Please clarify,
1.) Existing customers on perpetual license subscription will be able to continue to renew that subscription and recieve upgraded perpetual licenses in the future at similiar prices as currently charged. Yes - No?
2.) What options will existing customers have, when they allow their perpetual license subscription to lapse?
3.) What options will existing perpetual license customers have in regards to downgrading or cross grading after perpetual licenses are no longer offered?
Thanks
JL
Hi JL,
Very happy to provide clarification.
1.) Existing customers on perpetual license subscription will be able to continue to renew that subscription and recieve upgraded perpetual licenses in the future at similiar prices as currently charged
1-A) Yes, customers with perpetual licenses that maintain active maintenance subscription will receive future upgrades and service packs. But we cannot offer any blanket guaratees about future pricing. If you are concerned about price increases, we encourage you to lock in a price with a multi-year maintenance subscription. We offer 2 year and 3 year terms.
2.) What options will existing customers have, when they allow their perpetual license subscription to lapse?
2-A) Customers with expired Maintenance Subscriptions can continue to use their perpetual license. However, they will lose Subscription benefits such as updates, technical product support, flexible license rights and cloud services. To get the latest features and functionality after a Maintenance Subscription expires, customers will need to purchase a Desktop Subscription.
3.) What options will existing perpetual license customers have in regards to downgrading or cross grading after perpetual licenses are no longer offered?
3-A) After we discontinue sales of new perpetual licenses for a given product, customers with a license for the current version of that product can still purchase crossgrades to products that continue to offer new perpetual licenses for sale. That is a complex statement, so let me offer an example.
A customer has a perpetual license for AutoCAD 2016 on Feb 1, 2016. The license can be covered by a Maintenance Subscription or not. In this case it doesn't matter. On Feb 1, 2016 the customer could still purchase a crossgrade to AutoCAD Design Suite Ultimate 2016, because perpetual licenses for that product will still be for sale on Feb 1, 2016. However the customer could not purchase a crossgrade to AutoCAD Electrical 2016, because perpetual licenses for that product will no longer be for sale on Feb 1, 2016. If this customer has current Maintenance Subscription for their AutoCAD 2016 perpetual asset, they can reassign the Subscription to their new AutoCAD Design Suite Ultimate 2016 perpetual license when they crossgrade.
Hope this helps clarify. Good questions.
Thank you, that confirmed my thoughts.
So basically Autodesk is using the Desktop Maintenance as a leverage tool to keep existing customers on perpetual license subscription maintenance, with the consequence being that if they let it lapse, the only option will be Desktop Maintenance, which would result in 3X the yearly cost?!
In addition, owners of older perpetual licenses, that have adopted the business decision to upgrade on a longer product cycle, will be faced with the decision to upgrade now and begin paying perpetual subscription maintenance fees, or be subject to a massive price increase.
Considering the timing of the recent "free" Infrastructure Design Suite upgrade that was pushed in a non-consent manner (in violation of the software license agreement), it is apparent that this end of perpetual license business model has been in the works for some time.
Customers were "pushed" into software that they did not necessarily need, with the inside knowledge that they would soon be strongly "encouraged" to continue paying a higher maintenance fee, with no recourse to downgrade.
I know of no other company that treats loyal customers in this manner.
In my personal opinion, these are abusive business practices.
I will be looking into alternative products, even if they are less robust.
Thank you for being willing to share your frustration with us. I do hope we are able to recover your good opinion by showing these changes are not the spiteful actions you currently feel them to be. We genuinely believe the future of design in every industry is undergoing tremendous change, and we will ultimately fail our customers if we do not anticipate and prepare for the technological shift. Moving to subscription-based ways of doing business is part of that strategy. I hope you will stick with us through the transition.
Both methods shown below are currently offered as an option to stay current....
(Assumptions made on future subscription costs)
TRADITIONAL BUSINESS MODEL
Full perpetual license of Autocad = $4195
Perpetual Subscription = $550/yr
$4195 / $550 per year = 7.6 year cycle
Total cost over 10 years = $9,695
Software works forever.
MODERN BUSINESS MODEL
Full perpetual license of Autocad = $4195
Yearly rental = $1680
$4195 / $1680 per year = 2.5 year cycle
Total cost over 10 years = $16,800
Software evaporates when you stop paying rent.
Since I have your ear, can you please explain specifically how this is to my advantage to stick through your transition?
Lets make the assumption that I use the software daily.
Thank you for your time.
Hi @Anonymous,
I think maybe we should clarify the differences between the maintenance and desktop subscriptions.
Desktop subscription - there is no upfront cost to purchase, so you do not have to buy the full perpetual license, you quoted in your calculations. This is a more flexible model for users who do not require the software for long periods.
Maintenance subscription - the maintenance subscription upgrades existing perpetual licenses, as you have read, perpetual licenses will no longer be sold after Jan 31, 2016, however if you have an existing perpetual license you can contiue to use the maintenance subscription to upgrade. Your license does not disappear.
Hello, I did not include the cost of the perpetual license in that calculation.
Rather I used that price to demonstrate that once perpetual licenses are no longer sold,
customers will be paying the equivalent of the full price of a seat of Autocad every 2.5 years.
This is in comparison to the traditional situation where they pay the equivalent of a full seat every 7.6 years.
I think we could all agree that is a fairly large difference.
Sorry I tried to be clear.
Long story short - the only benefit that has been mentioned is the inexpensive up-front cost to start using Autocad.
This is really irrelevant to a company that uses Autocad frequently.
The bottom line is the long term cost (not the upfront cost)
In my example, looking at a 10 year "ownership"cost
Using round numbers --> $10,000 vs. $16,000
Then add on top of that the fact that the software expires upon the end of the rental period.
I'm still struggling to see how this would benefit anybody that uses the software on a regular basis.
Help me out here, there must be an angle I'm missing?
Thank you for the clarification though. I am sure many other people will come here looking for answers, once the word gets out.
Hi JL,
Nothing wrong with your ability to calculate side-by-side costs of the two options for AutoCAD. $7000 more in costs for AutoCAD over 10 years assumes you can recover those costs and more with the changes we will offer you. We are striving for seamless productivity across devices from any location. We are shifting intensive processes to the cloud where there is infinite computing capability. We are building connected collaboration across the design process no matter who is collaborating or where they are. We see these changes coming not as a result of what we do but no matter what we do. So, we chose to see these changes as positive and we are looking for ways to put the changes to use for you. You probably think I've had too many corporate happy pills. I admit I have been spending more time with Marketing lately. But I just past my 10 year anniversay with Autodesk and I have never been more excited to be here. More than any time in the past, and this is just me talking here, I believe we are doing what is right for you. I hope you will hold your nose through the rough bits, and hold us accountable to realize these changes.
You might want to get back with marketing on this one.
The additional $7,000 is based upon a minimal rental rate with NO Cloud benefits.....
------
I do not blame you for being happy. Autodesk reported record earnings last year and is in the top 15 of the highest paying companies in the world.
Because I can see no realistic manner in which this new licensing/pricing system will benefits us, we are dropping 2 seats of Autocad Map3D, as well as downgrading 2 seats of Map3D to plain Autocad when our subscription comes up for renewal in October.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
So, the first option in the following figure is obsolete?
(http://www.autodesk.com/store/autocad)
The first option is actually two seats of AutoCAD and therefore the best value considering the current yearly updates aren't usually even worth the $545. This new direction is obviously geared to new or intermittent customers, not the loyal ones. Other CAD competitors (and the illicit drug industry) are no different. It doesn't hurt too much to investigate or try it, but once you have a dependency, the costs are much greater.
It IS pretty amazing that Autodesk resorted to comparing a single seat on desktop subscription to the option of purchasing an additional full price perpetual license every other year!! What do they think people do...throw the license away because it is a year old?!!
Here is the real scoop.
It should be noted that the above table was generated by myself using information provided by Autodesk and that it is my personal opinion that the Desktop Subscription is not cost effective compared to the traditional business model that we are accustomed to.
I am not out to bash Autodesk, I just want the long term users to know what the true cost will be if they "fall off' maintenance subscription.
It is a dramatic difference in cost.
I think the writing is on the wall that at some point, Autodesk will stop offering subscription for perpetual licenses and force users to begin the Desktop Subscription rental.
Please log in and make your opinion known.
The big difference between autodesk and adobes subscription model is the price for access.
for $50 a month you get access to ALL of adobes content creation tools.
with Autodesk you get Revit LT and thats it, not every creation tool they do. The comparison doesnt hold water and adobe seems like an angel in comparision.
What Autodesk is doing is increasing costs in a massive way in an industry that is being smashed for margins from everyside and creating a wall to growth and capacity.
The cost increases are far out of step with the benefits, and the cost may seem extreme for one seat, but take that to 5 seats, then 10, then 20 and so on, and the cost difference becomes unmanageable.
The cost increase for a mid size architectural team of 20 seats for no net benefit now has to cover an extra $160,000 over ten years.
$16,000 extra per year for no change in benefit.
Change the price and review your strategy and you will have far greater pool of customers to charge monthly
Jacob, the AEC industry is in an all-time slump. It's been that way for the last
7 years. If nobody is making any money, how are they going to buy these
Autodesk programs?
I don't know what programs you use, but I have used Revit since version 8.
I have seen the results of billions of dollars poured into the development of
Revit. Revit 2016 and Revit LT 2016 are now nearly one of the 7 wonders
of the world, they are really good, that costs a lot of money to make happen.
How can you blame Autodesk for trying to extract money out of users like
what they are talking about doing? They certainly can't afford to play
"Mr. Nice guy Autodesk." Unless they want to go out of business.
How about if they ask users for donations to keep developing the software?
How do you think users would react if Autodesk just stopped paying the
software developers?
When I say "there has to be an option to buy or rent," that means users
would just buy and hold and wait, and expect Autodesk to keep-up
development on these programs, while Autodesk goes out of business.
How many times do we need to read headlines like this:
I don't really know what the answer is. I'm just going to upgrade
to a 2016 license and wait it out and hope for the best.
My initial reaction to this whole thing was a mistake.
Adobe is no different in this aspect though
and they are not charging $3550 ($AUS BDSP) a year for access to 5 programs or even the same % comparison
Business should not base themselves on guaranteeing a return spend, the market shifts too fast.
Innovation and support will bring customers back to continue the investment with a company.
Almost all of our software is now a SAAS (software as a service) or about to be, none of them are asking for such a short cost equalisation and thats the metric i believe autodesk has got wrong.
"thats the metric i believe autodesk has got wrong."
Maybe so, but the problem could be bigger than we think.
When you have an historic work-stoppage in the AEC industry
like we have now, something is going to give.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.