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

[spacefrog_]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It is disappointing yes, but I suspect that Autodesk have already anticipated the loss of some customers from this move.

---

Indeed, in the Q1 2016  Earnings Conference Call, Carl Bass and co explicitely talked about expecting some slump over the upcoming fiscal year(s) because of the transition to rental only,. I think it's the following one, i did'nt hear through it again to recheck, though

http://www.media-server.com/m/acs/f6e4ecc2434666dbcc1011a345aa1475

[Anonymous]

It has been some time now since the last response from Autodesk on this issue. Autodesk has the opportunity here to justify itseft to it's customers with resoned logical arguments that are grounded in fact and backed up by evidence.

Either Autodesk should be able to justify itself and satisfy its customers that this is the right move or it should be open to a change in its plans.

This arguement should be won one way or the other, not simply side stepped until it goes away. I am open to change in my opinion so long as there is a valid arguemnt not padded out by marketing nonsense. At present I remain, like the majority, unconvinced and strongly opposed to the changes.

Are Autodesk considering a further response to this thread?

Are Autodesk actually considering that the change is the wrong move?

Have Autodesk decided to avoid this thread because it is no longer productive replying?

I did not start this thread for people to have a rant and moan about Autodesk. Instead it was a genuine request to keep the existing licensing model for myself and like minded customers. Surly if there was a compelling enough argument we would all be happy to make the move. Please convince us or agree with us, do not simply ignore us.

[Anonymous]

Brotherkennyhmusk you are right on with your assessment and I think most of us agree with your posts in this thread.  I was excited when I saw the posts by admin and catwolfsf (Catherine) as I thought there may be some actual dialoge back and forth to enlighten us on the decision to implement the new policy for perpetual licenses.  I was looking forward to her responses to your very valid follow up questions.  Seeing how they refuse to send any such response, they are confirming our belief that you are correct in your thinking. 

There apparently can be no discussion on this, as they cannot clearly answer your questions further.  They stopped by to outline their marketing talking points, but will not make any more attempt at further discussion.  For those of us who have numberous old .dwg files, we can either get on board to access them in the future, or bend over and take it. 

But then again, I guess we should be grateful they would take the time to respond to us lowly peons with such a "lengthy answer."  Too bad they didn't actully answer anything, but instead just confirmed our initial thoughts all along.

[CatsChaiTea]

---

brotherkennyhmusk wrote:
 

I did not start this thread for people to have a rant and moan about Autodesk. Instead it was a genuine request to keep the existing licensing model for myself and like minded customers. Surly if there was a compelling enough argument we would all be happy to make the move. Please convince us or agree with us, do not simply ignore us.

---

I am happy to help provide substantive information about our changes, clear away confusion about how it impacts you or offer a view to the long range strategic thinking that underlies our decisions.  The decision of whether or not Autodesk will end sales of perpetual licenses isn't going to be reversed.  If the point of this dialog is to convice Autodesk to keep selling perpetual licenses, well it isn't going to be satisfying.  But what is specifically disconcerting for your own situation about this change Autodesk is making?  If we can discuss the specific concerns you have, then maybe there is information I can offer that will be useful.  Also, real-life situations we hear about can shape Autodesk's decisions regarding how we go about this change. 

[Anonymous]

Autodesk clearly is marketing to the larger corporations. As a small business, one that has been using Autodesk products for years, I can no longer afford to continue using Autodesk software.

This new change plus the fact that software like Inventor will not 'save as' an older version so the older perpetual licensed products can read the files is a financial nightmare for small companies and evidence that Autodesk only cares about pulling in a substantial revenue stream from companies that can afford to pay this ridiculous 'rental' fee.

We are experiencing growth and the only way for us to add a single seat of Inventor is to upgrade all of our seats at once. This is financially unsound for any small company trying to grow in an extremely tough market.

[CatsChaiTea]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

We are experiencing growth and the only way for us to add a single seat of Inventor is to upgrade all of our seats at once. This is financially unsound for any small company trying to grow in an extremely tough market.

---

Hello Smorvay.  Are you aware that if you purchase a new Inventor license (either perpetual with Maintenance or as a Subscription) you have the option to use the current or up to three versions back of Inventor (subject to the previous version elgibiligy list of course).  You are not required to upgrade all at once so long as you are using one of the eligible versions.  But it also sounds like your existing licenses may not have Maintenance Subscription attached.  Maintenance is the most cost effective way to ensure you have access to new versions when you are ready for the without a large purchase price. There may be promotions available to you now (depending on your location) that would allow you to more cheaply convert your older perpetual licenses to new subscription based licenses.  You can still use the older version of Inventor, but it may be a cheaper path to get current at your choosing later.  Hope this makes sense. 

[OBERDACKER]

@CatsChaiTea If I understand the following statement properly "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." Autodesk's decision to switch to only renting your software (Desktop Subscription) is primarily based on accounting principles? So, the driving force behind the change is how accounting rules can be applied and when Autodesk can report the revenue in it's books? From a user's perspective there seems to be little difference between Maintenance Subscription and Desktop Subscription assuming the subscription is never interrupted. With current prices it seems to be much less expensive to get a new Desktop Subscription as opposed to purchasing a perpetual license and subscription (Starting February 1st of 2015 subscription is required when purchasing a new perpetual license which is basically a 20% increase in price). The user's having "sticker shock", I believe are the ones who purchased perpetual licenses and added seats, or upgraded when necessary. I could see a small business purchasing a perpetual license without subscription and using that license for at least six or seven years before it became a real pain the the behind to constantly ask for files to be saved as a previous version or do the conversion on their own with DWG TrueView. These are the users who are being hurt by this decision more than any other. And I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority, if not all of them, are small businesses. The main question I would really like to be answered is How is the Desktop license enforced? Is it a activation code that will only work for "X" number of days? Does the computer running the software have to contact Autodesk's servers every time the software is opened to verify that the user has paid? Does the software periodically contact Autodesk's servers throughout the day to check on its status? I have not pressed my re-seller too hard on this question, but maybe I should. I get the feeling that they are not that familiar with Desktop Subscription. In everything I have read about Desktop Subscription nothing has been "said" about how the license is enforced.

[CatsChaiTea]

Hello Oberdacker,

---

@OBERDACKER wrote:
The main question I would really like to be answered is How is the Desktop license enforced? Is it a activation code that will only work for "X" number of days? Does the computer running the software have to contact Autodesk's servers every time the software is opened to verify that the user has paid? Does the software periodically contact Autodesk's servers throughout the day to check on its status? I have not pressed my re-seller too hard on this question, but maybe I should. I get the feeling that they are not that familiar with Desktop Subscription. In everything I have read about Desktop Subscription nothing has been "said" about how the license is enforced.

---

Our software will ask you to login with an Autodesk ID and password at least once in 30 days to keep the software running.  There are no activation codes or serial numbers required.  You simply launch the application and it will prompt you for the email address or Autodesk ID and password.  You can work offline if you have logged in at least once in the prior 30 days.  If your subscription expires, you will not be able to use the software.  It is important to remain current while you have need for the software.

[Anonymous]

Autodesk too hard,
here's a good reason to go see the other provider.

[Anonymous]

---

@CatsChaiTea wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:
 

I did not start this thread for people to have a rant and moan about Autodesk. Instead it was a genuine request to keep the existing licensing model for myself and like minded customers. Surly if there was a compelling enough argument we would all be happy to make the move. Please convince us or agree with us, do not simply ignore us.

---

I am happy to help provide substantive information about our changes, clear away confusion about how it impacts you or offer a view to the long range strategic thinking that underlies our decisions.  The decision of whether or not Autodesk will end sales of perpetual licenses isn't going to be reversed.  If the point of this dialog is to convice Autodesk to keep selling perpetual licenses, well it isn't going to be satisfying.  But what is specifically disconcerting for your own situation about this change Autodesk is making?  If we can discuss the specific concerns you have, then maybe there is information I can offer that will be useful.  Also, real-life situations we hear about can shape Autodesk's decisions regarding how we go about this change. 

---

This is foolish. If Autodesk will plough on regardless of customer opinion then this shows how little they actually care about the customer base. I have made this argument to help Autodesk, not simply to have a go, and prevent them from making a bad move. I am clearly not he only one who thinks like this, as demonstrated by the falling share price this year and the number of hedge funds substantially reducing their holdings of Autodesk shares. I expect this fall in share price is due to Autodesks curernt trend of refusing to satisfy it's customers.

On to my concerns;

1. If i do not continue to pay Autodesk then my company will lose the ability to do even minor work to existing drawings.

2. Our onging costs increase. Some people prefer to take the one off hit while funds are available rather than increase their ongoing commitments. Software is an asset, rental is a liability.

3. We use network licenses to share 4 suite and a number of single product seats accross a number of users, but desktop subscription needss ot be attached to each individuals login. This means we will no longer be able to share a pool of licenses. I appreciate that having current products means that my own company will not be affected, but the changes will affect other like us and no doubt will affect me in the future.

4. The new subscription model makes users feel compelled to keep paying the subscription.

5. The cost of desktop subscription is relatively expensive compared to other subscription based products.

6. If I give a subscription login to a contractor how do I prevent that contractor form using the license for other companies, or even competitors?

7. When we have new staff start they share the existing license pool and we purchase new licenses if we keep running out of licenses. By which point they will have passed their probationary period. Under the new model we will have paid for a subscription that would then need to be cancelled if they do not pass their probationary period.

8. How are installation/deployment and upgrade managed. The system is not great now, but what says it will be with the new licensing model? What about users who do not wish to upgrade mid project.

9. what happens to Vault server products when we move to desktop subscription and how do we manage upgrades?

10. At my company we share a license pool of different products. How do we share this pool when we move to desktop subscription?

I will keep arguing to keep perpetual licenses until they are gone and I will argue to bring them back after this time. That is unless someone can genuinly convince me that it is best for the end user to have desktop subscription. Autodesk are alienating a lot of users by making this move, many of which will be minded to turn to the open source community simply because they are sick of being betrayed by profit making organisations. It will only take one open source product to become mainstream and Autodesk will be wishing it had listened to me. I expect it will be some years yet considering the complexity of the applications, but there are some really good projects being worked on. it will happen and at that point CAD providers will have to provide a truly competitive offering and listen to their customers to be able to continue to make a profit.

[spacefrog_]

Gladly even stock analysts don't buy into that Autodesk rental only hype

Maybe this will build some pressure on AD to rethink their totally off market strategic decisions

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/15/autodesk-baird-cuts-target-to-60-sees-protracted...

---

Autodesk (ADSK) shares are down 63 cents, or 1%, at $52.66, after R. W. Baird’s Steven Ashley this morning warned that the company’s outlook for the fiscal year 2018 is “not attainable.”

Ashley, who has an Outperform rating on Autodesk despite his concerns, cut his price target to $70 from $80, after cutting estimates for 2016 and 2017, writing that the company’s transition to a subscription business from a license business is going to take longer than thought.

That’s partly because of resellers balking at selling the subscription model:

Channel partners have recoiled against selling Desktop Subscriptions (DS), which we believe is different than management originally expected. In order for FY18 to experience the strong surge in growth necessary to achieve management guidance of FY14-18 CAGR of 12%, channel partners would need to begin selling DS during FY16 and FY17. That is not happening [...] In the near term, the timing of the business model transition has been pushed out with the trough now expected to occur one year later in FY18 and big initial upward surge in growth/margins two years later in FY20.

That delay, though, means “Autodesk earnings power could be greater than originally expected as Maintenance customers are migrated to the more feature-rich (and higher-priced) DS offering,” he believes, perhaps in the years 2019 through 2022.
 

---

[Anonymous]

He's dreaming.

[joshhuggins]

<troll>I'm just gonna keep using Datacad to crankout my CD's and keep the extra cash in my pocket, thanks! </troll>

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

I think the comments about Autodesks earning potential not being as good as predicted makes my point perfectly. Autodesk was expecting a big increase in revenue when changing to a subscription model. Anyone who thinks this move was not profit motivated is naive or being severly misled. Clearly Autodesks strategic planning was driven to how best to squeeze more money out of the user base.

The backlash I believe is no doubt caused by the fact that many of these people are long term loyal customers who now feel betrayed.

The adjustments in share price and Autodesks profit targets are no doubt linked to the fact that there has been such a strong negative reaction to the desktop subscription model.

As for the fact that Autodesk will not change it's plans despite feedback from the user base. This might be the official line, but there is no way it will hold weight if Autodesk really realised it is not in the best interests of the business. Businesses change and react to events as they happen and often change their plans to suit.

There is much to be done to improve the software and make use of cloud services before the subscription model needs to change. Give us back the ability to continue with purchasing perpetual licenses and offer desktop subscription at a more reasonable rate. Your customer trust and share price will recover quickly.

[OBERDACKER]

Here is a link to Robert Green's CAD Manager column (http://www.cadalyst.com/collaboration/file-sharing-publishing/rising-resistance-cloud-based-cad-2516... discussing this issue. It's rather interesting and as usual he makes some very good points.

[SharoozAsghar]

As a 17 yr old who cant pay 200€ forever... Im going to switch to MODO Indie. Many have switched to Modo for various reasons. One is probably because autodesk does what they feel like doing without the approval of their consumers. Anyone who is actually FOR Subscription-based models is either established in his/her bussiness, meaning he can afford it. But what about the other half?

Please dont remove the option for an license. But if you really want to be that stubborn, im switching to MODO since its much more transparent. I love 3DS Max. But I kinda hate Autodesk.

I mean your updates are not worth for subscription. In forums its even discussed wether Max will survive the next 10+ years. Dont you realise that competition has grown. Your not" the only "one on market anymore. I can achieve the same things with max '12 what people can do with 16. You Guys broke so many awesome features, made older plugins dead.

If autodesk wont reconsider Im gone.

[Anonymous]

Hi Bumble,

Thanks for adding your voice about subscriptions.

It raises an interesting point. Currently students have free access to Autodesk software, which I something I am really approving of. I wonder what will happen to student licensing when the move to desktop dubscription is complete?

[felice.s]

Hi @Anonymous, @SharoozAsghar,  with regards to the educational program where licenses are free, we had a similar question in the forum about the future of that program considering that we are tranisitioning to a subscription model.  The statement was the following:

• Even though the (free education) software products are licensed with a 3-year term, we have no plans to discontinue this program. At the end of your 3-year term, you  would simply download the version that is current at that time and receive another 3 year license.

Regards,

Felice

[SharoozAsghar]

Yes I thanks Autodesk for that! I really appreciate that. But a big part such as me wants to switch from a student to a freelancer since Studio Jobs in my country are not widespread. I learned a lot and I can only repeat, i love Max.

Well the reason I want perpetual license is that I can work in a local supermarket where I earn about 300€ monthly. 200€ I would spend on Max but I dont want to do it for the rest of my life. I dont think I can land a lot of jobs with my current skill. This is why I want to pay it till its mine so I can drop one rock on my shoulders to focus another.

Instead of this subscription I'd would welcome a Max Indie like Modo Indie with Open Arms.

[lagolosa]

I wouldn't mind the rental license so much if the price wasn't so outrageous.

Adobe did the right thing and made the monthly fee so low that a lot more people can afford a Photoshop license. That way Adobe still makes a lot of money and has a lot more happy customers.

Autodesk made the rental fees so high that basically only very affluent companies can afford it and even they will be moaning at paying 16000€ for 10 years of just ONE license.

This procedure is totally different from the general trend of making software cheaper and more accessible.

I am sure and I am hoping that this will bring alternative software like Blender forward. The only reason so far that I am sticking with 3D Studio Max are the plugins (Vray, Itoo). 

The annual 3D Max software upgrade has hardly ever brought any real improvent and I am getting the feeling that Autodesk much like Microsoft are driving themselves out of the market by not caring about their customers as much as they should.