Program updates

[Anonymous]

I think a system should be put in place whereby a small number of prospective customers (free users) test program updates before paying customer’s machines are updated.

A test period of 5 to 7 days should be in place so as to make certain the latest updates do not cause any major issues.

The system could involve testing such things as working with files that were created before the update, model to drawing stability, Sketch stability, etc.

This would protect customers who are using the program for business purposes.

[roambotics_scott]

There should be a «bleeding edge» / nightly build, «semi-stable β», and «production» stream (and maybe a rock-solid stream that deploys very infrequently)

Any user should be able to pick any stream though I like the idea of making the production and rock-solid premium features (definitely something that would be worth it and part of how free users pay is by being guinea pigs)

[kb9ydn]

That's a REALLY good idea; make the high reliability version a premium feature.  The higher end users are the ones that really need the stability so they would be more willing to pay extra for it.

C|

[Anonymous]

I see, so the poor get to be the canary that dies in the mine.  Sure that's fair from the rich or fascist persons perspective.

Forcing the poorest to take the crap first is very fascist and prejudiced in nature, like the Fascisti or Nazis used to do,.. e.g. in medical tests.

Such a thing should be voluntary, NOT COMPULSORY! 

The fact is that such a thing already exists, you know they call them BETA TESTERS.  [duh]

Beta Testers typically volunteer either to get the latest features or for perks.  It seems to me a small number of cloud credits could be offered as a perk for each update check for those that sign up to be a Beta Tester.  At least then they are getting paid for their efforts and not just being treated as slaves.

At least that is voluntary as apposed to compulsory, and would not just be fair treatment but also a positive incentive for anyone, rich or poor, to be a Beta Tester.

================================================================

A reminder:

"The law in it's majestic equality forbids the rich and the poor, the mighty and the powerless from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing bread."  - Anatole France

[roambotics_scott]

IDK seems pretty fair to me - you get a free, professional, high-end, cross-platform CAD program *for free*, in exchange for living a bit closer to the bleeding edge.

Personally paying or not, I'd opt in to the nightly build bleeding edge stream

[Anonymous]

So you apparently are "voting" for compulsory as apposed to voluntary, where the individual has no choice but to be subject to the crap end of the stick just because they are poor?  I have been both, so maybe I can empathize, where you apparently are having difficulty with that.  We have seen the scenario you suggest play out throughout history repeatedly, and that has always been the wrong side.  So you are suggesting that the already privileged get yet another unfair advantage making them even more privileged, when clearly there is a better way?

[kb9ydn]

The comparison to Fascism is a major stretch.  We're talking about a software tool here (which the use of is completely voluntary), not forced military conscription or slave labor.

C|

[Anonymous]

For most using this software for free this is their ONLY solution to their CAD problems, otherwise they might be using Solidworks or TrueSpace for example, so to say it is voluntary is not a stretch, but in those cases just incorrect.  The fact that for some it is the only choice makes it compulsory.

And I will again state the quote:

"The law in it's majestic equality forbids the rich and the poor, the mighty and the powerless from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing bread."  - Anatole France

The rich have no need to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, or steal bread.

  While they could, they do not need to, and I think you will typically find that they will not.  However to the poor they have NO CHOICE, thus it is compulsory, as is what you suggest.

Well there is no need for the rich to be treated as guinea pigs.

  While they could, they do not need to, and I think you will typically find that they will not.  However to the poor they have NO CHOICE, thus it is compulsory, as is what you suggest.

What I have suggested SOLVES the issue AND is fair to all, and I can even imagine some of the rich CHOOSING to be a Beta Testers so they can cut their cloud credit use, is it not fair that they be given that chance as well?

Or are you just dead set on forcing the poor who simply cannot afford the better solutions into also being guinea pigs?

[roambotics_scott]

Jesus man this fascism thing is insane.

Carl and Autodesk have invested millions of dollars in this program and they'll continue to do so.

They're giving it out for free and they're going to want to offer some kind of value-add to people who will be paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for it.

Yeah - if the choice is between cripple ware where the low-end / free versions don't have all the features, and letting people who don't pay get QA tested but slightly pre-production releases, it's a no-brainer.

I'm not saying you should be tortured or experimented on. I'm saying you should get a full-fledged professional tool gratis ffs - and give back a tiny bit in some small way.

[roambotics_scott]

How insanely entitled are you to be so pissed off that this great software that could easily be expensive with no free tier be completely free with you paying a tiny bit back in feedback and testing ‽

This is personal to me because it was free for startups and works on Macs, I used it when I couldn't come close to affording SW, Inventor, or any of the other multi-k$ programs. I had plenty of complaints about stability and other issues, but I'm grateful that it was there for free and if those flaky releases I was using were identical but labeled the beta/free-tier stream, my expectations would have been set correctly, and people who could pay could have gotten a better product.

It's the definition of win-win.

[Anonymous]

So you're saying because they are rich they have a RIGHT to crap on the poor?

They already have greatly enhanced their business model in this structure of special license use, this includes but is not limited to they get to GREATLY increase the number of people using this software by magnitudes which allows them to compete with Solidworks in a MAJOR way which means that those going to school and in many different fields using it will already be familiar and fluent in its use which drives employers to make it their go-to software as almost all of their new hires will already be fluent with it.  Their move in this direction was a great move, and could make them number One again, but no lets put a kink in that and make it crappy for those new comers so they can have bad things to say about it and make Fusion less popular.

It just doesn't make sense to take compulsory action instead offering voluntary participation.?

  Clearly, offering VOLUNTARY Beta Testing is the better solution here, I just don't get why anyone would be so bent on compulsory action as apposed to voluntary participation, unless they truly just hated [or feared] the poor.

[Anonymous]

'Easily expensive' is the route Solidworks has taken.  That is their BIGGER competitor, this move they made could put them on top again and you suggest they ruin that by turning it into pay-to-play-ware.  And sorry the definition of 'win-win' is where each party gets equally good benefits, so I think you might mean "win flawless - sort of win flawed".

I will say it again, it just doesn't make sense to take compulsory action instead offering voluntary participation.?

  Clearly, offering VOLUNTARY Beta Testing is the better solution here, I just don't get why anyone would be so bent on compulsory action as apposed to voluntary participation, unless they truly just hated [or feared] the poor.

[roambotics_scott]

Dude - «win-win» doesn't mean «everybody gets everything they want». It's a compromise that is fair, generous, and works pretty well for all involved

If they just truly hated or feared the poor, they'd leave them out in the cold to fend for themselves rather than give them something great [again] for free.

[Anonymous]

Well that's obtuse, I did not say "everything" did I?  That is stupidly silly.  I said,.. well just read it, and don't twist it. 

You used the word fair, which implies equal, otherwise you would have to say something like 'unequally fair', which I might point out is NOT actually fair.  And to shortcut arguments about it, my dictionary states: "Fair - the general word, implies the treating of both or all sides alike, without reference to one's own feelings or interests." -Websters new world dictionary second college edition- [note I am not a college student, although I went to collage long ago, I run a small business now, but this dictionary is from when I went to collage]

To say "win-win" implies equal as the words on each side of the dash are equal [actually exactly the same word], what you propose is not just unequal, it could also harm the companies standing with these newer users, as I have already stated and you ignored that whole section.

I didn't say they hated the poor, again,.. read it and don't twist it.

 I said [there is a LOT of context here that should be read above which shows the poor would be subject and that could hurt the great move the company made]: "Clearly, offering VOLUNTARY Beta Testing is the better solution here, I just don't get why anyone would be so bent on compulsory action as apposed to voluntary participation, unless they truly just hated [or feared] the poor.", I did NOT say 'they', I said [effectively] those who are for compulsory action, and you so far have shown that you are for compulsory action, so in this particular case would imply you as you are taking up the argument for compulsory action against my suggestion for voluntary participation.

Voluntary Beta testing is an extremely common practice and is extremely successful.  I don't get why you are so against it.

[kb9ydn]

@Anonymous

I think we get what you're saying.  It's just that you're comparing two things that are on WAY different scales.  Being forced to use software that maybe crashes sometimes just doesn't seem nearly as bad as being forced into military service where you could potentially die.  Inconvenience vs potential death is not a good comparison.  It comes across as a gross over reaction and (I think) is a distraction from you're saying, which is that only being allowed to use a beta version of the software could feel like sort of a punishment to free users.  Just being able to use a very powerful piece of software for free seems like a reasonable incentive to me, but everyone has their own opinion and perspective.

C|