Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autodesk criticised by architects

extranetevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 387 posts

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#281

Post by snarfy »

taneq wrote: post #90
gorgoiler wrote: post #26

I don’t really understand SaaS for such mature products. My work (woodworking) is about making pieces of furniture. Using software is only a part of the process. It is not the actual goal. I want to pay a one off price for a stable and feature complete tool. I don’t want to fund a bunch of developers noodling around with new features I don’t want, or fixing bugs they should be patching anyway, as part of the original…

> I want to pay a one off price for a stable and feature complete tool. I don’t want to fund a bunch of developers noodling around with new features I don’t want, or fixing bugs they should be patching anyway, as part of the original price of the software. Of course you do. So do I! However, the bunch of developers wants you to fund them noodling around indefinitely, and sadly they're the ones that choose the busines…

The problem with FreeCAD, and open source CAD in general, is we have two choices: OpenCASCADE and CGAL.

FreeCAD is based on OpenCASCADE. I've used both libraries and OpenCASCADE really left a bad taste in my mouth. It's not a project I'd want to contribute to due to the technology.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#282

Post by Mc_Big_G »

$22 million over 5 years = $4.4 million /year

$4.4 million/year / 25 companies = $176,000 / year / company

So, these companies are complaining about spending $176k/year on the most critical software they use to run their business? I'd wager they spend more on company parties than they do on Revit. I'd also wager what they're REALLY pissed about is being forced to move to SaaS and the crackdown by Autodesk on pirating their software. Autodesk is arguably the most pirated business software of all time. They estimate something like 70%+ of their installs are pirated.

If Revit is really as terrible as they say it is, Autodesk should write an open letter agreeing with them and quadrupling the price to improve it. These firms make hundreds of millions of dollars every year and they're complaining about < $200k for business critical software. It's absurd.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#283

Post by IshKebab »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #264
tomxor wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps i'm being idealistic but if the cycle is that aggressive this screams for architects to start caring about buying FOSS. When you buy software it's an investment - you invest your time in integrating it into your workflow and your employees learning to use it... your investment is tied to the future of that software. If it's FOSS (funded), no amount of money autodesk throw at it can bury it's source code, buyi…

I think it's definitely possible. Look at Blender and GRASS GIS, some of the most successful open source projects among non-programmers of all time. Architecture tool is merely the midpoint between those too domains, right? :D

Architecture tools are way more niche. I think a better place to look is mechanical CAD: how many decent open source mechanical CAD programs are there? Approximately one: SolveSpace. And that is quite basic - even simple stuff like bevels is not supported. Absolutely nobody whose livelihood depended on it would use it.

It's just too niche and too complicated for there to be enough developers willing to writing it for free.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#284

Post by fsloth »

Dork1234 wrote: post #252
fsloth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite hard to develop software by just throwing money at it. And even harder when the domain is a bit niche and a bit esoteric so your hiring will be even harder. The optimal person would be a game dev with a penchant for math and a MSc in an engineering field. And you would like to have a team of these, please. Completely doable, but very much non-standard so if you have no inhouse experience to start with you'…

You do realize the whole history of Revit started with a small team at an Architecture Firm. You have to start somewhere, I think bringing software back into architecture firms could be a good thing, even if it is just Grasshopper. All buildings are starting to look the same, and I blame the fact the tools (Revit) lead you in the direction of making those styles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMW_Architects

How are GMW Architects linked to Charles River software, the original authors of Revit referred to in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk_Revit ?

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#285

Post by nybble41 »

wolfgke wrote: post #279
Ericson2314 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's definitely possible. Look at Blender and GRASS GIS, some of the most successful open source projects among non-programmers of all time. Architecture tool is merely the midpoint between those too domains, right? :D

Blender was originally a closed-source product by Not a Number Technologies (NaN). After NaN went bankrupt, the creditors agreed to let Blender become released as open source for 100,000 €.

True, but not really relevant. (Unless you're implying that you think Autodesk is likely to go bankrupt and might be open to a similar arrangement?)

The Blender we have today is much improved compared to the last version developed by NaN. Most of its major features today did not exist when it first become open source. It was certainly helpful to have a working core at the start—I'm not saying that the 100k € was a poor investment, by any means—but I would be surprised to find that there is much left of the original code by this point.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#286

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

alkonaut wrote: post #174
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What CAD program is this? I’ve switched some users at my work away from Autocad for 2D stuff to DraftSight and have had no problems opening dwg. An annual DraftSight license is $180 or something similarly trifling.

A “narrow” cad+fem package for building components. It’s not a general cad program even though it can be used as such. If DraftSight opens the latest dwgs correctly I’d expect it to contain Autodesks dwg dlls.

Ah right, thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#287

Post by fsloth »

syshum wrote: post #280
krewast wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bean counters and MBA's live in this mythical land where $100,000 over 5 years or $20,000 a year is some how different There are differences and they are far from mythical! A big one: Liquidity. If you spend $100,000 today, you all of a sudden have a $100,000 less in your bank account. That may limit what you and your team can do this year - because budgets are finite. If you have the option to pay $20,000 each yea…

lol, I figured it would be faster before a MBA responded about opportunity costs.... >>>Liquidity. That really depends on how you budget, but for many things I have been involved in these are well known costs that can not simply be postponed really, while it may have some impact on Liquidity, if budgeted for property it would not no matter if it was lump sum or spread out. The effect on a 5 year picture is the same >…

Given that Opex costs are lower than full license, I claim it still feels less risky. As an AEC firm, when you have a project going on, you can pay the Opex, and when not, you don't need to pay - and probably go bankrupt anyway since you need to have ongoing projects.

I think opex saas model might actually be beneficial for AEC industry. Generall you would have paid the yearly license anyway - some products have so called "maintenance" licenses where you basically pay for the company to fix bugs in older versions. And get a release every year or so - patiently waiting for your bugfux.

If licensing moves to Saas, then I would expect customer expectations for better service to rise, bringing in more rapid innovation and quality.

At this point all the CAD houses have been sitting on decades old legacy products and basically charged rent for minimal added value. I would imagine with more frequent releases and more flexible licensing models customer value would increase.

For example if you pay for product x some opex in project and find it dissatisfactory then you can try in next project product y if it works better without paying the expensive yearly license.

Should be good for competition as well (Autodesk is not the only AEC software house, even though they seem the dominant gorilla).

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#288

Post by FormFollowsFunc »

fsloth wrote: post #226
Dork1234 wrote: post #223

I do not feel bad about these Architects, they knew exactly what Autodesk was going to do with Revit when they acquired the company. Autodesk did the same thing with AutoCAD. Reduce innovation, and increased subscription cost. These architecture firms need to diversify the their software toolset, have more in house developers, push for more open standards, and fund open source tools. Instead they take the easy route…

Even though a logistics company uses trucks it does not mean they could build and operate a fleet of trucks. You presume architecture firms would have any sort of capability to operate in software development. You might as well say they should create their own ink and papers. Software engineering companies are savvy in software. Other companies aren't, and it is not expected that they would have any competence beyond…

Larger architectural firms like Zaha Hadid and Foster and Partners have developers in-house who work on internal tools for designers. Though I don’t know how many firms there are like this. Though I think architects in general have been lazy when it comes to tooling. The CGI industry has been far more involved in tools and open standards.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#289

Post by fsloth »

rjsw wrote: post #247
fsloth wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many standards. Unfortunately the most used ones are called DXF (Autocad file) and RVT (Revit file). There is an open standard called IFC that has a foothold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_Foundation_Classes Unfortunately, it's still second place in most cases.

The exchange file formats for IFC use the same syntax as those for STEP. The models could have been the same too but the people behind IFC wanted to do their own thing.

The exchange format is irrelevant, it's the schema that matters, though. IFC does have XML serialization as well.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#290

Post by bsanr2 »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #241
Hokusai wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast that I would be flying in a hired private jet to some island free of the pandemic by next morning. The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: If I have 1 chance in 1,000 to get 10 billion,…

> I will make up some numbers: If I have 1 chance in 1,000 to get 10 billion, that is an expected value of 10 million (10b/1000). 50 millions is way better return than the expected value of 10 million. The situation is way more severe than this makes it sound: * The benefit you get from $10b is not actually 200 times as much as the benefit of $50m. (Economists would talk of a "utility function" - that's what you shou…

The most egregious aspect is that these companies arguably shouldn't even have the ability to make such large purchases. They don't pay their taxes (using loopholes to appear completely unprofitable while an entity that is all-but-legally indistinct amasses a massive warchest is tantamount to tax avoidance, period) and they shortchange users on the value of their data (delivering software worth a fraction of the value of the data collected during its use). What results is an enormous economic distortion that has numerous negative effects, of which the issue described above is just one.
Post reply on HN