First of all, the customers do not speak with one voice. Some may want annual updates, some may want new features, others want support and continued functionality, some want interoperability, some want transparency, but ALL of them want stability. We users and customers are not running CAD because it’s fun – we are using CAD as a tool to help our businesses survive and accomplish our drafting and design goals. Bugs, known issues, memory leaks, crashes, unexpected behaviors — all inevitable side effects of the 12 month release cycle — hinder our ability to accomplish our jobs, pay our bills, and feed our families.

Secondly, Autodesk senior executives don’t listen to ‘demands’ from users or customers. Stockholders maybe they’ll listen to, but the last demand from users that I saw responded to by senior people in Adesk was the Dimensioning capabilities pulled together by John Walker back in the dawn of time.

Now there’s another point that’s being missed about subscription. It appears from the comments here and elsewhere that the perceived value of subscription is solely limited to getting the next version pre-paid instead of penalized. That’s our problem as well as Autodesks.

Ours because we are on the treadmill of endless incremental updates, file format changes, incompatible versions, and in many organizations the need to keep everyone in lockstep. Autodesk’s because they have failed to create a value proposition to the subscription program other than annual release of new versions (and the problems with the rewritten, untested software).

And this is fixable! This is something Autodesk can do. They can improve the value of subscription to users, customers, and encourage subscription signups by increasing the value of the subscription program, improving support, adding more and better tutorials, moving AU content solely to the subscription site, add perks, improve the Express Tools as a subscription only benefit, provide better backwards compatability, and post updates to earlier versions of the software to enable reading and working with newer versions.

That last may seem counter-intuitive, but many many organizations that are on subscription continue to run earlier version for a multitude of reasons. The question they are facing is if we are not going to deploy the bleeding edge, and that’s the sole benefit of subscription, why the heck should we stay on it? How many DVDs of 2k7, 2k8, 2k9, and 2k10 are sitting on shelves because an organization is not going to implement them? based on my personal experience in several ENR top 100 firms, the answer is ‘lots’.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone shipping products with bugs or defend this practice. I am not sure how Autodesk’s (we’re not talking about them?) development cycle is set up, but certainly a product can successfully have a 12 month development cycle even if some feature take 18 months to develop. Those features that are not complete would not ship.

You’re right about a longer-interval in the subscription program. It just wouldn’t sell. There are users still in R14 (it met all their needs), and I bet some of them would still be in R12 if they hadn’t had to move into Windows.

They are demanding the 12 month cycle because of the subscription program. If you pay a yearly fee then you expect a return on your investment. In reality this is a flawed view, Autodesk could simply not release a product at all that year and be well within their rights to do so. But of course that doesn’t make for good customer relations and imagine trying to generate a subscription renewal (perhaps $600+ per seat) for software advances that may never come at all. Autodesk (and their reseller partners) wouldn’t be able to sell it. Neither would charging double for the subscription program and extending the term of it for 2 years instead of the current one. Don’t get me wrong, the client would ultimately get a better product, but they wouldn’t pay for it on a bi-yearly basis… they would feel they were getting ripped off every other year. So the customer (due to the subscription program) is demanding a new release each year even if the biggest benefit of the subscription program is the financial savings long-term of being on it… customers tend to forget that when they don’t see a steady flow of tools (may they be good or bad, used or not, ultimately they see feel they are paying for value in those tools).

Brian, thank you for your thoughtful comments, but I’m not following your logic somewhere. I don’t see how you’re supporting your suggestion that customers are demanding a 12-month cycle.

But here’s an interesting idea we don’t hear argued much when this topic is brought up: WHY does Autodesk put the software out every 12 months? Because customers DEMAND it. Now you might argue “customers don’t want it, they feel pressured into upgrading software by Autodesk and feel forced into the Subscription program to get these upgrades and support at a discount.”

Before we go on, lets step back a bit and look at two different pictures. First the design industry. The design industry is a community that shares data between the disciplines. It’s also a highly competitive and constantly growing industry which puts a premium on staying up with technology in order to get jobs, make more profits, or to simply improve employee retention.

Second there was Autodesk. Autodesk was a model that dominated 2D drafting, but at its core wasn’t making huge profits. The subscription program changed that and enabled Autodesk to rapidly grow into the entity it is today.. but at a price. The price is that they have to continue to generate innovation in order to keep that business model floating. What makes companies “buy in” to this? Ultimately its discounts on software that allows companies to share data between disciplines, make more profits, be in on more job opportunities, and improve employee retention.

Do you see the link here? Autodesk is definately part of the equation, but I’d argue the INDUSTRY itself is the real problem and perhaps bigger is the free market system. This isn’t putting the blame on any company, it’s a statement of economic viability for firms, manufactures, and yes… software companies as well.

So to answer your question/point: is it harmful to the product? In some cases, yes. But this needs to be weighed with the questions “Why are consumers DEMANDING this and FORCED to stay on subscription???”. I’d counter that this isn’t the fault of the software company.. it’s the fault of the INDUSTRY and free market system which is driving individuals to purchase software at a discounted rate in order to continue to meet their (the designers) business objectives and continue to stay viable. This past year subscription renewals have dropped dramatically, this year has been about survival and you’ve not had to worry that you competitor is ahead of you as you KNOW they are in the same boat. The result? Layoffs and cost cutting at… Autodesk.

In the end they thrive when the INDUSTRY thrives and they contract when the industry contracts. It’s a vicious circle and a symbiotic relationship between these entities which is driving the 12 month cycle. My point: I have no problem mentioning problems, but we need to point the finger in many directions and discuss solutions to the issue as well… and viable solutions seem to be few if not non-existent.