huge architectural or engineering firms can afford this because of well paid big projects, small firms are completely lost. No matter what size of projects you need, you still use 95% of the software functionality.

We are a micro firm of 3 architects and in Europe a full Autocad costs 5250 Euros - that is 5668 USD. A price we can't afford so we are forced to use "fake Autocad" - Brycscad, but its functionality is way behind the original and Autocad LT would not satisfy our needs for 3D modelling. I know many others who decided to go with pirated software for the same reason.

I also think that software developement doesn't need to be as fast as it is now. Us, and probbaly 95% of other users would still be perfectly happy with the functionality of Autocad 2010. I would much more like Autocad to be way cheaper and would easily agree for updates over 3 or even 5 years.

Personally I would find it acceptable to pay not more than 1000 USD for a full Autocad program, and maybe a 100-200 Usd for the subscription.

What are your thoughts?

Dave

[JDMather]

---

@cupax wrote:

S1. We are a micro firm of 3 architects and in Europe a full Autocad costs 5250 Euros - that is 5668 USD. ...

S2. I know many others who decided to go with pirated software for the same reason.

S3. What are your thoughts?

Dave

---

A1. Per year?  That doesn't sound right?

A2 & 3 BSA

[leothebuilder]

Well....if LT doesn't do the trick because you need 3d modelling, maybe the software is worth the price.

And if 2010 version works for you, why bother to buy updated software. Just stick with what you have.

I still have a release 14 with a hardware dongle. problem is the hardware dongle is for a parallel printer port. 

[dgorsman]

Alright, I'll bite.

I work for one of the big companies.  We used to be mid-sized, and on the smaller end of that before then.  I don't subscribe to the idea of having "bigger contracts" means getting more money at the end of the day.  The numbers just don't work that way.  Yes, bigger contracts bring in more money.  But you also spend more money - a LOT more.  More people, more computers, more regulatory restrictions, more everything.  While there are some discounts on license costs (either in volume for conventional licensing, or through token-using pay as you go) the operating costs are huge, and the margins aren't what some seem to think.

As for users being perfectly happy with AutoCAD 2010... have a dig into older posts asking (demanding) support for Win 10.  Or Win 8.  Or 4k/UHD monitor support.  Even if you're happy with the state of affairs I can guarantee there are others who are not.

[cupax]

JDMather:

This is a standalone new price, a yearly subscription is 2100 USD. Way above we can afford, to pay cca 6000+ Usd/year for Autocad only.

BSA is not the answer nor the topic of the debate.

leothebuilder:

My point is that Autocad is NOT worth the price. How many new features the last 3 versions brought to you that you can't live without and are you willing to pay for them 2000USD/year/user?

Sure, software needs to be updated, but at what price?

dgorsman:

Yes you are right. When I was working in Chicago for a huge firm (150 architects) they paid around 130.000 Usd to upgrade 2004 to 2006 version. What I ment is that bigger firms can manage running costs more eficently (having people that do only that) than small firms which are all-in-one person.

[leothebuilder]

Your opinion is that it is not worth the price and that may be so for you.

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade or take out subscriptions.

2010 version is a perpetual licence so you do not have to spend that kind of money each year.

You can always check out alternatives and see if these do what you expect.

If they don't, then maybe autocad is worth the price but anyone else's opinion really doesn't matter.

Of course it would be nice if autocad was half or quarter the current retail price and I am not here to defend Autodesk's pricing.

If you look at it on a yearly basis, a subscription cost about a dollar per hour. I am not sure whay your firm charges

per hour but whatever that is, if you added a buck I don't think your clients would complain too much.

It may be worth noting that equivalent CAD software such as Bentley all have similar pricing structures.

[pendean]

AutoCAD, in Euros, in Europe, on the Website, annual subscription only, you can't buy it at your listed price anymore: is that old pricing for perpetual that's dead and gone now? This price is only 205Euros per month per seat/per person, if you join the subscription too. You can't bill for that? Even a small firm can bill that to a job or jobs as an expense or billing hour.

And yes, that's more that North America pays: just like goodies in Japan and Southeast Asia cost significantly less than the rest of us can buy. World Trade is wierd that way, cater to the local market, profit from outside markets. Wish it wasn't that way either.

[leothebuilder]

Autocad in Australia is $295 A$ per month (210.00 USD per month)

Again, thats buck and a half per hour.

[cupax · Accepted solution]

I'm asking for your opinions and not to judge mine.

In our country small firms never bill per hour basis, always per fixed price/project.

Sadly, we can't pay 10% of our yearly profit for Autocad only, it is just too expensive.

Again, this is my opinion, I would like to hear yours.

[leothebuilder]

I am offering my opinion, and I am not judging you or your situation.

Time for you to check alternatives is all I can suggest.

[pendean]

We are offering our opinions, you asked: no one is judging, we can only go by our own experiences when responding.

I'm curious, what were you expecting exactly after your post? I'm just asking, wondering out loud so to speak.

If your experiences differ so dramatically, you do indeed need to find a different software solution of R2010 is no longer cutting it for you and your projects. We can't help you with that decision, we are all end users just like you with the same expenses to pay as well.

[cupax]

Well, my intent in this post is to see how many people fit in one of the following groups:

- A: are using Autocad and think it's price is right

- B: are using Autocad, think it's price is too high and would agree to have less upgrades and features for lower price.

- C: are using Autocad because they are forced to (due to client or someone's else requirement), think it's overpriced and would prefer a different (cheaper) software

- 😧 are NOT using Autocad because they simply can't afford it but would like to if it would be cheaper.

We are in the D group.

Now, to understand better the ratio between earning and cost of an architectural office around the world I'm asking anyone to write the price your office is charging for the whole architectural documentation (idea + construction documents) for an average 3000 sqf single family house, nothing fancy?

In Slovenia a project like this starts from 2500 Eur and can go up to about 5000 Eur. Sadly the marked is forcing architects to sell their knowledge for so cheap.

[pendean]

It looks to me like your firm is in the D category for sure: there are great alternative products out there, explore them all.

You left out one or more category, I'll start with our reality:
- All of our project partners use AutoCAD Verticals like we do and we cannot afford to break files on a project team, we don't like the price but can bill for it.

[Backnblack]

---

@cupax wrote:

My point is that Autocad is NOT worth the price.

---

So why are you here complaining?

I think BMW's are overpriced, guess what? I drive an F150...

My firm has over 100 Autodesk liceneses in various flavors. It's a cost of doing bussiness.

[wundrlik]

Just a point of reference for you...

AutoCAD r12 (June 1992) MSRP was $3750 USD

AutoCAD 2016 (March 2015) MSRP was $4295 USD

If you account for inflation from 1992 to 2016, a single seat of AutoCAD would sell for $6327 if Autodesk had kept the price competitive to today's dollars.

Yes, there are other cheaper alternatives to AutoCAD today, and due to the Open DWG Alliance, most of them can open native DWG files without issue.

I personally prefer Autocad to the others (I have used/still use TurboCAD, Vectorworks, Microstation and others).  

At the end of the day, you need to look at your total workflow process and determine which software will give you the results you need.

Thanks,

[johnidi]

I believe I understand his situation. We are a Design/Build firm (more Build than Design) that use AutoCAD more to revise issued drawings or do quick mark-ups. I never used to upgrade because all the latest and greatest features was not something we needed.

But as others have said, it is the price of doing business. 

[jggerth1]

---

@wundrlik wrote:

Just a point of reference for you...

AutoCAD r12 (June 1992) MSRP was $3750 USD

AutoCAD 2016 (March 2015) MSRP was $4295 USD

If you account for inflation from 1992 to 2016, a single seat of AutoCAD would sell for $6327 if Autodesk had kept the price competitive to today's dollars.

Yes, there are other cheaper alternatives to AutoCAD today, and due to the Open DWG Alliance, most of them can open native DWG files without issue.

I personally prefer Autocad to the others (I have used/still use TurboCAD, Vectorworks, Microstation and others).  

At the end of the day, you need to look at your total workflow process and determine which software will give you the results you need.

Thanks,

---

While the pricing comparison is .... interesting.  it's disingenuous.  The cost of IT/ tech has been on a downward path for years, while improvements in software have been increasingly incremental/evolutionary.  That smartphone in your pocket costs a couple of hundred bucks, yet has vastly more capability that a minicomputer built in 1992 that would have cost tens of thousands back then.  AutoCAD, while pricy in 1992, cost substantially less than the hardware needed to run it.  

Software is the same downward cost path as well.  Real cost to produce the software is minimal thanks to limited improvements and features, and the per-unit cost of distribution is non-existant.  Heck, Libre Office accomlishes as much or more than MS Office, and has _zero_ cost to license.

That reality is probably a factor in Autodesk going rental only for software.  Well, that, and the EU courts ruling that the First Sale doctrine applies to software.  Can't have people reselling their R14 licenses after all.

.

>>At the end of the day, you need to look at your total workflow process and determine which software will give you the results you need.

I agree completely with that statement.  And often a very workable result is possible with minimal to no cost upfront or recurring.

[Backnblack]

The last thing the EU should worry about is software....There are more
important things to fix over there.

[jggerth1]

well, yeah.  lots of things need fixing everywhere.  That ruling was several years ago.  Predating Adobe's move to cloud-only offerings IIRC.  And as has been said elsewhere, 'Adobe moved their software to the cloud, and money fell out'.

There are fewer alternatives for Adobe products than vanilla CAD has available, so we are is slightly better shape than the photoshop serfs.

[Alfred.NESWADBA]

Hi,

>> thats buck and a half per hour.

I don't know how much you all earn, but getting "a buck and a half per hour" more as employee would be a lot of money for me.

I do understand that price discussions are done as in some countries it is really not easy to just pay more (like now the difference between subscription previously and rental in the future).

But on the other hand: when you have different tools you can use it's up to you to decide which tool you buy and use.

If you don't have enough money for AutoCAD use an alternative which costs 10% of AutoCAD, so you can spent 90% more time to get around some issues you find with the alternative product (the calculation is not really correct, but hopefully it's easier to understand). And the more you know the issues with the alternative product the more efficient you can work with it.

Also to be mentioned, if you are 3 people, take 1 AutoCAD and 2 alternative products. So you have one "original" for critical projects or dataexchange in case of troubles and the cheaper products for the all-day work.

- alfred -