Removal of NLM is short sighted

[dyoung]

The spin is this streamlines administration. That's flat out false. I've never had an issue tracking a serial number except when decades ago Autodesk didn't have muti-seat stand alone numbers. 

I create a deployment with 1 serial number. It works for all users as we roll out images. Now I need to provision every new user before they arrive and assign them a default password.  Or I need to have training on how to create and login to their product as part of the on-boarding process. That's not streamlined.

I'm also now managing users and products...sometimes on a weekly basis for our "user based" subscriptions. On the other hand, I've not touched out network license server in a year. 

Additionally, only users who "NEED" software will now get it. We will terminate all licensing used by occasional or part time users. For construction, this means ZERO Autodesk desktop software for shop and field personnel. This group of users rotates too frequently and doesn't use the software enough to warrant a dedicated license. Additionally, shop staff are not assigned computers, computers are assigned to workstations. People rotate through workstations depending on the task at hand. Simply not efficient. 

Considering Autodesk tells me I'm using 110 of 30 DIM360 Docs licenses while I'm fully compliant tells me I can't trust Autodesk. Anyone remember C4R on October 2017? This isn't the first time they've messed up licensing. When we add a BIM360 Design user to our project, they have their own licensing for Docs (comes with the license). But I don't have any visibility to that. And take a product like PlanGrid, grossly inadequate reporting leading to massive over licensing by customers. 

You're not a number to us. True Autodesk. We're a Dollar sign. 

[Tarek_K]

Hi Darren @dyoung, 

I just strongly felt I personally had to reply to your topic acknowledging and thanking you for transparently sharing your thoughts and opinions here on the forums. It might not be much that I personally can give you as resource moving forward but I just want to make sure that if there are any questions on your end where we can help you with that you know you can always ask them here on the forums. Then we as big community and also myself as Community Manager can try to help you answering and clarifying them. 

Also feel free at any time to make use of the links listed here which bring you to a page where you can select the link associated with your country in order to get to a form (bottom of that respective page) to fill out in case you want to get in touch with a Customer Success Specialist to clarify specifics you dont want or cannot raise here.

Again I acknowledge you sharing your thoughts here with all of us.

[Anonymous]

---

@dyoung wrote:

Additionally, only users who "NEED" software will now get it. We will terminate all licensing used by occasional or part time users. For construction, this means ZERO Autodesk desktop software for shop and field personnel. This group of users rotates too frequently and doesn't use the software enough to warrant a dedicated license. Additionally, shop staff are not assigned computers, computers are assigned to workstations. People rotate through workstations depending on the task at hand. Simply not efficient. 

---

Perhaps it will be possible to assign the shop floor a generic logon that anyone there could use on the workstation - Mark has started a thread on Generic Logons here and it's currently awaiting Autodesk response.

[Mark.Lancaster]

@Anonymous  and the rest

I know that my forum posting about generic id was updated but I wanted to pass along the information I personally heard based on the info provided..

Autodesk has officially stated…   It has to be a true (human) named account and the use of the generic ID/account is not permitted unless the software allows for it.

Technically to be fully compliant (Autodesk is stating), anybody accessing a common computer must have their own named account and the use of the product assigned to them.   Meaning when someone else wants to use that same product on the common machine, the use of the product has to be switched from the original user to the new user and visa-versa if you have limited quantity of licenses.   In the future Autodesk Token Flex would address this or make it easier to manage.

In the end the generic ID is only allowed for certain products (like CAM) that Autodesk offers.

[greg_francis2]

The elimination of the network license is to the benefit of Autodesk only. As you state, the network license with a single serial number is very easy to manage.

Now, I'll have to look at how to handle conference rooms (common login) and most laptops (common login) to make sure that we stay in compliance.

I'm pretty much sick of Autodesk and their abuse of their customers when policies are rolled out that does nothing to benefit the customer.

[abblomquist]

I agree with everything you said we operate in a similar fashion. I only touch my network licensing once a year to add the latest version. Now using BIM360 Design I'm in it a lot more. This sounds like a nightmare to me if I have to pass around licenses. It looks like only the users that need it will get it now no more casual usage. Seems like a major step back. Very disappointing but somewhat expected from Autodesk.

[AllenJessup]

The new licensing scheme doesn't make things easier for the smaller shops. It was designed to meet the needs of Autodesk's mega-customers who manage licenses across the country or across the world. The type of organization that has hundreds of users in multiple locations. They want this and are willing to pay the $300 dollars per seat for the premium plan to make their license tracking easier.

[cbenner]

@AllenJessup 

I think I would disagree, at least in part, to this.  I represent a very small shop.  I have 16 Vault Pro users (18 counting the conference rooms), sharing 10 network licenses.  This change will be basically a piece of cake for me.  I only have to create a hand full of new user accounts, and even without taking the 2:1 (haven't made this decision yet), I could easily manage user access to those ten subscriptions.  In a smaller firm like ours, you are bound to have users who rarely, if ever, need access.  I have already made the decision, for example, to migrate several of my part time users to the Vault thin client.  Granted, not all software will have that option, but the point I'm making is that this is much simpler in a smaller firm than it would be for someone with 500 or more users.

I think it is the large users who will need to evaluate their usage more carefully and rely on help being offered by Autodesk and their re-sellers during this transition.

Actually, if I think about it, this switch is not short sighted at all but rather a part of a move the entire industry is making.  It's actually very forward looking.  A tough transition to be sure, and maybe costly.... but I think it's a good thing in the big picture.

[AllenJessup]

@cbenner 

I don't disagree. The change won't make it more difficult for me. Just doesn't make it any easier for me either. Autodesk is working to satisfy its largest customer base. Not the ones with a dozen licenses.

Where I'll have the issue is with some of the users who will complain bitterly about the change. It's not always easy being the CAD "Manager" and being near the bottom of the food chain.

[greg_francis2]

@cbenner said

> Actually, if I think about it, this switch is not short sighted at all but rather a part of a move the entire industry

> is making.  It's actually very forward looking.  A tough transition to be sure, and maybe costly.... but I think it's

> a good thing in the big picture.

The option for named users was already there so this is really forward thinking for Autodesk's benefits, not its customers. Customers like options, not limitations. I believe that this change is more restrictive for Autodesk's customers and could potentially make it more difficult to be fully compliant with licensing or necessitate over licensing to make sure that we are fully compliant.

I currently have 31 AEC Collection multi-user licenses for just under 50 employees. Many of my users are in Autodesk products daily and I monitor my license by collecting usage statistics every 15 minutes from FLEX so I can track usage over time. Not only are components of AEC Collection installed on most of my user workstations (all but marketing and admin), I also have it installed in conference rooms, checkout laptops, and a couple of "training" computers that are not tied to an individual and use a common network account.

As far as other vendors doing this, I agree that they are but it's not to help us, it's to monetize us. We are big users of SketchUp and we have a mix of single-user licenses and network licenses because we have a half dozen hardcore SketchUp users with dedicated seats but we have twenty users that require it only sporadically. Trimble is starting to push to eliminate the network licenses and will probably justify it next year because the "industry" is doing it. This will either drive up our SketchUp licensing costs OR eliminate the option for all of my employees to have SketchUp on their workstations for the sporadic times they need a license.

Will this also happen to VRay, Lumion, Rhino and other low-use (but critical) programs that we have? If it does, it won't be in the name of improving the customer experience. Adobe started this trend for us and it's just going to get worse until we own nothing and we will have to dedicate more and more of our budget to software services.

I think Microsoft actually does it better than anyone else with Microsoft Office. They offer multiple subscription options through Office 365 (named user, options for shared computers, etc) plus retaining the option for permanent licenses. They provide options. They may not always serve their customers well but they at least realize that we are customers, not just a revenue source. (I cannot believe I just said something so positive about Microsoft!)

We will get through this. We always do. Will our company be better served by Autodesk products as a result of this change? I don't know but I suspect not; I just don't see the benefits right now over the challenges. Autodesk hasn't really given me much to be positive about in their licensing changes in the past and this doesn't bode well for the future.

I will be happy if I'm wrong. 

[cbenner]

---

@AllenJessup wrote:

@cbenner 

I don't disagree. The change won't make it more difficult for me. Just doesn't make it any easier for me either. Autodesk is working to satisfy its largest customer base. Not the ones with a dozen licenses.

Where I'll have the issue is with some of the users who will complain bitterly about the change. It's not always easy being the CAD "Manager" and being near the bottom of the food chain.

---

Truth.....