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

[dgorsman]

I'd be cautious about looking at "zero cost" software.  There is a cost somewhere, maybe not immediately, maybe not in local currency.  For example I'm ambivalent about the trend towards expecting programmers/developers to provide product without compensation.  Yeah, the really good ones make it *look* easy, especially at the end product but its not.  And they still have bills at the end of the day.

[jggerth]

yeah -- whether free, low cost, or high priced, due diligence requires evaluating whatever software you're looking at.  If Paintshop Pro is adequate to the needs and expertise level, then Photoshop is a poor choice in your shop, regardless of being the industry norm.  Same thing for Libre Office (although IMO Libre Office is much better and less crufty than MS Office).  For vector graphics, maybe Corel Draw or Inkscape is an approproiate choice, or maybe the final call is Adobe Illustrator.  If you must interoperate with designers using Civil 3D, then you need to get Civil3d.  Most o the surveyors I deal with though, have stuck on Acad 2004, not even LDT.  It meets their needs, even if it doesn't help me with my sites much.

The advantage of GPL software to a small shop is it's affordable to test extensively and evaluate, and considering just how much if the world runs 24x7 on GPL/MIT/Apache or other FOSS software, the notion that quality is a factor of expense is a non-starter. Another benefit is that open software generally is much more amenable to using standard format.  For example, ODF instead of DOCX, or OpenDWG instead of proprietary Adesk DWG.

One might pay for what one gets, but there's no assurances that they will get what they pay for.

[cupax]

JGerth: Well written!

Incredible, I work with "Acad 2004 Surveyors" too and can completely understand why they are not upgrading - It simply isn't worth for them and nobody is going to force them. And that's exactly my point: Why you should pay (a lot) for Autocad upgrades if they are not worth - for you? Just because somebody is saying that they are industry standard? They are not, the DWG format is the industry standard and many other CAD software supports it, so there is a choice.

I have a feeling I'm not the only one on this (needing an upgrade every year which in the end is more or less just cosmetic or useless features). I believe companies like Autodesk (or Adobe) are starting to feel this on their income so they are searching new methods to sell you the same thing again and again. Under the line: how many really useful new functions can somebody invent in a 2D CAD program every year?

First there were just individual yearly upgrades, then there was a yearly support with integrated upgrades now it is subscription only.

[jackshield]

doesnt that mentality apply to all software, and hardware for that matter?

[wai1954]

If I can put my AUD 0.05 in on this.

We are not wanting to get the software at any discount. We simply want software that is priced in a way that is fair.

I have just parted with just over AUD 7,000 to purchase a perpetual licence of AutoCAD 2016. The breakdown is AUD 5,950 for AutoCAD 2016, AUD 440 for one year's Commercial Maintenance Subscription, and the rest as our GST. As a business, the GST is refundable but it takes 3 months to get that component back.

Now, just looking at the AutoCAD itself, AUD 5,950 equates to something like USD 4,220 plus any taxes.

In June last year, I contacted a US Autodesk dealer and asked for the price of a US version of AutoCAD 2016  (I told him I was making the inquiry on behalf of a cousin working in the US). The price given to me was USD 1,999. I know of multi-national companies that have their AutoCAD supplied in the US where they are installed onto laptops and then the laptops repacked and shipped to their offices around the world to get around having to purchase the identical package locally at more than double the price.

At the moment, AUD 1= USD 0.70, but the difference in price was still there when our dollar was actually valued around AUD 1.00 = USD 1.10.

So, we are paying much higher prices than we should be. We are not looking for a discount, just parity pricing. Autodesk does not provide direct support. This is done by way of paying for a maintenance subscription. There is no difference in the package. After all, I had to download it from the US anyway.

The same goes in Europe where on the face of it, they are being charged even more.

Then, just to make matters worse, we are told we have to compete with countries where piracy is rampant, and Autodesk decides to do absolutely nothing. I mean, if this same pricing policy was being used, AutoCAD would be Rs 287,000 in India, and 27,750 Yuan in China. And yet they charge as little as USD 5/hour. There are simply not enough hours in the year to recover the cost of the software, pay wages, pay for utilities etc. The only way they can do this is by using pirated software.

When my clients heard that I had upgraded (actually updated as there was nothing offered for my old AutoCAD 2006), they told me with a completely straight face that they expected a reduction in charges seeing as I could now work "faster" with some of the increased functionality!

So, all we are asking for is parity pricing.

The really strange thing is that Autodesk would have people upgrade annually with parity  pricing, rather than be dragged kicking and screaming everytime there is an upgrade. Not a good look.

[pendean]

>>>...We simply want software that is priced in a way that is fair...<<<
You mean, for example, Autodesk offers high end REVIT, slightly cheaper AutoCADARCH, slightly cheaper AutoCAD, slightly cheaper REVITLT and even cheaper AutoCAD LT, and you still cannot find something affordable to use?

Like everything else you buy, everything, without exception, if 'Maker A' has priced themselves out of your reach, you need to find where there is a similar good-enough 'Maker B' that best fits your budget instead. Find that store brand that works in your budget, we all have budgets, we all have to live within our means.

As for pricing outside of North America, that's your government (collective "your", not aimed specifically at you Ian) not negotiating or lobbying very well to eliminate the fears that trigger price hikes as dramatic as that sadly. Software, music, entertainment, goods and services and more are all priced with the same excuses if you do a little research sadly. Which there was something more fair out there but we aren't there yet.

[wai1954]

No, it has nothing whatsoever with our government not negotiating, although they are more interested in their business buddies than the people who elected them.

Take Bluebeam. They have local resellers, but that does not mean I cannot buy the exact same product from a global reseller ad half the price, and then still get it activated. That's not the case with Autodesk. With Aitodesk, it is they who impose restrictions on where it can be bought. We signed a TPP with the US. We should not have as it provides no benefits to us. In the recent State of the Union address, Obama clearly said that the purpose of the TPP was to strengthen US markets and protect US jobs. It had nothing to do with free trade, or opening up US markets to the world. That is what we were told it was going to do by the government minister who has now announced his retirement!

As for making a change to an alternative, again, not easy.

Around 10 years ago, I had a hard drive fail on my computer. My backups also had a fault in one of the incremental backups, and this rendered the entire set useless. I had to pay $1,500 to get the data recovered, because the data was worth many, many times more than that. Almost all of the data was AutoCAD drawings. This is the thing. The data is very specific to the program.

I have had clients try and migrate their data to an alternative package only to see them return because of the loss of intelligence in the files. There is a lot more intelligence contained in a DWG file than just the graphics, and it is this that gets scrambled, or lost when used with an alternative. That however should not be used as a way to lock a customer in and then keep increasing charges.

There has been a surge in sales of AutoCAD to beat the deadline of Jan 31, 2016 for the last perpetual licences (going to make the accounts look great). The previous deadline was July 31, 2015, however that had to be extended because users were only notified of the deadline in the first week in August! Even then, they were not allowing you to purchase just AutoCAD. It has to be a design suite, and that meant a minimum purchase of just over $10,000. Dealers were not allowed to offer just AutoCAD, and this price was with a 30% discount and considered an "upgrade".

The other thing is the so-called "level playing field". There is none, particularly where piracy is concerned. The reason why Autodesk turns a blind eye in countries like India and China is that with such huge populations, if just a tiny fraction of users used licenced packages, the number of global licences would increase by orders of magnitude. So, to keep that immense pool of users and hence legitimate ones onside, they do not want to upset the apple cart. Smaller markets (and not that small) are then used as examples of how strong they are against piracy.

The thing is that it is not a problem if the market you are in gets the product at a beneficial price point 🙂

[rkmcswain]

cupax wrote:

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.

IMO (and I'm not trying to flame you) - you have answered your own questions right here, and you are looking for validation of how you think, or want, it to work.

You could take that ±$5000 and hire a guy who draws really fast and accurate to do all your drawings by hand.....but, wait, where are you going to find some one to do that for ±$5000 a year?

Computer hardware and software is a cost of doing business.

Does your line of work require office space, office supplies, and electricity? The electric company, the company from which you lease your space, and the office supply store all have set prices that you agree to. Does your line of work require CAD? Then it really doesn't matter what the cost is. You build it into your fees just like you do electricity, office space, office supplies and the rest of your overhead. (I know there are more costs than that, I'm just using those as an example).

Autodesk has built a pretty bulletproof business model, but they are not a monopoly. You don't have to buy rent from them.

[wai1954]

---

@rkmcswain wrote:

@cupax wrote:

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.

Autodesk has built a pretty bulletproof business model, but they are not a monopoly. You don't have to buy rent from them.

---

Well, you do, and Autodesk know this. It's like fuel prices as well. You do not have to use a car...well actually you do.

The thing is that as long as people are in a region where the prices are lower, they are quite happy with the business model. If the situation were reversed, it would be another matter altogether.

As for the business model being bulletproof, that is still to be seen. The expiring of perpetual licences being sold will show a healthy bottom line for Autodesk at the moment as users buy the last of them. What this does mean is that they are not going to see a revenue stream from those customers for at least 2, maybe 3 years. The only way to now show a continuing revenue stream will be by increasing the cost of subscriptions/rental/pay-as-you-go. That's when the fun starts. You see, investors want continuing growth otherwise they leave their money in the banks.

But you know, it is such a bad look. The whole subscription model for software is driven by the need to show a steady increase in growth. The thing is that once you have everyone on subscription, how do you now show growth? Matching inflation does nothing for investors. They go nowhere with that. Growth has to exceed inflation. Maybe Autodesk will then find it more attractive to go after the pirates, and if that proves too difficult, it will be domestic North American licences that will be the target 😄

[cupax]

I'm really enjoying this conversation 🙂 It is so nice to read all this different points of view.

But please keep in mind - Autocad is not your employe, it is not an engineer. It is just a tool, that took place of a pen, ruller and paper. You still must have a fully educated architect/engineer that uses it. Here I mean being educated (have a degree) in their field of expertise. And architectural and engineering firms shuld be selling their knowledge, not someone else's software, am I right? Now you are doing this by including their software price in your contracts and I bet it takes too big part of it.

I have a feeling slowly everyone here is realising that maybe, we don't need to feed an evergrowing software company just because somebody says so, or because they grown so big that they are forced in big prices just to survive and this has nothing to do with fair value of their product. Alternative software exists. Also, I'm sure there are alternatives in Autodesk's price policy. Subscription method will just push more people in pirate waters. And what will be the next Autodesk move? Maybe they'll take 30% of your company yearly income just because you are using Autocad 🙂

[Alfred.NESWADBA]

Hi,

>> And what will be the next Autodesk move? Maybe they'll take 30% of your company yearly income

<sarcasm on>

...not 30% of the income, they take your data into the cloud ... for a lot of companies this means they take most of the value of the whole company.

<sarcasm off>

- alfred -

[cupax]

Oh, don't let me start on that. The whole idea of having anything in the cloud for me is the stupidest thing a company can do. It may be ok for home use, to easily share photos to friends but to put your whole life of education, knowledge and business into someone else's hands (for free) is just plain stupid. Period.

With just a basic IT knowledge you can easily build your own cloud on your own local server. Heck, you just need a capable NAS...

[wai1954]

---

@cupax wrote:

I have a feeling slowly everyone here is realising that maybe, we don't need to feed an evergrowing software company just because somebody says so, or because they grown so big that they are forced in big prices just to survive and this has nothing to do with fair value of their product. Alternative software exists. Also, I'm sure there are alternatives in Autodesk's price policy. Subscription method will just push more people in pirate waters. And what will be the next Autodesk move? Maybe they'll take 30% of your company yearly income just because you are using Autocad 🙂

---

The thing is that the only way investors can see continued increasing returns is by taking such actions. The days of orders of magnitude improvements are long gone. These days improvements are incremental.

There are some nice things, but then they put them in half cocked. A good example is DIMLAYER. A great idea to automaticaly place dimensions on the appropriate layer, only the way it has been implemented means the DIMLAYER becomes the default working layer after just placing a dimension.

Now, I have had a reactor based tool that will recognise a dimension command and switch to the dimension layer I set via a variable when the drawing is setup, and then after it has finished, you are back on the layer you were on. I wrote that way back for 2006. I also have a similar reactor that does something similar for text but it checks the current text height variable to see what the default text layer is. And these reactors work perfectly with 2016.

Users get tired of these things, and this is why they do not upgrade. Couple that with differential pricing based on markets and you have the reason why Autodesk is toying with the subscription and other models.

Those outside North America pay almost 3 times the amount for the same software, but then Autodesk turns a blind eye to blatant piracy. You just have to see the spam telling me that they can do work for me using just about any and every CAD package around for just USD 5/hour.

[pendean]

>>>...Those outside North America pay almost 3 times the amount for the same software...<<<
Sounds like you need to start a local movement to address these issues: I'm sure there are local venues to do so that could impact more than just Autodesk. Or an opportunity for you all to shop the DWG-format competition.

[wai1954]

---

@pendean wrote:
>>>...Those outside North America pay almost 3 times the amount for the same software...<<<
Sounds like you need to start a local movement to address these issues: I'm sure there are local venues to do so that could impact more than just Autodesk. Or an opportunity for you all to shop the DWG-format competition.

---

Shopping for others also see the same restrictions on purchasing and price markups. There is no "collusion", just that one takes its lead from the other and this just keeps pushing the price up, and up, and up.

We had Senate hearings into the price of software and the software vendors brought before the committee openly said that they simply charged what the market will bear. What they did not say was that they also effectively controlled the market!

To show you how ridiculous it has become, I do work for a client who manufactures and sells replacement brake drums for trucks. This is a huge market, and they essentially reverse engineer the drums. I measure them up, and prepare them a working casting drawing, fully marked up and rationalised identifying tolerances and machined surfaces. Each drum works out at around $500.

Well, I tried to involve the local university that wants to forge links with industry. They have just purchased a 3D laser scanner. I arranged for a sample drum to be supplied for their training thinking that we could work together. I would charge less as I would not have to measure up, as the scan would achieve this. They were having difficulty usiliting the point cloud generated, so I asked them to e-mail me the point cloud data so that I could see how to get it into AutoCAD and so share that information with them.

Well, I got the shock of my life when, after trying to help them, the bean counters at the university decided they were going to recover MAXIMUM costs for each scan. They came back with a price for the scan data at $500 for them to release trial data to me so that I could assist them!!!!! For that, I will be ordering a 600 mm vernier caliper and a deep jaw set of micrometers so that I can get the measurements I need to prepare the work. My client was extremely angry over this as well, and another company that does scanning will now not be asked to provide a quote.

This just gives you the mindset of people in the IT industry here. They screw everyone they can, and so the software vendors see this and screw them. After all, if they are charging so much their software, they can keep paying 2 to 3 times the amount charged in the US.

[pendean]

Bean Counters... 😞

[cupax]

Autocad 2017 is out. What's new? An import tool for PDF files. There are many websites that can do this for free.

And they will charge you for this update 2000€.

Bravo!

[rkmcswain]

Nobody making anyone buy, rent, or otherwise use it.

[Anonymous]

---

@cupax wrote:

Autocad 2017 is out. What's new? An import tool for PDF files. There are many websites that can do this for free.

And they will charge you for this update 2000€.

Bravo!

---

Maybe something like TurboCAD is more your cup of tea...

[jggerth]

---

@rkmcswain wrote:
Nobody making anyone buy, rent, or otherwise use it.

---

Not always true.  Contractual obligations may require usage of a specific product.  Example being DOT -- most require Bentley deliverables, some allow the option of Civil3D.  None AFAIK will take Datacad.

Absent the option of staying home unemployed or living in a cardboard box under a bridge in Tampa.... One may face no viable alternative to renting a license.