That article filled in some gaps for me regarding the awkward relationship between Dassault and Solidworks. My company got out of Solidworks 18 months ago when we had to replace Workgroup PDM and realized that the Solidworks brand was slowly distancing itself from the Solidworks/Parasolid core CAD product.
Solidworks has the most fiercely loyal user-base of the CAD tools that I have been exposed to, despite tighter commercial policies and (arguable) product neglect over the last several years. But turning Solidworks World into an overt PLM/CGM [product lifecycle management] platform marketing event should get some attention. The irony of the whole situation is palpable.
Regarding the move to cloud-based products: this is something Dassault and the others have to do for long-term economics. The same factors that are driving other business software to Web-based are just as true for CAD (agile software development, single-version maintenance, elimination of expensive VAR model, easier system integration, data management and sharing, computer processors topping out, nimbler customer support model, etc.). CAD is only lagging because of the unique technical hurdles.
The dirty little secret in the industry is that 3D CAD is a commodity at this point and differentiating by features in 2019 is hard, if not impossible. The end game for the software companies is data management and system integration.
I think Dassault's big miscalculation was pursuing xDesign as a CGM-based product (and taking too long to release it). Had they just resolved themselves to develop with Parasolid (despite having to license from a competitor) and developed something similar to Onshape, they could have avoided the current, awkward situation. - Doug Jones
The editor replies: Only the ceo of PTC admits to this, saying the only new customers are ones they steal from competitors.
- - -
Interesting the disconnect upper management has from what MCAD users want. I saw the alphabet soup of 3dExperience programs that you need to add to Solidworks for the full "storybook" experience and just busted out laughing.
You are so right about local CAD-to-cutting operations, and no cloud is ever in the picture. Furthermore, we don't need additional programs requiring gobs of money (and huge outlays in time to learn initially) and then more money each following year, as they use people as guinea pigs. Not needed nor wanted. I expect they hope to pull an "anagnost" on their loyal Solidworks users.
As for me, since I am in-house, I let all program [maintenance] go last year. With a permanent license, I expect to work just fine for the next ten years or so. I never go online. I don't have to worry about the next Windows version and whether it is compatible. There are a bunch of us that used to buy maintenance each year, but with this cloud stuff, and the removal of features, and changing featuerse to add-ons, and the obvious direction of catering only to investors, and screw you, Mr. Customer -- it is not lost on us.
I will say that out of all the mid-range MCAD programs that Solid Edge has been my program of choice ever since Solid Edge ST1; I just don't need the other stuff they are adding. It is obvious they are doing away with Insight [product data management software] and are trying to convince Solid Edge users how much they need the added complexity of NX PLM, or whatever they are calling it now. More $$$, and then you need consultants to help you get it going and to keep it going -- from the grumbles I hear. But in general, I have to say the Solid Edge program I bought initially still costs the same, with more worthwhile features -- although maintenance rose this year for the first time in ten years from $1,500 to $1,650 for the Classic version.
At least Solid Edge has no plans to end perpetual or subs. You choose, and they sell a variety of levels so you can get in at a pretty reasonable price. Just like Autodesk screwed up and gave BricsCAD a chance that Autodesk will regret, I figure something will rise up for Solidworks users, too. - Dave Ault
- - -
That was an excellent piece of writing, in both content and presentation. You should get some kind of award (maybe invent your own award, like mainstream journalists do).
- Owen Wengerd (@owenwengerd via Twitter)
- - -
It looks like with Dassault Systems putting the brakes on Solidworks that BricsCAD has some work to do. -Dik Coates Canada
- - -
I am sure Dassault wants everybody to move from Solidworks to Catia -- oops, 3dExperience. What they don’t talk much about is cost. We got a quote for Catia 3dExperience with the Electrical Workbench: cost is $85,000. That is just for software, no training, etc.
Mind you, Catia is great software and there are some designs that cannot be done, except for Catia. But $85k just for the software? - Scott Shuppert CAD/CAM Services, Inc.
The editor replies: I had heard it was expensive, but that level of pricing goes back to the 1980s when Intergraph used to be $100,000 a seat.
- - -
This ["Solidworks works well for the lone designer who spends his time completing relatively uncomplicated parts"] is an exact description of how things work in my world. Dassault is completely out of touch with that, and unable to reconcile the fact that they produce a mere tool for the engineer, not an "experience".
The reason that they have to charge so much for Solidworks is that it's the only good tool that they have to sell, but it has to bring in that $650,000,000 per year to spend on R&D [research and development] on non-Solidworks projects, which mostly exist to satisfy the top tier of executives' desire to be known as something other than the bosses of a company that makes a tool.
As usual, a great analysis of the bizarre state of Solidworks. - Jess Davies
The editor replies: Dassault is the biggest CAD vendor by revenues, nearly double that of Autodesk.
Mr Davies responds: They are successful, no doubt, but their successful product, Solidworks, doesn't seem to be the result of their current strategy. It's a testament to the quality of the product that its sales can support the level of non-related spending that they seem to be doing.
Going to Solidworks was one of the best business decisions I've made. It's a vastly superior tool for design and documentation than what we used before (Microstation and AutoCAD). It's also very nearly identical right now to the version we started with over 10 years ago.
- - -
Listen: If I was at that conference, I would have stood up in the midst of the silence and BOOED. (I guess your article achieved the audience reaction.) Great reporting as usual! - Cadman
The editor replies: When you watch the videos of the keynotes, you see that the silence is as effective as any booing.
Mr Cadman responds: There you have it: Polite booing vs. vulgar booing. LOL!
- - -
Thanks for this issue of upFront, very interesting to read. The following part got me thinking: "With its CGM solid and surface modeler, Dassault has arguably the most powerful CAD code out there"
Could you elaborate some more on why you consider CGM is the the most powerful modeler? Is there some objective way to compare the features and capabilities of CGM, Parasolid, ACIS, C3D, etc? Or is it more a ranking based on experience? - Gustav Naslund GN Tech, Sweden
The editor replies: It was just a guess by me, given the tasks it has to perform in car and plane designs.
As for objectively comparing the features and capabilities of CGM, Parasolid, ACIS, C3D, and the others, it pays to remember that there are two aspects to a modeler: (a) the functions it has built in, and (b) the functions a CAD vendor decides to implement, and how.
Another ranking could be by sales, by which Parasolid leads.
- - -
Interesting reading, interesting writing. - Herb Grabowski
- - -
I thought your Dassault screed was killer -- make sure your doors are locked and guns loaded. - Jon Peddie
[More responses from readers to last week's issue in the Letters to the Editor section, below.] |
|
In June, I'll be reporting from Graphisoft's 8th Key Customer Conference, this year taking place in Las Vegas during the same week as the AIA Conference on Architecture 2019. Also in June, I'll be at Hexagon's annual HxGN Live 2019 conference, also in Las Vegas, with an emphasis on the PPM division, which includes Intergraph and Bricsys. More info from hxgnlive.com/2019
- - -
If you don't use a workstation (and even if you do), Dr. Jon Peddie is wondering what people really think about what makes up a "workstation." Take the five-minute survey, and then optionally get a copy of the results later on. surveymonkey.com/r/G2QW37HupFRONT
- - -
Nanosoft's DWG-based nanoCAD Mechanica software had been a 2D-only mechanism design program. Then for the new Mechanica 9.0 release, they added the C3D Modeler geometric kernel from C3D Labs to turn it into a 3D solid modeler; Nanosoft also added the C3D Converter for data exchange.
- - -
Anthony Frausto-Robledo at Archintosh lands the first interview with the new head of Nemetschek Group, following its realignment into groups: architosh.com/2019/04/toward-a-billion-euro-company-patrik-heider-discusses-nemetscheks-new-formulation/
In related new, Nemetschek Group reports its strongest quarterly growth in several years: Q1 revenues were up 27.1% to EUR 129.9 million (about US$143 million).
|
|
Re: pCloud
Many thanks for the info on pCloud. I was happy to find that it has block-level sync, which is important for keeping within the 150GB limit on my internet plan. - Dairobi Paul CAD Networks, Australia
The editor replies: pCoud seems to have seen all the good and bad points in Dropbox and Box.
Re: Revit Launch
Can you locate the original texts of Revit's promotional/sales comments that appeared on its original website (pre-Autodesk takeover)?
Their pointed comparisons of Revit with AutoCAD were witty and, at the time, compelling. In fact, their outright (jolly, not cruel) mockery of the sheer clunkiness of AutoCAD seemed to vindicate the frustrations of many of us, who have had to deal with Auto CAD's endless tips-&-tricks, workarounds, etc., to do the most straightforward architectural work. We assume that Autodesk suppressed the verbiage?
As a non-mech. eng., your own comments on our industry are always interesting, amplifying an architect's awareness of design tools.
Also, not that it matters: is the locus of the 2000 launch in Widener Library, a spruced-up Freshman Union, or other venue? Just curious. - Michael Rubin, architect
The editor replies: I don't have any promotional material from the event, but here is part of my write-up from upFront.eZine #196: Four o'clock and time for the Revit event at the Aurthur M Sackler lecture hall. There are 125 invited attendees, but very few media. From what I and others could see, there is no one from CADalyst, Cadence, or Penton Publishing.
Revit ceo Dale Lemont hosts the two-hour event, calling this "an important moment in the history of CAD." The parametric architectural software will be sold by monthly subscription. In stark contrast to SolidWorks, Revit will have no resellers -- everything by the Web. Nobody says it for sure, but I finally decide that Revit is short for "revise it."
Dale refreshingly admits much is missing from Revit, and that the following functions will be added over the next 24 months: massing studies, stacking, canted walls, sloping structures, turn on more AccuRender functions, multi-user enhancements, estimation at all stages, product catalogs, schedules, architectural detailing, Web collaboration, ASP capabilities, landscape, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical.
The product will be available in early May; delivery has slipped by two weeks. A new release is promised every 90 days in the first year -- "Tough on us book authors," I note wryly to the Revit employee sitting near me.
The product launch is followed by dinner in the courtyard of the Fogg Art Museum, located across the street. The museum features a small but broad collection of art: religious, African, modern, and classical. My wife would have enjoyed viewing the paintings by van Gough, Monet, and Renoir.
Each of our name tags have a color. I find out that -- ironically enough -- green indicates you had ordered beef, while red indicates vegetarian; my color was yellow, for salmon.
On one side of me sits a representative from Atlas Ventures, who asks me what I thought of Revit and the launch. How do you answer a man who has sunk millions of dollars into this?
On the other side of me sits Brad Holtz (of CAD Rating Guide fame) and next to him, Geoffrey Langdon (of architectural CAD shootout fame). The thought underlying this whole event is "Solidworks or Numera?" Would Revit rocket into orbit, or burn out at the launch pad? We reminisce over CAD ventures that have burned through their money over the years. Brad declared himself the winner in remembering the worst CAD launch ever: TriumphCAD spent all its money on ads -- no product ever shipped.
We muse over Revit's business model. "How long does Revit have before investors would want their money back?" The problem with a monthly subscription model is that money trickles in more slowly. Take 60 Revit employees earning an average of US$100,000/yr each. Assume Revit nets $100/mo per subscription. That means they need 5,000 subscriptions just to break even. "The question is," summarizes Brad, "How long will it take to ramp up to 5,000 subscriptions?" As I write this, I also wonder about "subscription churn" where gains from new subscribers are offset by losses from unsubscribers.
Just as we complete our analysis, an earnest young Revit employee comes by our table to introduce himself. "I'm in charge of developing the business model in conjunction with Harvard Business School," he explains. The three of us roar with laughter: "Funny you should mention that..." We give him our analysis -- at no charge.
Mr Rubin responds: Revit's business model asked for $200/mo [back then]. I negotiated them down to $100/mo. At the Autodesk takeover, I was allowed an annual renewal subscription that began at about $700, without the separate purchase price (or whatever it was called) of about $4.000.
BTW: Revit is short for "revise Instantly"
Clearly, Dassault and Autodesk market to the large corporations and design firms, caring little for independent professionals. Many of us are grateful that Autodesk at least marketed and continued to develop Revit Architecture, rather than burying the patent/copyright altogether, since it instantly made their flagship AutoCAD obsolete [for the architecture market].
And it is astonishing that they have also managed to persuade customers to keep paying for said AutoCAD. Baffling -- and successful -- business model?
Re: DraftSight No Longer free
With Draftsight becoming 'unfree', how long before Autodesk sticks it to the low end users of Fusion 360? The worried brows at San Rafael might be licking their lips now. - Brian McKenzie
The editor replies: The only reason for a corporation to have something free is to gain more customers, to whom more can be sold. Or out of competition. So, yah.
- - -
IIRC [if I recall correctly], the last time I re-registered Draftsight (the forgotten other leg of the stool from Dassault Systemes) it said that the free version of Draftsight would go away in a year. - Scott Taylor
The editor replies: I haven't had a need to touch DraftSight in a couple of years, so I would not have seen that. Thanks for the IIRC! |
|
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
- Arnold van der Weide
- Michael D Rubin
Should you wish to support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are like these:
Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of grabowski@telus.net.
Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada. |
|
"Two 21st century employment categories, which are tantalizingly trendy, are 'aspiring rapper' and 'social media influencer'." - David Burge (@iowahawkblog on Twitter) |
|
|
|
Recent Comments