5 ms·

The 2016 layoffs of similar magnitude didn't seem to make a noticeable impact in their software's update cadence. They are a company formed though an old sedime

by pzone 9y ago

The 2016 layoffs of similar magnitude didn't seem to make a noticeable impact in their software's update cadence. They are a company formed though an old sediment of mergers and acquisitions and I'm not surprised they've built up inefficiencies.

stctgion 9y ago
Do you realize that calling people inefficiencies sounds rather cold?
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Well, organizations are made of people, and organizations can and do have inefficiencies. I completely understand what you're saying, but wouldn't we just be using code words if we said something else?
- pc86 9y ago
  Saying objectively that 12 people are doing the work of 8 isn't making any value judgment on the 4 people who get let go.
- maxlybbert 9y ago
  That’s not how I read the comment. I took it as “inefficiencies in procedures or how departments communicate.” But it’s true that making the place more efficient will lead to layoffs. It doesn’t have to; they could just as easily use the same people to do more, but apparently the managers don’t have any ideas for what else to do.
Frogolocalypse 9y ago
They're a company that is selling a product that has already saturated the market.
wlesieutre 9y ago
I don't think the update cadence will change, their yearly release numbers are a big marketing point that they're locked into. Press coverage from skipping one wouldn't be good, especially since people feel like that cadence is what they're paying for with the subscriptions. That said, Autodesk has entire industries locked into subscription pricing with very little real competition. If they wanted to cut costs, they could slow the rate of development and get away with it (at least in the short term). Still yearly releases, but without as much in them. What are you going to do, cancel your AutoCAD and Revit licenses? Good luck working on any architecture projects!
- sitkack 9y ago
  They have only picked up development speed in the last 5-8 years or so. There was the previous ten years where things were largely stagnant. They used their market position to scoop up everything industrial design. Hell, they even bought EagleCad.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    Yeah, I think they'll have to be on a faster cycle to justify the their new licensing scheme vs the old perpetual ones.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      As a person who makes these decisions in an engineering company, I can tell you for the first time management is now coming around to the fact that the autodesk licensing model needs to be contained and reduced. For a good 50% of drafting (perhaps much more), zwcad will do. It has a .NET and lisp dev environment, and many tools run natively. Most importantly, the application can be purchased permanently. The autocad product for almost all drafting is essentially unchanged in 15 years, and yet the yearly licensing cost is now more than the total capital cost that was originally incurred. Autodesk is really starting to look like they're pricing their own product out of the market. Will it be completely removed? Probably not. But if you can translate CAD formats from consultancies into the format for your work, and then transfer them back, and the solution to doing that costs 50K to develop, and saves you 150K a year, it's hard to ignore. The only reason I think it hasn't happened up until now is the boiling frog situation. But the frog can't take much more heat.
      - JBlue42 9y ago
        Thanks for the reply and perspective. I only helped support an arch/design firm in terms of CAD/Revit. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of this earlier but it wasn't my job to make those decisions and, as much as it was a struggle to get the executives on board with Revit, going to an 'unknown' brand like ZWCAD might have taken some teeth pulling (or maybe an entire root canal). They were also a firm willing to have bought and installed the suit for each year on certain machines. I think it's great if there is this competitor in the market. Most of the architects experienced in CAD lamented that it was their only option and that instead of improving the product, Autodesk just continued to add different ways of doing the same thing.

by pzone 9y ago

stctgion 9y ago

Do you realize that calling people inefficiencies sounds rather cold?

fapjacks 9y ago
Well, organizations are made of people, and organizations can and do have inefficiencies. I completely understand what you're saying, but wouldn't we just be using code words if we said something else?
pc86 9y ago
Saying objectively that 12 people are doing the work of 8 isn't making any value judgment on the 4 people who get let go.
maxlybbert 9y ago
That’s not how I read the comment. I took it as “inefficiencies in procedures or how departments communicate.” But it’s true that making the place more efficient will lead to layoffs. It doesn’t have to; they could just as easily use the same people to do more, but apparently the managers don’t have any ideas for what else to do.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago

They're a company that is selling a product that has already saturated the market.

wlesieutre 9y ago

I don't think the update cadence will change, their yearly release numbers are a big marketing point that they're locked into. Press coverage from skipping one wouldn't be good, especially since people feel like that cadence is what they're paying for with the subscriptions. That said, Autodesk has entire industries locked into subscription pricing with very little real competition. If they wanted to cut costs, they could slow the rate of development and get away with it (at least in the short term). Still yearly releases, but without as much in them. What are you going to do, cancel your AutoCAD and Revit licenses? Good luck working on any architecture projects!

sitkack 9y ago
They have only picked up development speed in the last 5-8 years or so. There was the previous ten years where things were largely stagnant. They used their market position to scoop up everything industrial design. Hell, they even bought EagleCad.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Yeah, I think they'll have to be on a faster cycle to justify the their new licensing scheme vs the old perpetual ones.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    As a person who makes these decisions in an engineering company, I can tell you for the first time management is now coming around to the fact that the autodesk licensing model needs to be contained and reduced. For a good 50% of drafting (perhaps much more), zwcad will do. It has a .NET and lisp dev environment, and many tools run natively. Most importantly, the application can be purchased permanently. The autocad product for almost all drafting is essentially unchanged in 15 years, and yet the yearly licensing cost is now more than the total capital cost that was originally incurred. Autodesk is really starting to look like they're pricing their own product out of the market. Will it be completely removed? Probably not. But if you can translate CAD formats from consultancies into the format for your work, and then transfer them back, and the solution to doing that costs 50K to develop, and saves you 150K a year, it's hard to ignore. The only reason I think it hasn't happened up until now is the boiling frog situation. But the frog can't take much more heat.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      Thanks for the reply and perspective. I only helped support an arch/design firm in terms of CAD/Revit. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of this earlier but it wasn't my job to make those decisions and, as much as it was a struggle to get the executives on board with Revit, going to an 'unknown' brand like ZWCAD might have taken some teeth pulling (or maybe an entire root canal). They were also a firm willing to have bought and installed the suit for each year on certain machines. I think it's great if there is this competitor in the market. Most of the architects experienced in CAD lamented that it was their only option and that instead of improving the product, Autodesk just continued to add different ways of doing the same thing.