Over the past few days, there has been a stirring of dust among the Solidworks Blog community in regards to new fee policies being instituted by Solidworks for customers who allow their subscriptions to lapse.
The current 'mini-firestorm' seems to have been ignited over on Matt Lombard's Blog. His tirade against the new fee policies drew further harsh criticism from fellow Solidworks blogger, and photoworks guru Rob Rodriguez who went as far as to call for Solidworks users to refuse to renew their Solidworks subscriptions.
Solidworks has not been quiet on the subject however. In a response to Matt's original post, Rich Welch who is the Vice President of customer services for Solidworks, replied to the criticism with an explanation of the increased fee structure. Evidently neither Rob or Matt are buying into his response.
So is the policy fair? Well from a business standpoint our company will never find out, because we realize that software, and the costs associated are all part of doing business. Therefore we never allow our subscriptions to lapse, hence we will never have to pay the fees associated with that scenario. Granted both Matt and Rob are entrepreneurs, and software costs can be a big part of their annual expenditures. At our company, I have an annual budget that I also have to maintain, and included in that is the cost associated with maintaining four seats of solidworks, including one premium license.
So what is the solution? Well fortunately for us, we all live in a great country that offers a market system. So for those truly upset with the new policy, I offer you up a couple of links. Below you can find direct links to competing Cad software sites where you can request information about obtaining their software:
The problems with switching to any of these other brands is that they simply aren't as good as Solidworks. The problem with boycotts is they simply don't work, and are meaningless (how many gas boycott emails have you received?).
So does that mean that we should allow Solidworks to sit back, and reap the rewards of their popularity? Not at all. In fact Solidworks 2008, and 2009 is a perfect example of that. Solidworks 2008 was revolutionary in terms of changing the way the 3D Cad interface looked. Solidworks could have simply sat back and let some other company lead the way, but they once again proved that their vision was one that every other Cad company would follow. Take a look at the other Cad packages available, and they have all pretty much followed in the footsteps of Solidworks. 2009 takes the next leap in changing the performance of 3D Cad software. In those regards I believe 100% that my subscription fees have been very well spent, and I have no issue whatsoever signing the requisitions for another years service. Once I see the innovation at Solidworks end, thats when it will be time to move on. Of course, that would be the beginning of the end for Solidworks.
All in all there is one very simple way to avoid the whole fee issue all together. Stay current on your subscriptions! At a former employer, someone once recommended that we could wash the shop rags ourself to save some money. The simple reply to that suggestion was that somethings are just the cost of doing business.
So in the mean time, before Matt and Rob take my advice and switch to another package, be sure to buy their books that they have written about the Solidworks software. Links are provided below:
Matt's Solidworks 2009 Bible (sorry, no link yet)
This subscription fee penalty policy is a godsend to me, in convincing my current employer to switch from SW to Inventor. I'm all for it !
Autodesk's service packs have always been freely available to everyone, and their Inventor user forum is frequented by real Autodesk employees, actual members of the development team, who respond with solutions and log items for hotfixes on an ongoing basis. Support doesn't get any better than that ! And its all free with the cost of the software, as it should be.
I'm not trolling here, I use SW2008 every day at work, and would like to think that I produce good output, regardless of the tools I'm given.
SW is a foreign-owned company, you simply can't expect them to do business in a way that seems fair and equitable here in the US ...
Posted by: rich942 | August 26, 2008 at 07:08 PM
"The problem with boycotts is they simply don't work, and are meaningless"
Interesting statement, you might want to bone up on history a little.
American Colonies
Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Cesar Chavez
Anti-Apartheid
Oil Embargo
http://www.pbs.org/now/society/boycott.html
Business groups take boycotts seriously
http://tinyurl.com/6q7jcg
http://tinyurl.com/5qkl68
Posted by: noneya557 | August 21, 2008 at 07:31 PM
rah rah shish boom bah! SolidWorks! SolidWorks! I agree that the new policy is fair. And I do agree that SolidWorks *may* incur costs associated with people allowing their subscription to lapse and that there should be penalties that discourage someone from allowing it to lapse that long. I don't agree that the solution is to find another CAD program to use. That attitude is "if you don't like it, leave it" and is no real solution to the other problem you are possibly overlooking. That is the value of subscription and the fact that it's generally viewed as being poor.
Your comment about UG, Pro/E and Inventor as being inferior to SolidWorks is unfounded. I seriously doubt that you have extensive experience with all of them in their current release to jusitfy that statement.
I'll agree that 2008's interface is revolutionary, but revolutionary doesn't have to mean a positive change. This is obvious in the amount of users who have adopted to it compared to prior releases. And that revolutionary change kicked off root of this whole topic, which is, "Is subscription worth keeping?". Also, I doubt all the other CAD companies are following SolidWorks vision. At least I hope that their not following SolidWorks visions of valuable subscription service.
I hate to say it because I don't want to be personal, but your post seems very SolidWorks Cheerleader-ish and simply a response out of hurt feelings from the criticism others have posted on their respective blogs. You may not realize is, but that criticism comes because people want SolidWorks to be the best and they are willing to help just as long as it is ackowledged.
Posted by: Jeff | August 21, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Don't argue guys. A bill is a bill because it is a bill. We all pay them and isn't it a tax deduction for keeping up the tools you use in your trade or craft? What is the big stink here? I don't see a problem when I am using tools or equipment to earn a living. I have to replace things I lose or break or wear out. It is a ligitimate part of doing business to incur costs of same and when legal claiming them as a business expense. For a moment think about this. Around the 1970's those that were in the construction trades and traveled far an wide to maintain their families back home were able to deduct the travel and living away expenses. That was taken away from them as more and more jobs were lost and men and ladies had to travel far away in greater numbers. The Feds looked at it as too much of a tax loophole and disallowed it. They build America too. I was one of them. Perhaps what should be talked about her is not about paying the bill on time but how much it is. Choices must be made, we all do it everyday. Just something to pacify our readers. Bye.
Posted by: Richie | August 20, 2008 at 06:01 PM
The problems with switching to any of these other brands is that they simply aren't as good as Solidworks.......
I am sorry to be disagree with you....
www.soliddna.wordpress.com
www.solidadn.wordpress.com
Solid DNA/ADN
Posted by: Solid DNA | August 20, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Hi Mike,
I read your post this morning and you seem to be confused about some of the comments I made on my blog regarding the new subscription lapse fee increase. I don't believe at any time did I say we should all stop paying subscription fees. I said with SolidWorks current subscription service users are forced into an all or nothing system. They either have to purchase the entire subscription plan (even though they may not use it) or no subscription plan at all. Users who feel they are not getting their monies worth only have one way to show that, not purchase any subscription at all. I also said there must be a rise in users deciding to go that route and SolidWorks is trying to stop this by increasing the fee to reinstate a lapsed subscription. What other reason is their for SW to raise this fee if not to deter people from lapsing on subscription?
You make the comment that Matt Lombard and I don't buy Richard Welch's explination of the new fees. You're correct, I don't buy into his explination and judging from the other comments I'm seeing neither is anyone else. Do you?
I agree with you about subscription fees being part of the price of doing business. I personally wouldn't go without subscription because it's too much of a risk not to have access to service packs and bug fixes. The unfortunate part here, I can't just buy subscription for service packs and bug fixes or just uprgrades or just VAR tech support. I'm forced by SW to buy everything even though I don't use most of it. Is it really fair to ask users to pay for bug fixes? I don't think so.
I think you're missing the bigger issue here Mike. If SW and Mr. Welch were really "in touch" with their user base they'd be working on or would have in place a multi level subscription service plan where users had more choices to purchase or not purchase the services they actually need or don't need. Rather than take the intiative and create this sort of system SW has decided to take a different approach and simply charge more money to those users who lapse on subscription becasue they feel they current subscription offerings aren't worth their money. Do you think this is the correct approach for SW to take?
As far as your comments about switching to another software package. Well, that's just bad advice. I haven't really checked into how other CAD compnaies run their subscription service. I do own AutoCAD as well and I can tell you the AutoDesk plan is no better but I'd expect that from a company like AutoDesk. I really have no reason to switch software packages. I Like SW and have no issues (well, none that would make me not purchase it)with the software. In this particular instance my issue is with SW management and how they are treating their customers on this issue.
SW had a choice to roll up their sleeves, do the hard work and reform their subscription service plan to better suit their customers or take the easy way out and just simply penalize users for not conforming to their current system. They obviuosly chose to take the easy way out on this one. This is dissapointing since I thought SW was a different kind of company than what their showing on this issue.
As for your comments about the PhotoWorks book. I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue being discussed but I do thank you for promoting the book to your readers.
Posted by: robrodriguez | August 20, 2008 at 08:36 AM