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

Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

extranetevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 115 posts

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#21

Post by therouwboat »

wnkrshm wrote: post #13
superchroma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, definitely. Blender is a shining example of what's possible, and people are starting to take notice, particularly in the cinema space.

I wonder whether that has its downsides though - with Google, Apple etc. being involved in development I wonder whether that hollows out the core of participating developers and functionally makes the project dependent on paid employees.

I dont think its downside that devs get paid, thats how it should be and I think Ton is handling blender foundation very well.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#22

Post by adammarples »

superchroma wrote: post #2

I'd rather see firms chuck some money to perhaps Blender or something to get a viable alternative developed than send angry letters to the featureless monolith that is Autodesk. They're the market leader. They don't care. They already have firms by the metaphorical balls with astronomical licensing fees and know people will pay because they set the standards across many industries. In architecture, anyway, the proble…

Tried codebook?

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#23

Post by UncleEntity »

wnkrshm wrote: post #13
superchroma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, definitely. Blender is a shining example of what's possible, and people are starting to take notice, particularly in the cinema space.

I wonder whether that has its downsides though - with Google, Apple etc. being involved in development I wonder whether that hollows out the core of participating developers and functionally makes the project dependent on paid employees.

Blender has been dependent on paid employees for quite a while. Not 100% but the majority of the grunt work (stuff that isn’t all that much fun) is through devs funded by the Blender Institute/Foundation.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#24

Post by auggierose »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #16
superchroma wrote: post #2

I'd rather see firms chuck some money to perhaps Blender or something to get a viable alternative developed than send angry letters to the featureless monolith that is Autodesk. They're the market leader. They don't care. They already have firms by the metaphorical balls with astronomical licensing fees and know people will pay because they set the standards across many industries. In architecture, anyway, the proble…

> a lot of firms think Archicad isn't industry ready It's similar in many other industries. Take InDesign, the current market leader in DTP. Say you are working on a book that has multiple indexes: index of places, index of people and so on. Well InDesign doesn't support that! This is not some fancy feature - you will find multiple indexes in many non-trivial books. But for some reason the most popular and supposedly…

It's because once a company is a market leader, it isn't anymore about "What feature is useful", but about "What will increase our revenue by x%?". Will adding a multiple index feature add anything to revenue? I doubt it.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#25

Post by sherbondy »

One potential source of disruption here (though I’m sure many folks will likewise feel it is frustrating to be locked into a SaaS model), is we are starting to see several intriguing startups building browser-based CAD software that are serious contenders for “the Figma of Architecture/BIM” crown, with the likes of:

Arcol (http://arcol.io), Infurnia (https://www.infurnia.com/), Qonic (https://www.qonic.com/), and Snaptrude (https://www.snaptrude.com).

Here’s nice little write-up about this emerging space from upFront: https://www.upfrontezine.com/2022/04/upf-1128-1.html

It remains to be seen if they will manage to out-compete the Goliath that is Autodesk or simply get acquired/assimilated, but it is exciting to see some fervent activity in this space.

Better yet if several of them take a “freemium” approach and students/hobbyists/freelancers are able to use a polished, user-friendly packaging of this incredible CAD technology for free (as in beer).

I love free software, open source, and amazing projects like Blender (it is a true anomaly & gem in the OSS world, re: professional-grade end-user applications), but sometimes the profit motive goes a long way towards creating delightful and approachable user experiences that empower people.

(Though I’m likewise rooting for an open source offering in this space to really take off!)

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#27

Post by ramblerman »

wnkrshm wrote: post #13
superchroma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, definitely. Blender is a shining example of what's possible, and people are starting to take notice, particularly in the cinema space.

I wonder whether that has its downsides though - with Google, Apple etc. being involved in development I wonder whether that hollows out the core of participating developers and functionally makes the project dependent on paid employees.

Why would you conflate the benefits of open source with a requirement for the devs to not make money?

My vision is completely the opposite, the more money we pump into open source the better. We have to get out of this idea that open source is only good (and pure) when it's some dev slaving away after hours.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#28

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

auggierose wrote: post #24
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lot of firms think Archicad isn't industry ready It's similar in many other industries. Take InDesign, the current market leader in DTP. Say you are working on a book that has multiple indexes: index of places, index of people and so on. Well InDesign doesn't support that! This is not some fancy feature - you will find multiple indexes in many non-trivial books. But for some reason the most popular and supposedly…

It's because once a company is a market leader, it isn't anymore about "What feature is useful", but about "What will increase our revenue by x%?". Will adding a multiple index feature add anything to revenue? I doubt it.

It's more about PMs thinking "Which feature will make it look like I'm doing something useful?"

Photoshop has been quietly getting worse for years now. Certain annoyances haven't been touched for decades, but new features - like the one that forces you to save a copy for certain formats even when you don't want to - are so unwelcome and pointless they've have to add a switch in the preferences which allows you to turn them off.

When a product matures and has monopoly lock-in it's essentially frozen. The core workflow will stop improving and updates will usually add unwelcome friction-inducing cruft around the edges.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#29

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #9
NonNefarious wrote: post #7

Autodesk's behavior has long been acknowledged as despicable, marked by such offenses as attacking instructional fan sites and managing to get some ignorant judge to rule in favor of their rip-off licensing scam. They claim that when you buy their software, you only buy a "perpetual license"; so if you find that you can't use the software, you can't sell it to someone else. If you tried to sell an unopened, new copy…

Really? Software sold in a box, can't resell it? Tell me more.

Not unusual. MS used to do the same thing.

Not excusing either party, just pointing out it's not that uncommon in high-end corporate software.

You're not buying a thing in a box, you're buying a license with associated terms. Which may include prohibiting resale.

If the US had credible anti-trust laws this kind of thing would be taken apart in court. But it doesn't, so here we are.

Re: Autodesk criticised by 35 named architects (2020)

#30

Post by oliwarner »

userbinator wrote: post #19
oliwarner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summoning Adobe to fix a monopoly feels... Perverse. At a technical level, they might have the chops to build something from scratch, but they've more than abused their market position over the last two decades. We don't need another standard without interop. Put the engineering into open source or open standards. We can't continue with software society relies on being locked in like this.

"An enemy of an enemy is a friend."

I prefer The Scorpion and the Frog.

When like likes of Adobe and Autodesk sting their users, everyone is angry but nobody is surprised. It's just their nature.

Post reply on HN