Nancy Reyes: I don't see why a product development has to suffer because additional platforms are being developed, on the contrary, evolution of the products needs to happen simultaneously so they don't suffer atrophy. Investment on Cloud products has been on going since 2014 thus is not a new and noble undertaking. for the amount of money the industry has dished out to Autodesk there should be adequate amount of funds to produce an application that surpasses it's predecessor. Ugh, now I need a drink...(1 liked)
Evan Troxel: And also why architects seem to be the ones ADSK has identified to be the ones to pay for the other product development while the architectural version crawls along is beyond me.
Anthony: Boston Tea Party analogy -
Taxation without representation is sort of what this letter feels like. Except, in this case, increases in licensing costs without consideration of what really matters to these firms in the analogical equivalent.
Nobody wants to throw Revit into the ocean, however. Instead, they are asking Autodesk to simply respond to this letter in a Nadella-like manner. And they are being explicit.
The letter asks Autodesk to form a transparent action plan that is “customer-centric, non-adversarial, innovative, progressive, and deliverable” that includes these core things:
ADSK bathroom story
The complex and ever-changing license models, lack of commitment to open standards for data exchange, a loss of trust, and a lack of communication on a roadmap for the next generation architecture tools.