Keep perpetual licenses

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

@felice.s in regards to network subscription; are you saying that the internal server does not need to be connected to the internet? If so, how would Autodesk turn off the software if payment was not received? 

If however the server does require an internet connection, then once again this is a no go for classified work.

[felice.s]

Hi @Anonymous,

Correct, the internal server (the one running the Network License Manager, or "NLM")  doesn’t require an internet connection at all.

However, a contract admin/IT admin will need to go to https://registeronce.autodesk.com to generate a license file from any machine connected to the internet and then copy it over to the internal server machine. This license file contains details required to manage the entitlements based on your purchase.  

So, in summary, NLM machine never has to connect to internet. However, for license file generation, you do need to connect to the internet from another machine when you make the initial purchase and then again if you decide to extend the subscription for another period of time (such as for another year or another 2-3 years.)

Regards

Felice

[brotherkennyh]

Hi,

Seems fair enough to me and exactly how the network license works at the moment, except that it is time bombed to expire. At least it is not required to have a constant connection.

For those with Netowrk licenses, like ourselves, nothing will really be changing. We already go through the process of changing the license file at least once a year.

However, the one thing that would change for us will be that we will not longer have a permanent license. Naturally removing something as significant as this from the package will no doubt result in an equally as significant reduction in cost?

[felice.s]

hi @brotherkennyh,

For those with Netowrk licenses, like ourselves, nothing will really be changing. We already go through the process of changing the license file at least once a year.

>>Yes, exactly right. Same NLM server machine, same license request process, and in fact because I did not explicitly mention it, I want to make sure you know... if you have an exisitng NLM shared license pool of perpetual licences and decide after Feb. 1 that you need more, the new "network subscription" licenses are added to the perpetual pool, effectively creating one single pool of shared licenses. The perpetual ones do not ever expire, the network subscriptions ones would expire, reducing the number of shared licenses in the pool at that time, unless you renew them.

However, the one thing that would change for us will be that we will not longer have a permanent license. Naturally removing something as significant as this from the package will no doubt result in an equally as significant reduction in cost?

>> If I understand the question... Yes, I think it is safe to say that network subscription licenses will be priced lower than a corresponding permanent networked license (providing a lower cost of entry as exists for all our subscription offerings.)

Regards,

Felice

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the network license may work in an off line lab... But that doesn't actually resolve my grievance. I simply don't need all the updates or patches. I can easily use a version of Max for 3 to 4 years before upgrading; which saves a lot of money. Despite all the talk, I see no reason why Autodesk can't offer a perpetual license. Just give me the latest working version and I'll manage as long as I can before needing an upgrade.

Understand this, it's not just about the money. I want to support a company I believe in. One with integrity and vision. Sadly, I no longer believe Autodesk is that company.

[brotherkennyh]

Hi,

just to make an illustration about my objections over cost I will give our own situation as an example.

Autodesk have prevented the uptake of desktop subscription as an option themselves by setting the price proportionally high. Now forcing the move is basically ripping customers off.

Before I joined this company we did not take up maintenance subscription, but typically upgraded every 5-7 years. We had several releases in use depending on when a particular users license was purchased.

Using AutoCAD as an example. desktop Subscription is £1480/year. a perpetual license is £3700

On subscription 5 year costs are £1480 x 5 = £7400

Over 5 years subscription vs perpetual licenses

£7400 - £3700 = £3700

Literally twice the cost!!!

Now lets assume I also take maintance with the perpetual license.

5 years maintanance £535 x 5 = £2675

total cost over 5 years £3700 + £2675 = £6375

Over 5 years subscription vs perpetual licenses with maintenance

£7400 - £6375 = £1025

not as much, but a saving not to be missed!

Now lets look at the costs on a more ongoing basis

This table ilustrates the cost of subscription vs perpetual licenses with maintenence. the bottom line being the saving for staying with perpetual licenses.

license cost	£3,700
subscription cost	£1,480
maintanance cost	£535
years	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	15	20
total maintenance	£535	£1,070	£1,605	£2,140	£2,675	£3,210	£3,745	£4,280	£4,815	£5,350	£8,025	£10,700
perpetual cost	£4,235	£4,770	£5,305	£5,840	£6,375	£6,910	£7,445	£7,980	£8,515	£9,050	£11,725	£14,400
subscription cost	£1,480	£2,960	£4,440	£5,920	£7,400	£8,880	£10,360	£11,840	£13,320	£14,800	£22,200	£29,600
saving	-£2,755	-£1,810	-£865	£80	£1,025	£1,970	£2,915	£3,860	£4,805	£5,750	£10,475	£15,200

Keep in mind this is the cost difference for a single seat. Here we have a number of AutoCAD users and Design Suite users.

 The next table illustrates the cost subscription vs perpetual without maintenance

license cost	£3,700
subscription cost	£1,480
maintanance cost
years	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	15	20
total maintenance	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0
perpetual cost	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£11,100	£14,800
subscription cost	£1,480	£2,960	£4,440	£5,920	£7,400	£8,880	£10,360	£11,840	£13,320	£14,800	£22,200	£29,600
saving	-£2,220	-£740	£740	£2,220	£3,700	£1,480	£2,960	£4,440	£5,920	£7,400	£11,100	£14,800

Also note that this is new license pricing rather than upgrade pricing so in reality the saving would be higher.

The final table illustrates the cost of perpetual without maintenance vs perpetual with maintenance

license cost	£3,700
maintanance cost	£535
years	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	15	20
total maintenance	£535	£1,070	£1,605	£2,140	£2,675	£3,210	£3,745	£4,280	£4,815	£5,350	£8,025	£10,700
perpetual cost	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£3,700	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£7,400	£11,100	£14,800
perp with main	£4,235	£4,770	£5,305	£5,840	£6,375	£6,910	£7,445	£7,980	£8,515	£9,050	£11,725	£14,400
saving	-£535	-£1,070	-£1,605	-£2,140	-£2,675	£490	-£45	-£580	-£1,115	-£1,650	-£625	£400

I found this excercise quite interesting. It illustrates for me that there is no actual saving for being on maintenance subscription. The only advantages being that all users are on the same version and you get updates every year as opposed to 5 years. I also note that subscription is only financially beneficial if you would otherwise upgrade every 3 years.

I think the maintance vs license cost are a little steep, but otherwise fairly comparable and reasonable.

The cost of subscription however is quite simply a joke.

Autodesk, drop in to my office and I will show you how calculators work and even excel spreadsheets so you can work this stuff out reasonably for yourselves.

I hope some of you found this useful.

Have a great day

Kenny

[OBERDACKER]

@brotherkennyh

This is exactly what I have been looking at for my company.  We currently have subscription because we would upgrade every few years, usually when the .dwg file format changed.  It made sense for us when Autodesk, after years of tweaking the numbers little by little, made it financially advantageous for us to get what they now call Maintenance Subscription.  It does make budgeting easier for us, as the cost of upgrading every few years was hard to sell to the powers that be. I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that will compare the different options we have so the decision makers can decide if we want to purchase more perpetual seats now, stay the course, or start looking to switch to different CAD software for all our needs.

Instead of following their previous model and gradually making Desktop Subscription more financially advantageous than their other options, Autodesk has decided to make the change basically in one fell swoop.  I believe this decision has been a major blunder on Autodesk's part.  It may work out for them in the long run, but I think they'll have at least a couple of bumpy years.  I think they'll also lose a good number of smaller companies.  If small business is as important to the global economy as pundits claim, this sudden move on Autodesk's part could be the beginning of their undoing as the global leader in CAD software.  It is much easier for smaller companies to switch software than large, or huge, companies.  This fact may have not received the weight it deserved when Autodesk made the decision to switch models. 

It seems to me that this move was either necessitated by Autodesk being in a financial bind, or by extreme hubris.  Neither situation is not good. The latter being the worse in my humble opinion.

[brotherkennyh]

@OBERDACKER

I have attached the spreadsheet I used to produce these tables, I should have done that to start with now that I think about it.

If you think about it, subscriptions effectively double their income (assuming the same number of customers move to subscription).

They are basically making a big move to increase their profit margins. It would take a lot of customers to leave to make it so serious that it was not still a profitable move. Less customers will give them less work to do and all for more money for the guys in charge.

If Autodesk do lose customers over this they should still be able to maintain profits and will no doubt need to employ less staff, thus making another big saving.

I think the poeple in charge know exactly what they are doing and this is actually a very calculated move, although risky. It would take a very big portion of Autodesk customers to stop using their products to make this a financially bad decision for them. Unfortunately for us.

Sadly I don't think they are looking at the long term as well as they like to make out. Autodesk keep talking about lower cost of entry for CAD products and I agree such a concept is a good thing.

I expect many companies, like myself, look at total cost of ownership (or usage) rather than cost of entry. In terms of total cost of ownership Autodesk is pricing itself out of the market.

They may make a good profit initially while companies adjust to the changes, but i think if you look long term many users will be pushed towards competitors products.

In terms of alternative products, take a look at open source CAD software. 3D software is a few years behind yet, but there are some very good 2D products. I am going to test some myself before we do any more purchasing. The big deal here is the cost of retraining users as some do not adjust easily, but if you consider the savings on license cost it is a no brainer.

[kmguillotte18]

...but for as long as you own that perpetual license...and on subscription, there is no guarantee that the cost of that subscription maintenance will not increase to the point of an outright lease agreement. Even without this possible increase, this is not a good thing for consumers - as this will almost triple the long-term costs of ownership of the software when compared to current levels.  One may think they are getting a deal w/o having to fork over thousands w/in the 1st year of ownership w/ a perpetual license as opposed when compared to a lease - but after 3 years or so - the cost of using that leased license and every year afterwards is crazy.  It makes the initial cost of buying a perpetual license irrelevant.

[kmguillotte18]

It technically is considered an asset - particularly if a company or firm merges with (or is bought out by) another company.

[kmguillotte18]

---

@brotherkennyh wrote:

...

... 

I found this excercise quite interesting. It illustrates for me that there is no actual saving for being on maintenance subscription. The only advantages being that all users are on the same version and you get updates every year as opposed to 5 years. I also note that subscription is only financially beneficial if you would otherwise upgrade every 3 years.

I think the maintance vs license cost are a little steep, but otherwise fairly comparable and reasonable.

The cost of subscription however is quite simply a joke.

---

I have done the same exercise after some enlightening meetings with my reseller and others in the financial market sectors that are keeping a close eye on this - and have come to the same conclusion.  Long term costs of "using" these subscription licenses (when compared of the upfront cost of a perpetual license and its maintenance subscription) is dramatically increased.  It will take companies a few years to start feeling the effects (the 3-4yr grace period, as i call it before the cost of DS really hits everyone).  This will definitely force many to look into more reasonable alternatives and solutions.

[Anonymous]

---

@brotherkennyh wrote:

I found this excercise quite interesting. It illustrates for me that there is no actual saving for being on maintenance subscription. The only advantages being that all users are on the same version and you get updates every year as opposed to 5 years. I also note that subscription is only financially beneficial if you would otherwise upgrade every 3 years.

I think the maintance vs license cost are a little steep, but otherwise fairly comparable and reasonable.

The cost of subscription however is quite simply a joke.

 

Kenny

---

Yeah, I did the same excercise and when I found a very good deal on a new perpetual license, it was a no brainer.

My only worry is that Autodesk starts to increase the Maintenance Subscription to the level of the Desktop Subscription, but at least I have a piece of software to keep if I'm forced to give up on Maintenance Subscription. The cost of MS right now is ok with me.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what would have happened if Sir Winston Churchill had said the same during his speech of 18 June 1940 (c.f.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/their-finest-hour )...thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Autodesk should be honest about the real reason for this change: their bottom line.

Ironically the best argument for keeping the option for perpetual licenses is in Autodesk’s own YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-g_qsUSWuI

There are good reasons for having both options. For a small office like mine, it is simple math, the perpetual license with the annual subscription is much less cost. Plus, if I ever retire or semi-retire, I can still open my files without having to pay monthly fee perpetually. I see the license system as a form of software slavery.

I was just making the transition to REVIT in my small office, now I am seriously re-considering this change. I wish I had known about this change before I spent a year learning the program and buying one 2015 Design Suite License.

[brotherkennyh]

Hi Onju,

Nice video.

The video mentions that desktop subscription will allow simplifies management and deployment. This is something I keep coming back to. How exactly is this going to simplify things for us?

The video also mentions the lower cost of entry that is great for times of peak demand or contract work, which i agree with. Unfortunately it fails to mention the massively increased ongoing costs. It also makes a good case for mixing desktop subscription with existing maintenance subscription. Something I agree would be a great idea. so why is this not remaining an option for future users?

If Autodesk was desperate to push desktop subscription then instead of removing perpetual licences perhaps it would have been a good idea to give resellers a greater cut for selling desktop subscription contracts. That way they would have had an insentive to do the legwork. Still we would have been left with options.

[borges33]

This idea of AutoCAD terminating perpetually licenses is nothing more than greed, fleecing the consumer perpetually. AutoCAD was not happy with coming out with a newer version every year, claiming that this is the ultimate.

Reality is that there is very little added features from one year to another, features that very few draftsmen or designer use on a daily bases. As matter of fact many companies are still using CAD versions 4 ,6 even 10 years old and doing quite well, and have no intentions in purchasing a newer version. Still producing DWGs with all the information necessary to build a building anywhere in the world.

A software should be able to be bought and that's it, the consumer or purchaser will do with it as he sees fit. The ending of perpetually licenses favors more "The Corporations" AutoCAD is a corporation. They figured out a way to generate a revenue in a very mislay way, charging a monthly fee for returning customers With the possibility of raising the charges on a yearly bases. It is just like big government wanting to know everything you do and when you do it. Excessive control.

Take an example: When you buy or lease a car does the dealership want to known where you drive your car or when you drive your car? NO Do you have to call in and tell them I need to use my car 4 hours a day or I will travel cross country the next two weeks. NO absolutely not. The same thing with any computer program or software. This direction will only open up the doors to break the program code and create pirate programs, which there are thousands out there and many firms work with these programs with no problems whats so ever.

Thank you for letting me share my views

A. Borges

[borges33]

       This idea of Autodesk terminating perpetually licenses is nothing more than greed, fleecing the consumer perpetually. Autodesk was not happy with coming out with a newer version every year, claiming that this is the ultimate. Reality is that there is very little added features from one year to another, features that very few draftsmen or designer use on a daily bases.

        As matter of fact many companies are still using CAD versions 4 ,6 even 10 years old and doing quite well, and have no intentions in purchasing a newer version. Still producing DWGs with all the information necessary to build a building anywhere in the world. A software should be able to be bought and that's it, the consumer or purchaser will do with it as he sees fit. The ending of perpetually licenses favors more "The Corporations" Autodesk is a corporation. They figured out a way to generate a revenue in a very mislay way, charging a monthly fee for returning customers It is just like big government wanting to know everything you do and when you do it. Excessive control.

       Take an example: When you buy or lease a car does the dealership want to known where you drive your car or when you drive your car? NO Do you have to call in and tell them I need to use my car 4 hours a day or I will travel cross country the next two weeks. NO absolutely not. The same thing with any computer program or software. This direction will only open up the doors to break the program code and create pirate programs, which there are thousands out there and many firms work with these programs with no problems whats so ever. Thank you for letting me share my views

A. Borges

[borges33]

It is all about the $$$$, bottom line........when is it enough? A software should be able to be bought and that's it, the consumer or purchaser will do with it as he sees fit. The ending of perpetually licenses favors more "The Corporations" Autodesk is a corporation. They figured out a way to generate a revenue in a very mislay way, charging a monthly fee for returning customers It is just like big government wanting to know everything you do and when you do it. Excessive control.

[borges33]

It is all about the $$$$, bottom line........when is it enough? A software should be able to be bought and that's it, the consumer or purchaser will do with it as he sees fit. The ending of perpetually licenses favors more "The Corporations" Autodesk is a corporation. They figured out a way to generate a revenue in a very mislay way, charging a monthly fee for returning customers It is just like big government wanting to know everything you do and when you do it. Excessive control

[borges33]

Autodesk still has until January to rethink or ^reverse^ themselves of such a direction.....but this will take a lot of corporate humility. Remember the people that came up with this idea are not architects or engineers. They are business people MBAs, economists no nothing of design or architectures. It is about the $$$ whatever it takes....^the ends justifies the means^ funny how this can be applied to almost everything not just for 'socialist and communist ideology'.