Why are you removing the Perpetual License model?

[JohnnyRandom]

Complex question I know, I am listening. Please do not white wash it, with something ridiculous like "it is better for the user". Straight facts, why are you removing the perpetual license model? I personally see this as I am losing the freedom of choice, the choice to reward autodesk with my continued support, only to be replaced with pay to use it or lose it.

[AllenJessup]

I'm amazed that almost every single post I see about dropping Autodesk for a competitor assumes that none of the competitors will move to this type of licensing in the next year or two. Autodesk has stated, rightly or wrongly, that they're moving in this direction because they see the industry as a whole changing to on-line licensing and, in some cases, cloud based software.

I assume that some smaller companies will take longer to make the move. But we have one small (as counted by number of employees) 3rd party Autodesk developer who has already moved to on-line licensing. Not term based yet though.

I think Autodesk software fills the needs of a specific segment of users. This is often not the small business or occasional user. Even though I use Autodesk software and believe it is very useful. I have recommended to small shops to use less functional, less expensive software because they'd never get their money's worth out of Autodesk. If there is other software that fits your needs better because of function or price. You should always consider moving.

I'm just trying to point out that switching because of this one issue may be jumping from one frying pan to another that will get as hot.

[Revit_LT2]

"industry as a whole"

Do you mean Adobe is the whole industry?

[Revit_LT2]

"I have recommended to small shops to use less functional, less expensive software because they'd never get their money's worth out of Autodesk."

I'm sure you are aware that small shops are the backbone of the US economy. Are suggesting these shops abandon Autodesk?

[AllenJessup]

---

@Revit_LT2 wrote:

"industry as a whole"

Do you mean Adobe is the whole industry?

---

Loosely quoting Autodesk. I've never made a study. Microsoft seems to be a big chunk though. We're moving to their on-line subscription licensing later this year.

[AllenJessup]

---

@Revit_LT2 wrote:

I have recommended to small shops to use less functional, less expensive software because they'd never get their money's worth out of Autodesk.

---

You too huh.

[AllenJessup]

---

@Revit_LT2 wrote:

"I have recommended to small shops to use less functional, less expensive software because they'd never get their money's worth out of Autodesk."

I'm sure you are aware that small shops are the backbone of the US economy. Are suggesting these shops abandon Autodesk?

---

I'm suggesting what makes the most sense for them. If you have a small landscaping business you don't usually buy a Peterbuilt and trailer to carry your lawn mower when an F150 and small trailer will do. I see no reason for a small firm to buy a massive piece of software that they'll never use 90% of just because it's the Industry standard.

[chrisell]

In terms of jumping ship, it does happen.

Adobe went to subscription licensing and the company I work for dropped several thousand seats and went elsewhere. 

Same happened for Microsoft office - they went subscription and we all moved to either Google Docs or OpenOffice. Less powerful, sure, but still does 95% of what Office does.  And we're just one company. Out of millions. If even 1% of companies drop a couple of thousand seats, Autodesk will be hurting badly.

[Revit_LT2]

"Microsoft seems to be"

Microsoft has been moving to cloud computing since its introduction of Office 365. Can you post a link

indicating that Microsoft is planning to phase out standalone perpetual licenses for any of their products?

[rkmcswain]

chrisell wrote:

In terms of jumping ship, it does happen.

Adobe went to subscription licensing and the company I work for dropped several thousand seats and went elsewhere. 

Same happened for Microsoft office - they went subscription and we all moved to either Google Docs or OpenOffice.

I'll go out on a limb and say it's not going to happen with Autodesk.

Can I prove it? Of course not, but I have a tremendous amount of faith in the people who make these decisions. Not that they are popular decisions with the customers, but that the decisions are the best ones for the shareholders. I'll be around here in 5 or 10 years when the result of all of this should be evident.

[AllenJessup]

No. Autodesk chose to go Whole Hog. Others may be moving more slowly.

[Revit_LT2]

"massive piece of software that they'll never use"

Revit is now the industry standard for architecture. Revit is used in the 

office of an architect to go from concept to a preliminary BIM project with

presentation model, where it is then sent on to a BIM construction design

firm who collaborates with the necessary disciplines for completion of the

construction documents. 

Revit starts being used in the small shop.

[Anonymous]

The new form of licensing works fine if you like to have the newest version and keep updating.

Once you stop paying you will have vary limited access to your files that you created.

Perpetual License work great if you like to upgrade as you see fit. You will always have access to the files you created on that version, as long as you have computer that works with it.

We have AutoCAD 2006, 2009 and we use DWG TrueView 2015 to convern files down if needed. We are planning on buying enough seats to replace what we have and any we may need in the next couple years before the dead line so we are good to go for a few years, 10+. The cost savings to us is roughly $120k over the 10 year period with an investment or $45k

When you put acutal cost to its its mind numing how much you spend on software.

[Revit_LT2]

"You too huh."

Yes I work in the office of an architect, using Revit to create the beginning of a 

BIM project with presentation model. It's a very small office. There are thousands

and thousands of these same small offices across the country. This is where the

built environment begins.

[Revit_LT2]

"if you like to have the newest version and keep updating"

The reason most AutoCAD users these days prefer to own a perpetual license

for their favorite version is because AutoCAD became mature many years ago.

I've been using Revit since version 8, in those days almost any licensing plan

would have worked for anyone because the upgrade developments where

coming in heavy each year. Revit is now 17 years old and the same reasoning

applies to it as AutoCAD. I may want to buy a new version of Revit

in 3 years, but it's highly unlikely I would next year. But now I cannot

buy ANY future versions of Revit because this is the last year I can buy it.

(According to this new Autodesk licensing plan).

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[chrisell]

I could argue that Max hit it's prime with Max 2010 - it was rock solid, had a good feature set and it worked. Newer versions have terrible bloat and are much more buggy (and slower). The problem with yearly updates and a subscription service is that you're trusting Autodesk to never screw anything up. With a perpetual license, you can have predictable fixed costs and you know where you are.

The subscription service *looks* like predictable cost but it's not because the price will go up yearly, and if they release an update that screws up your files or your workflow, there's an intangible downtime while you either try to recover backups or downgrade to the most previous working version.

Not to mention add-ons, scripts, and plugins. Do I now have to allocate time to check all my scripts with each new release? Do I have to rely on third party vendors of plugins keeping their stuff up to date? These are all costs on the bottom line which - while small on their own - add up in the long run, and they're costs that you simply don't have with a perpetual license.

Ok if you have 100,000 people in your company, maybe you can absorb that cost but for a small business or independent, that's crippling.

Adobe really did their subscription service badly because not only did they force-move everyone on to subscriptions, they renegged all their integration licenses too. We used to be an integrator of their products, allowed to re-sell licenses to our customers for a fee paid to Adobe per-seat. Adobe removed that capability so we were FORCED to abandon them and go elsewhere for an image editing tool as our customers need one on their delivered workstations and we could no longer supply Photoshop.

[JohnnyRandom]

---

@AllenJessup wrote:

---

@Revit_LT2 wrote:

"I have recommended to small shops to use less functional, less expensive software because they'd never get their money's worth out of Autodesk."

I'm sure you are aware that small shops are the backbone of the US economy. Are suggesting these shops abandon Autodesk?

---

I'm suggesting what makes the most sense for them. If you have a small landscaping business you don't usually buy a Peterbuilt and trailer to carry your lawn mower when an F150 and small trailer will do. I see no reason for a small firm to buy a massive piece of software that they'll never use 90% of just because it's the Industry standard.

---

You are throwing a catchall. I don't know how engineering works and you obviously don't know how VFX/TV/Film/Commercials work. I have to purchase and maintain a host of plugins/application simply because 3ds Max has no viable internal solution. I am one person and I use more than the package is capable of delivering.

To your other comment about switching over to a competitor, again, with a near tripling in yearly cost plus plugins AND the lowering of competitor costs switching is more realistic thatn ever. When I started this journey 15+ years ago Houdini Master was roughly $12000, a cost that led me to the next best thing Max and plugins. The problem, of which I am most reluctant about is simply 15 years of experience knowing the ins and outs of Max. I will re-iterate, I know others think it is a tired old argument, the price of entry for competitors of complete packages is nearly sixes, regardless of what they do sub-wise they're package is far more complete for me at a cost I can almost afford.

About Adobe, we are still on and continue to run CS6 without a single issue with no need to upgrade. (Matter of note: The bulk of our company 2700~ employees still use acrobat8 and Exchange 2007) There is nothing in Adobes current CC offering that we can't do in the same amount of time. Their issue is that have a suite of mature applications and are looking for a way to keep their jugernaut afloat. When was the last time you saw Adobe do anything seriously "ground breaking" in the Creative Suite? Layers in Photoshop 3 or Vectors in Photoshop 6? After Effects? Check the version histories in Wikipedia and see all of the movers early on to the dribble of features now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_After_Effects

Why lease a car when it makes more sense to buy it?

[JohnnyRandom]

Remove the risk/reward and all you are left with is apathy.

[robincapperrcd]

Must say I find the explanation how to choose between Maintenance Subscription + perpetual license or Desktop Subscription as described in the Autodesk video on this page simple and logical: http://www.autodesk.com/campaigns/global-promotion?&mktvar004=642730 In essence decide if you want to opex/own or flex/capex/rent. In spite of all that has been said I can't see, apart from revenue gain for the vendor, a similarly logical explanation for removing that choice. The assurance Maintenance will be maintained for those who have it has no reassurance without a similar commitment maintaining (in %'age terms) the current pricing structure. Robin.

[Anonymous]

If what you say is true, then the solution is simple: make the "connected" features a subscription-based add-on and continue selling perpetual licenses without the "connected" features.

You'll get the benefit of keeping your existing customers while expanding your line of product offerings to those who need the additional connected functionality.

However, based on the responses I've seen you post in other threads in this forum, it's pretty clear that you're not being forthcoming about your motives with respect to this change. Everything you've said so far points to one TRUE explanation to the change:

Autodesk is willing to take a massive short/mid-term loss in revenue from those of us who will be protesting this change by choosing alternative CAD software vendors. They're doing this with the hope/expectation that, in the long run, they'll more than make up for the losses of implementing the policy change. It's a gamble, and I feel bad for those of us who have placed our faith in Autodesk by being loyal customers over the years, only to have them stab us in the back.

You didn't have to make it all or nothing. You had other options, yet you chose to give us an ultimatum. You've burned your bridges, so there's no turning back.

It's sink or swim from this point on, Autudesk.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Actually, my company upgrades our perpetual licenses about once every 5 years or so.

Next time we upgrade, guess who we won't be purchasing our lot of licenses from?

Long-term loyalty and customer service forms (I assume) the lion's share of Autodesk's revenue.