Heres a great idea. Why don't we have software that you continue to own and be able to use even after you have paid for it?
Firstly I will say that I am a fan of Autodesk software and I do think they make some great products. I think desktop subscription is a great idea to allow it as an option and will no doubt help a good number of companies access CAD software where otherwise they would not.
That said, I am not a fan of having all new purchases forced onto desktop subscription. Our company is of the size where most of our licenses would be perpetual maintenance subscription purchases if we were given the choice.
Software is an asset to a business. Changing the licensing model is removing that asset. Once I stop paying I effectively have nothing.
The new licensing model is clearly designed by the Autodesk sales team as an effort to drive a consistent and dependant revenue stream. It gives them the power to raise the prices even higher and users will have to pay it or lose access to their software. I do not like being held to ranson and the new licensing model stinks of that.
One of the first things I did was look up FREE open source CAD software and for at least a small number of our users this is what I will be recommending at our next review meeting
From A'desk website:
Customers who have a perpetual license with Maintenance Subscription will receive software updates and corresponding benefits for as long as the subscription remains active.
From A'desk website:
We will end the sale of new perpetual licenses after January 31, 2016.
As for these licences being assets, you really do not "own" the software. The licence allows the licensee use of the software, not ownership.
We will end the sale of new perpetual licenses after January 31, 2016.
I appreciate that and it is that fact that I do not approve of. I see no reason why supply of new perpetual licenses needs to end after the introduction of desktop subscription
As for these licences being assets, you really do not "own" the software. The licence allows the licensee use of the software, not ownership.
You are really being pedantic about my terminoloigy. I appreciate that under any licensing terms you do not "own" the software, but normal licensing terms do allow you "use" of the software for as long as you have a working computer it is supported on without paying for it again. Under desktop subscriptions customers are forced to keep paying for the software of lose access to it altogether.
I am not being "pedantic".
Frankly, I don't like the licensing system either.
I still have 2 licenses for Autocad release 14 with hardware dongles. (needs a parallel printer port to plug in the dongle)
Not exactly assets any longer.
Times change. This is the direction they are going in. Our options are to move forward, move on, or get left behind. This decision is not in our control, so our approval of the situation is irrelevant.
As a small business operator with Autocad LT, it serves us well.
It is a terrific product I learnt to use around V9.0
Subcription adds unnecesary costs to a handy tool that we use regularly.
We have now dropped maintenance as well as no real advantage was gained year to year.
I agree we will find a replacement when the time come.
I wish Autocad all the best to them and their corporate customers with their revenue positive venture.
A shame really, small business as always will find a way.
We're all for advances in technology and we can and do move forward with the times as you suggest, otherwise, we would all still be using a reed on papyrus. The whole concept of there being only temporary use of our primary tool for design and documentation is, however, abhorrent. Imagine if the Egyptians used Autodesk’s model after inventing that papyrus. The world would know less about their culture as there is no one left to renew the license so one could actually view the papyrus! If we bought a car using this business model, would it simply die one year later somewhere on the turnpike? Any business should be acutely aware of the need to freely (pun intended) access past intellectual works. Our archive now has over 4,500 projects and we wouldn’t be able to access those drawings from 1992 if we failed to pay the annual fee? We’re not talking about some minor inconvenience here.
Our firm has been using 3d in our designs since 1992 using the now defunct Ketiv add on to AutoCAD, so we are not Luddites. All of our work has been CAD since we started, now some 23 years ago. We use the fastest processors and are current in our Autodesk Design Suite subscriptions. Nevertheless, advancement in the power and intelligence of the software need not be at the expense of what has traditionally been perpetual use of software duly paid for, whether or not one pays for updates or ongoing maintenance ("subscription").
One can imagine all kinds of scenarios where the software that’s paid for on a non-perpetual, subscription basis will not work. Autodesk has yet to tell us how the license will be enforced. Is it a time bomb embedded in the local installation due to expire after one year? Will the software continually check via the Internet that a license is valid? Will these become cloud based products with all the associated problems of network bandwidth, unreliable telco and ISPs that come and go? How is intellectual property rights of the architect, engineer, or designer controlled in such an environment? What if the Internet is down, will the software stop functioning? If I am on a remote job site with a laptop and no Internet connection, will the software even run?
In fact, I just experience an example of the fallacy of depending upon the largess of the software provider when I tried to use Autodesk 360 on my iPhone 5 just today. (Yeah, I know the iPhone 6 is out, but even the small one is too big for my pockets, plus the 5 is running fine!) The phone has not been updated to the latest iOS due to performance issues of the new OS on the iPhone5. When I attempted to use Autodesk 360, which had been working just fine, lo and behold, Autodesk 360 would not run, informing me I needed to upgrade to a new version, which, Apple informed me, required iOS7. So much for continuity of support!
With the current model of a perpetual license on desktop software, I can run the software forever on a machine that has, and is running, the OS to which the software was written for. Theoretically, if we had never upgraded a machine running DOS, we would still be able to run Autocad 12 on it just fine, assuming we had not upgraded that particular Release 12 license.
In summary, we will be seriously reviewing our choice of design software into the future. Along with the importance of the functionality of the software, high on our list is use of the software in perpetuity without additional fees to the software “owner”, in this case Autodesk.
@Revit_LT2 wrote:
"our approval of the situation is irrelevant"
That's probably true,
This is, in fact the case. I posted to this very thread and while there was no cussing, no personal attacks, no name calling, I was very frank in my opinion of this topic and my post has been deleted by the autodesk forum police. I guess your opiion is valued as long as it doesn't conflict with theirs. I assume they will get to this post too since I do not and will not agree with this "business decison" on thier part. In Autodesk eyes we are obviously "irrelavent".
I am critical of Autodesk aparent move to the darkside. I have no problem with companies making money, I like making money, but i do have a problem with companies, in effect, making slaves of their customer base with subsciption models that leave them with nothing if they stop paying. ie No payee no workee. On top of that, in this new business model the effective result is almost a doubling of the yearly cost per seat. Do the math. Also while they are saying, for the time being, that you can keep your current licenses as long as you keep up the "maintance subscription", they aren't saying your current "maintainace subscription" cost won't increase to match the "desktop subscription" price, nor are they saying how long they intened to offer the "maintainace subscription" model. They can continue to delete post they don't agree with but that doesn't change the truth that they are not doing anyone any favors other than themselves. This is especialy true for small businesses. In deleting my previous post I guess they didn't like me using the corporate "G" word in describing my percived opinion of their true motivation, but when you boil it down... if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....etc
Joel
@Anonymous wrote:
I believe the quote was....
"That's probably true, but you are encouraging Autodesk to come to
this forum and delete opinions that don't fit the Autodesk agenda."
the above statement is in fact what is happening.
I really don't understand....Autodesk created this whole section of the forums to talk about this new business model of theirs but then by editing and deleting post they seem to not really want to hear what customers really think. Did you really think people were going to sit silent when you tell them they are getting effectively a more than double yearly price increase and by the way when you decide to stop paying you will have nothing, Thank you for your business. Really ??
My apologies if that is the Impression. I am afraid you may have been caught up in another users posting issues. We are simply trying to keep the conversation on goal here which is helping users in the transition.
This is not the place to just rant about the subject such as one might do on their own blog or feedback board ect.
Below I have listed the goal of this board and it's link. I have also included the link to the community rules which are in force on this board as all others
Thanks
Discussion_Admin
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/community-faq/etiquette-and-ground-rules/m-p/5384757#U5384757
"The intent of this forum is to answer your questions about our shift away from perpetual licensing to subscription based licensing in order to provide you with the best possible experience as you make this transition with us. Please feel free to post any related questions here and our cross-functional team will make every effort to provide a response."
Please then, provide a contact name and telephone or email address for a person at Autodesk, other than our vendor, with which we can have a intelligent discussion about the subject of the demise of perpetual licenses and its impacts. Hopefully this person will genuinely listen and have some say in your corporate decision making process.
Thank you.
we are discussing what
Autodesk is planning to do, about renting all its products.
My question is, why can't Autodesk add the rent option to
the buy option and still meet its goals?
Edited by
Discussion_Admin
Hi,
I would just like to point out, as the creator of this thread, that this post was originally posted in the Ideastation. The point being that the Idea station is where Autodesk gets feedback from it's users on how they would like to see the software develop. I had assumed this was aimed at the software as a whole and not just the features it contained. I am not happy that my thread has been hijacked with the aim of educating users on how best to move to subscription licenses and squash any thoughts that this is not the right move.
It is not just the case that we should be happy withh whatever vendors are willing to provide, it should be that the vendors are willing to provide a solution that their users are happy with. You should not be taking an existing licensing model that users are happy with and then pull it out from under them in order to increase profits. This move to a new licensing model is clearly to push customers into commiting to paying regular payment to Autodesk while feeling like they do not have the option to stop paying. The Autodesk marketing team can dress this up however they like, but even if this was not the intention it will be a fact. Autodesk will be in a great position to have dramatic price increases while their users continue to pay through fear of losing access to their projects.
I have spoken to a number of people within our business and IT team as well as talking to a couple of resellers. I am yet to find someone outside of Autodesk that have positive comments about the move away from perpetual licenses.
Again I would like to reiterate that I have no problem with desktop subscription as an option, indeed for a small number of users we may even take up this option ourselves, but the emphasis should be that it is an option and not the only purchase method.
I have always championed Autodesk as the best provider of CAD solutions at every company I have worked for despite also haveing good experience of other CAD systems. However, as a customer I am left feeling quite betrayed by the licensing model changing in a way that seems to work for Autodesk, but with no regard for the opinions/position of the user base.
Hello brotherkennyhmusk,
Our shift to subscription-based models has many motivations. One is to anticipate and prepare for disruptions we foresee for the future of design in all industries. Design is fundamentally changing because we are all more connected to the internet and to each other on a myriad of devices. These evolutions can make design more customer-centric, more flexible and leaner. We are confident our customers will increasingly want to leverage these changes to remain competitive in their own markets. If we wait to be asked for these capabilities, we will be behind the change instead of in front of it. At the same time, these factors are also driving disruption in the software industry as a whole. The model for software is increasingly subscription-based. We aren't making our change just because everyone else is doing it. There are reasons for the shift. I do not know how familiar you are with software revenue recognition rules. I won't attempt to explain them except for one important point. When you "buy" our software (purchase a prepetual license) we are required to deliver all of the promised value at the time of purchase. This rule fundamentally works against our efforts to offer connected, collaborative solutions that allow our customers to work across teams, across geographies from any device. This continuous availability of services requires us to recognize revenue as services are delivered. Consumption-based models are an option and we are using some of these in our portfolio of offerings. But most customers say it is hard to budget when you are charged for exactly what you use. Most customers want predictable expenses, thus the need for subscriptions where you pay a specific amount each month, each quarter, each year, etc at your own choosing.
Now to address your actual question, why don't we offer Desktop Subscription as an option, not just the only option. We have tried that for almost two years. We introduced Desktop Subscription widely in the second half of 2013. Our experience of the past 18 months is that to deliver new capabilites we have to build things two ways; one way for customers with perpetual licenses that allows us to deliver all value upfront and another way for customers on subscription that can benefit from value delivered incrementally over time. This isn't sustainable. It takes too long, and the compromises undermine a good experience for either customer.
We know this change is hardest for our longest and most loyal customers. We have tried to be very forthcoming about the changes. We've announced it early and are making the changes gradually so there is time to adapt. We value insightful feedback from our customers about what more we can do.
This was a lengthy answer. I offer it because you seem genuinely interested in understanding our reasoning.
Thanks,
Catherine

Hi Catherine,
Thank you for the lengthy response. I do appreciate it and genuinly have an interest in the reasoning, but I am sorrry the reasoning sounds to me like marketing material.
"Our shift to subscription-based models has many motivations. One is to anticipate and prepare for disruptions we foresee for the future of design in all industries."
What disruptions? The users do not foresee disruptions or they would have been calling for change themselves. What are these disruptions, how and why are the user base going to suffer if we do not change the licensing method?
"Design is fundamentally changing because we are all more connected to the internet and to each other on a myriad of devices. These evolutions can make design more customer-centric, more flexible and leaner."
Indeed, i completely agree, particularly as new technology makes new options available. However this does not tell us why development of the technology requires a change to the licensing model.
"We are confident our customers will increasingly want to leverage these changes to remain competitive in their own markets. If we wait to be asked for these capabilities, we will be behind the change instead of in front of it. "
Wrong, your customers are clearly telling you that they do not want this. clearly demonstrated by your own point that desktop subscription has not taken off when offered as an option. The point is you are not behind because you have been developing the technology, but there is a difference between developing something and enforcing it.
I am aware that other software providers are offering subscription based products. I have an office 365 subscription myself. You will notice however that Microsoft also still offers perpetual licenses for its office products. microsoft are considered notorious for not listening to what their customers want, yet they are scoring better than Autodesk in this area. The price is also an issue here. If you take MS office for example, the monthly subscription is 2% of the perpetual license cost. With Product Design Suite Premium, for example, the monthly subscription is 5% of the perpetual license cost. Microsoft had a competitive price for it's subscription offering so many users take up this option. I was less concerned about taking office as a subscription because I can purchase a perpetual license if I wish.
I do not understand why you need to build things two ways. The software is remaining largly unchanged only the licensing model is being adjusted and if you cant keep up both models surly the best solution is to go with the option that is proving to be succesful. **** a company you cannot just forge ahead with ideas because you ahve already started. You need to recongise the need to change your plans and stratergy and not just your software.
And if you are not sure how to make two licensing models work you could always take a look at other companies that are already doing this and being succesful. If Autodesk are not able to support this then the question should be why can Autodesk not support this while other companies can?
Autodesk have become very good at listening to it's customers, particularly over the last few years, but I feel on this issue all of the user feedback is being sidestepped and brushed aside. Changing the licensing model is not a practical switch to software as a service. Only the purchasing changes, the practicalities of using the software remain the same.
Just post in here to place my dissappointment with this move and 100% support every single word brotherkennyhmusk wrote in the previous post
Being completely UNABLE to buy perpetual licenses is definitely NOT a thing any user requested or is happy about. Rental for option yes, but no by enforcement.
BTW Im a professional 3ds Max user now for about 15 years, being heavily engaged on the Max Beta, developing tools for 3ds Max and usually take a voluntary promoter position on public community boards, i'm pretty cheesed about all this. I'l stay on my maintainance sub for now ( just happen to be running out ), but definitely will not buy into the rental option ever.
Spacefrog,
It is disappointing yes, but I suspect that Autodesk have already anticipated the loss of some customers from this move. Ultimately they are a commercial organisation so are primarily concerned with profits. If they lose a few customers, but still increase their profits then they are still going to be happy come the next board meeting.
Unfortunately many companies like mine will no doubt be forced to buy into the rental model eventually, and Autodesk knows this. Being hevily invested into Autodesk software in terms of training, existing licenses etc, it would be very difficult to justify moving away. At least in the short term. That said, we will be exploring every possibly avenue of alternative software and working practices available to keep our need to take on any rental licenses as low as possible.
Never thought I would be championing Microsoft, but their rental model for office is considerably fairer in that the price is a reasonable proportion of the perpetual license and that it is an option and not an enforcement. I would expect that if Autodesk products were sold along these lines then customers would be perfectly happy.
Sadly alas, we are just customers, what do we know about it.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.