Are Autodesk Products Unimportant?

In an article on CADCAMNet, Steve Wolfe writes:

Because Autodesk’s products are cheap and used for relatively unimportant tasks, such as drafting, customers can get by without upgrading them or renewing their subscriptions during tough times. In contrast, the products of Dassault Systèmes and Parametric Technology are critical to new product development.

Steve is wondering whether Autodesk is a bubble stock citing the 31% drop in revenue in Q3 of 2009. Frankly, I do not wish to comment on the financial aspects of what Steve wrote. But I sure as hell would like to comment on the statement that he made about Autodesk products being “cheap and used for relatively unimportant tasks“.

If I may, I would like to speak for the Autodesk programmers that wrote those software products along with the thousands of third party developers who develop solutions on top of Autodesk products. We most definitely do not believe that our software is used to do unimportant things. Personally, I believe such a statement is not just insulting to the 9 million Autodesk customers, but also to Autodesk developers and their partners.

If you are an Autodesk customer, I would love it if you left a comment explaining why you think what you are doing unimportant.

  • Deelip, I guess it was a good idea that I referred to Steve’s article as “A contrarian viewpoint” in the summary. Being subtle is not one of Steve’s strong points. Love the blog; I often wonder how you find time to run your empire and still post so much.

  • Deelip, I guess it was a good idea that I referred to Steve’s article as “A contrarian viewpoint” in the summary. Being subtle is not one of Steve’s strong points. Love the blog; I often wonder how you find time to run your empire and still post so much.

  • Running the empire is the easy part. The blog is not 😉

    Ironically, I wrote that post while listening to members of the Autodesk DevTech team at Autodesk DevDays 2009 explain to third party developers in the audience all the new stuff that they have been working on and how we can use it in our solutions. Its quite demoralizing to see people ridicule and belittle the software that we write. I am pretty sure users feel the same.

  • Running the empire is the easy part. The blog is not 😉

    Ironically, I wrote that post while listening to members of the Autodesk DevTech team at Autodesk DevDays 2009 explain to third party developers in the audience all the new stuff that they have been working on and how we can use it in our solutions. Its quite demoralizing to see people ridicule and belittle the software that we write. I am pretty sure users feel the same.

  • “Because Autodesk’s products are cheap and used for relatively
    unimportant tasks, such as drafting, customers can get by without upgrading them or renewing their subscriptions during tough times.”

    That has to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Relatively unimportant?

  • “Because Autodesk’s products are cheap and used for relatively
    unimportant tasks, such as drafting, customers can get by without upgrading them or renewing their subscriptions during tough times.”

    That has to be the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Relatively unimportant?

  • The nerve!

    Who does Steve Wolfe think he is?

    Oh yes… He’s one of the most respected analysts in the CAD industry, who has a history of speaking truth to power, and who is one of the very few true consumer advocates that this industry has.

    I think you’re taking what Steve said out of context. And, given the place you’re at (an Autodesk developer meeting), I can understand how it could happen. I’d suggest, though, that you re-read what Steve said, and try and understand its basis.

    Beyond this, I’d say you should put on you “must do” list to visit with Steve at COFES ( http://www.cofes.com ) next April.

    I doubt that Steve, or anyone else who knew what they were talking about, would “ridicule and belittle” the software that you (or Autodesk) write. But, at the same time, until the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode (or Autodesk) instead of from Dassault, Siemens, or PTC, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument with respect to the relative importance of tasks for which your software is used.

    (For context: I’m not saying it won’t happen. Someday. I’ve spoken to Buzz Kross at Autodesk about the challenge of winning major OEM clients. There’s little more that he’d like better than to win a big powertrain design deal. But I don’t think he’s crazy enough to believe he has a chance to win a major deal for airframe or body-in-white design anytime in the near future.)

  • The nerve!

    Who does Steve Wolfe think he is?

    Oh yes… He’s one of the most respected analysts in the CAD industry, who has a history of speaking truth to power, and who is one of the very few true consumer advocates that this industry has.

    I think you’re taking what Steve said out of context. And, given the place you’re at (an Autodesk developer meeting), I can understand how it could happen. I’d suggest, though, that you re-read what Steve said, and try and understand its basis.

    Beyond this, I’d say you should put on you “must do” list to visit with Steve at COFES ( http://www.cofes.com ) next April.

    I doubt that Steve, or anyone else who knew what they were talking about, would “ridicule and belittle” the software that you (or Autodesk) write. But, at the same time, until the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode (or Autodesk) instead of from Dassault, Siemens, or PTC, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument with respect to the relative importance of tasks for which your software is used.

    (For context: I’m not saying it won’t happen. Someday. I’ve spoken to Buzz Kross at Autodesk about the challenge of winning major OEM clients. There’s little more that he’d like better than to win a big powertrain design deal. But I don’t think he’s crazy enough to believe he has a chance to win a major deal for airframe or body-in-white design anytime in the near future.)

  • Deelip,
    I am sure Autodesk Products do much more than basic tasks. I am a fan of Autodesk Inventor for the power it has. As a developer of Inventor addins, I know how well Autodesk’s Developers have made its API. Thats from a developers point of view.

    From a users point of view, I have the following experience to share.
    My fellow student at IIT Delhi was working on simulation of a delta parallel manipulator. He had modelled in pro-e and had imported the parts inside both ADAMS and RecurDYN. In both of ADAMS and RecurDYN, the user has to take a lot of pain in assigning different constraints/joints. After all that, though he was able to simulate and view animation in RecurDYN, he was not getting proper graphs for torques etc due to redundancy of constraints. He then asked me if I could make it work in Inventor. It just took me 15 mins to do the task, where as he had taken more than 2 hours.
    I imported all the parts. Started a new assembly, assigned all constraints in 10 mins. Then I started Dynamic Simulation module and successfully simulated the assembly. On top of it, Inventor was handling Redundant Constraints very well and I was able to get proper graph plots.

    Well, the point I wanted to prove is that Autodesk Inventor is definitely a go getter, apt for rapid testing and prototyping.

    Regards,
    Rajeev Lochan
    Research Scholor,
    Mech Engg Dept,
    IIT Delhi

  • Deelip,
    I am sure Autodesk Products do much more than basic tasks. I am a fan of Autodesk Inventor for the power it has. As a developer of Inventor addins, I know how well Autodesk’s Developers have made its API. Thats from a developers point of view.

    From a users point of view, I have the following experience to share.
    My fellow student at IIT Delhi was working on simulation of a delta parallel manipulator. He had modelled in pro-e and had imported the parts inside both ADAMS and RecurDYN. In both of ADAMS and RecurDYN, the user has to take a lot of pain in assigning different constraints/joints. After all that, though he was able to simulate and view animation in RecurDYN, he was not getting proper graphs for torques etc due to redundancy of constraints. He then asked me if I could make it work in Inventor. It just took me 15 mins to do the task, where as he had taken more than 2 hours.
    I imported all the parts. Started a new assembly, assigned all constraints in 10 mins. Then I started Dynamic Simulation module and successfully simulated the assembly. On top of it, Inventor was handling Redundant Constraints very well and I was able to get proper graph plots.

    Well, the point I wanted to prove is that Autodesk Inventor is definitely a go getter, apt for rapid testing and prototyping.

    Regards,
    Rajeev Lochan
    Research Scholor,
    Mech Engg Dept,
    IIT Delhi

  • Sean:

    Steve’s statement was made in the context of financial results reported by Autodesk and other CAD vendors. It was implicitly addressed at the products which are the most significant revenue contributors for those companies.

    In the case of DS, Siemens, and PTC, those products are generally used for strategically important processes by major users. In the case of Autodesk, though it does sell software that is used for relatively strategically important processes (e.g., Inventor and Revit, among others), much of its revenue comes from AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT — which, though widely used, are more often used for mundane tasks.

  • Sean:

    Steve’s statement was made in the context of financial results reported by Autodesk and other CAD vendors. It was implicitly addressed at the products which are the most significant revenue contributors for those companies.

    In the case of DS, Siemens, and PTC, those products are generally used for strategically important processes by major users. In the case of Autodesk, though it does sell software that is used for relatively strategically important processes (e.g., Inventor and Revit, among others), much of its revenue comes from AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT — which, though widely used, are more often used for mundane tasks.

  • Evan:

    Steve said “relatively unimportant tasks, such as drafting”. This was not used in a context of financial results.

    To call the things that are designed by Autodesk products “unimportant” is just plain silly. Just as it would be to say this of Solidworks, UGS, PTC etc…

  • Evan:

    Steve said “relatively unimportant tasks, such as drafting”. This was not used in a context of financial results.

    To call the things that are designed by Autodesk products “unimportant” is just plain silly. Just as it would be to say this of Solidworks, UGS, PTC etc…

  • Deelip, I was recently a principal of a third party developer. Our technology was acquired by Autodesk (hence my rationale for anonymous).

    I have had the fortune to have visited several fortune 1000 customers which use autodesk products (e.g. Inventor) as part of their core product development processes.

    Mr. Wolfe is sadly mistaken in his assertion that Autodesk products are used for unimportant tasks.

  • Deelip, I was recently a principal of a third party developer. Our technology was acquired by Autodesk (hence my rationale for anonymous).

    I have had the fortune to have visited several fortune 1000 customers which use autodesk products (e.g. Inventor) as part of their core product development processes.

    Mr. Wolfe is sadly mistaken in his assertion that Autodesk products are used for unimportant tasks.

  • Simon Weel

    What’s important or not… I don’t know. In the end, we all die and the things we make will someday vanish from the earth. In that respect, everything we do is unimportant.

    Mr. Wolfe has a point where he says a company can do it’s job in the future with the software it uses now. The work we do today can easily be done with version 2004, although it may be a little less efficient.

    What I don’t understand is why the products of Dassault etc. are so special that you always need the latest version?

  • Simon Weel

    What’s important or not… I don’t know. In the end, we all die and the things we make will someday vanish from the earth. In that respect, everything we do is unimportant.

    Mr. Wolfe has a point where he says a company can do it’s job in the future with the software it uses now. The work we do today can easily be done with version 2004, although it may be a little less efficient.

    What I don’t understand is why the products of Dassault etc. are so special that you always need the latest version?

  • Evan,

    As Sean pointed out, nothing was taken out of context.

    I believe that for an architect drawing lines and arcs is as important as creating a solid model for a product designer. That’s what they do which is what gets them revenue, without which they would not be able to pay their bills or keep the company from folding. Someone needs to explain to me exactly what “relatively unimportant” means.

    A couple of other points. I already met Steve at COFES and Boeing, NASA and DLR (German Aerospace Agency) are already my customers.

  • Evan,

    As Sean pointed out, nothing was taken out of context.

    I believe that for an architect drawing lines and arcs is as important as creating a solid model for a product designer. That’s what they do which is what gets them revenue, without which they would not be able to pay their bills or keep the company from folding. Someone needs to explain to me exactly what “relatively unimportant” means.

    A couple of other points. I already met Steve at COFES and Boeing, NASA and DLR (German Aerospace Agency) are already my customers.

  • I find this whole thing incredibly disappointing.

    Whether Steven’s comments are taken out of context or not, whether he meant to denigrate the work of users that dare not to use more costly tools, the whole thing is incredibly disrespectful to users of CAD software. Steven is a tough man and likes to talk tough and I’d like to think that this was a case where a point was made badly.

    Because, the alternative is unthinkable and somewhat disgusting.

    But about Evan’s point.

    Specifically that “Until the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode (or Autodesk) instead of from Dassault, Siemens, or PTC, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument with respect to the relative importance of tasks for which your software is used.”

    I find this even worse.

    Are you saying that users not engaged in automotive or aerospace development are carrying out trivial work? That seems to be the gist of your argument Evan?

    And it’s bullshit. Complete bullshit.

    We recently ran a cover story on the small team at Trekinetic (http://www.trekinetic.com/). The main gent behind the breakthrough product, which enables disabled users to traverse rough ground, to regain their mobility without having to stick to perfect roads, pavements and other surface. Have a look at the web-site, think about the comments made and tell me that’s trivial or unimportant. Relative or not.

    And it was done with AutoCAD.

    If you want an example of Deelip’s tools, I recently recommended Deelip’s tools to a friend who was struggling to shift data between SolidWorks and 3dsmax. The goal was to create photorealistic renderings to gain project work. Without that small investment and the subsequent assets it enabled the creation of, they wouldn’t have won the contract, not done the work and not helped their business.

    Is that trivial, mundane and unimportant?

    CAD and the surround technologies are tools.

    Let’s not forget that.

    Let’s also not forget that the real story should be about the users that actually use these things in anger, to develop and manufacture products, whether that’s a wheelchair, an electronic product, a garden gate, a building or a Dreamliner.

    And ultimately, show some f**king respect for the people that fund the CAD industry.

    Al Dean

  • I find this whole thing incredibly disappointing.

    Whether Steven’s comments are taken out of context or not, whether he meant to denigrate the work of users that dare not to use more costly tools, the whole thing is incredibly disrespectful to users of CAD software. Steven is a tough man and likes to talk tough and I’d like to think that this was a case where a point was made badly.

    Because, the alternative is unthinkable and somewhat disgusting.

    But about Evan’s point.

    Specifically that “Until the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode (or Autodesk) instead of from Dassault, Siemens, or PTC, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument with respect to the relative importance of tasks for which your software is used.”

    I find this even worse.

    Are you saying that users not engaged in automotive or aerospace development are carrying out trivial work? That seems to be the gist of your argument Evan?

    And it’s bullshit. Complete bullshit.

    We recently ran a cover story on the small team at Trekinetic (http://www.trekinetic.com/). The main gent behind the breakthrough product, which enables disabled users to traverse rough ground, to regain their mobility without having to stick to perfect roads, pavements and other surface. Have a look at the web-site, think about the comments made and tell me that’s trivial or unimportant. Relative or not.

    And it was done with AutoCAD.

    If you want an example of Deelip’s tools, I recently recommended Deelip’s tools to a friend who was struggling to shift data between SolidWorks and 3dsmax. The goal was to create photorealistic renderings to gain project work. Without that small investment and the subsequent assets it enabled the creation of, they wouldn’t have won the contract, not done the work and not helped their business.

    Is that trivial, mundane and unimportant?

    CAD and the surround technologies are tools.

    Let’s not forget that.

    Let’s also not forget that the real story should be about the users that actually use these things in anger, to develop and manufacture products, whether that’s a wheelchair, an electronic product, a garden gate, a building or a Dreamliner.

    And ultimately, show some f**king respect for the people that fund the CAD industry.

    Al Dean

  • Tony

    Evan,
    There’s a world of stuff outside of 3D solid modeling. Look at all the verticals AutoCAD supports, such as control cabinet design (with AutoCAD Electrical). Electrical wiring diagrams are inherently 2D, are very important (heck, they’re part of my job), and we certainly don’t use SolidWorks to make them.

  • Tony

    Evan,
    There’s a world of stuff outside of 3D solid modeling. Look at all the verticals AutoCAD supports, such as control cabinet design (with AutoCAD Electrical). Electrical wiring diagrams are inherently 2D, are very important (heck, they’re part of my job), and we certainly don’t use SolidWorks to make them.

  • I see Steve has retitled the article…

    “Is Autodesk a Bubble Stock?”

    ..yet keeps the rest of the article intact? Is that half a retraction?

  • I see Steve has retitled the article…

    “Is Autodesk a Bubble Stock?”

    ..yet keeps the rest of the article intact? Is that half a retraction?

  • While I don’t use AutoDesk products, even I realize how asinine that blurb is. AutoDesk products are no less important in their sectors than anyone else’s. Last time I checked, drafting was pretty damn important. Without it, buildings would get built, HVAC systems would be installed incorrectly, control panels would be wired wrong, so on and so forth.
    While I may give my AutoDesk brethren a hard time, I don’t think their products are cheap, nor are they used for unimportant tasks.

  • While I don’t use AutoDesk products, even I realize how asinine that blurb is. AutoDesk products are no less important in their sectors than anyone else’s. Last time I checked, drafting was pretty damn important. Without it, buildings would get built, HVAC systems would be installed incorrectly, control panels would be wired wrong, so on and so forth.
    While I may give my AutoDesk brethren a hard time, I don’t think their products are cheap, nor are they used for unimportant tasks.

  • Mike Norgrave

    I would let him come to AU. In fact lets give him a booth in the exhibit hall. We will setup all the significant CAD applications and see which one he can use.
    Can he design a bracket, then do an analysis. Lets see his list of patents. I saw you worked for a bunch of companies that are pretty much gone.
    How many buildings have been designed with Autodesk products. Lets see, new freedom tower PTC No, Dassault No, Autodesk Yes.
    After all your years as a PE your a blogger. Now thats something to be proud of.
    I’ve attended your lectures, your good at powerpoint, why don’t you use any technology to back up your theories.
    Write some code, design a better mouse trap. what do you have to show for your career.
    I respect the hard working Autodesk people and the founders of the company more so that your inadequate theories.

  • Mike Norgrave

    I would let him come to AU. In fact lets give him a booth in the exhibit hall. We will setup all the significant CAD applications and see which one he can use.
    Can he design a bracket, then do an analysis. Lets see his list of patents. I saw you worked for a bunch of companies that are pretty much gone.
    How many buildings have been designed with Autodesk products. Lets see, new freedom tower PTC No, Dassault No, Autodesk Yes.
    After all your years as a PE your a blogger. Now thats something to be proud of.
    I’ve attended your lectures, your good at powerpoint, why don’t you use any technology to back up your theories.
    Write some code, design a better mouse trap. what do you have to show for your career.
    I respect the hard working Autodesk people and the founders of the company more so that your inadequate theories.

  • Autodesk Products used for unimportant tasks ?

    I’m sure there would be many readers coming in here to read what the discussion is all about. In an non CAD user perspective find out if these can be found in other CAD company meeting every segment of Engineering Industry.

    In the worst case, can any one list at least one domain or tool which is used for unimportant task ?

    Media & Entertainment – 3DSMax / Maya

    Automotive – Alias Studio / Automotive / Design

    AEC – Revit and its associated products

    Education – Free tools for students to download and learn

    (I have seen other CAD players charging even for a student license)

    Manufacturing – Inventor / “Fusion Technology”

    FEA – Algor

    So, when you are well aware of the market leadership that Autodesk has, why make statement. Economy has hurt every major giant company, its matter of time, history will speak again.

  • Autodesk Products used for unimportant tasks ?

    I’m sure there would be many readers coming in here to read what the discussion is all about. In an non CAD user perspective find out if these can be found in other CAD company meeting every segment of Engineering Industry.

    In the worst case, can any one list at least one domain or tool which is used for unimportant task ?

    Media & Entertainment – 3DSMax / Maya

    Automotive – Alias Studio / Automotive / Design

    AEC – Revit and its associated products

    Education – Free tools for students to download and learn

    (I have seen other CAD players charging even for a student license)

    Manufacturing – Inventor / “Fusion Technology”

    FEA – Algor

    So, when you are well aware of the market leadership that Autodesk has, why make statement. Economy has hurt every major giant company, its matter of time, history will speak again.

  • I cannot agree on the wording “used for relatively unimportant tasks” either.

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before but one reason can also be that it is harder to move away from the most expensive systems and also because the companies that use them tend to be larger companies that have invested a lot and integrated a lot and often have a harder time to make changes from one system to another.

    Anyone looked into the growth of AutoCAD clones and how that has affected Autodesk lately?

  • I cannot agree on the wording “used for relatively unimportant tasks” either.

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before but one reason can also be that it is harder to move away from the most expensive systems and also because the companies that use them tend to be larger companies that have invested a lot and integrated a lot and often have a harder time to make changes from one system to another.

    Anyone looked into the growth of AutoCAD clones and how that has affected Autodesk lately?

  • Kevin Quigley

    Well of course the guy is talking bollocks. In context or out of context it is a statement that is guaranteed to wind people up. The relative importance of a product depends on your point of view.

    If I am 35,000ft up flying across the Atlantic I hope to hell that the aircraft I’m in was designed to the highest standards. Likewise if I’m on the operating table I hope the ventilator in use works as designed.

    This guy may well be a respected individual in the industry, but that to me just demonstrates that the industry is filled with many so called experts who really don’t have a clue about what actually goes on in the industries the CAD industry services.

    What they all forget is that the software is just a tool. It does not make the decisions for you. It does not carry the liability when you balls up (read the end user licenses if you want to see so many “its wasnae me” clauses). In general big things function because they depend on little things working. Those little things are often designed and developed by sub contractors and the myriad of suppliers servicing big companies. Some do indeed use CATIA or NX, but many still use, shock and horror, Autocad, Inventor, Solidworks even! I even know some people who still use paper and drawing boards – imagine that!

    So, regardless of whether or not the comment is out of context, this guy, and by his follow up comments, Evan Yares, are denegrating the activities of the hundreds of thousands (millions even) of “everyday” engineers and designers. Nice going guys!

  • Kevin Quigley

    Well of course the guy is talking bollocks. In context or out of context it is a statement that is guaranteed to wind people up. The relative importance of a product depends on your point of view.

    If I am 35,000ft up flying across the Atlantic I hope to hell that the aircraft I’m in was designed to the highest standards. Likewise if I’m on the operating table I hope the ventilator in use works as designed.

    This guy may well be a respected individual in the industry, but that to me just demonstrates that the industry is filled with many so called experts who really don’t have a clue about what actually goes on in the industries the CAD industry services.

    What they all forget is that the software is just a tool. It does not make the decisions for you. It does not carry the liability when you balls up (read the end user licenses if you want to see so many “its wasnae me” clauses). In general big things function because they depend on little things working. Those little things are often designed and developed by sub contractors and the myriad of suppliers servicing big companies. Some do indeed use CATIA or NX, but many still use, shock and horror, Autocad, Inventor, Solidworks even! I even know some people who still use paper and drawing boards – imagine that!

    So, regardless of whether or not the comment is out of context, this guy, and by his follow up comments, Evan Yares, are denegrating the activities of the hundreds of thousands (millions even) of “everyday” engineers and designers. Nice going guys!

  • anonymous coward

    I do hope that Mr. Wolfe realizes that AutoCAD, Inventor, and Solidworks have a major presence in the oilfield equipment and tools and in the case of SW and Inv have replaced Pro-E in a few places around Houston.

  • anonymous coward

    I do hope that Mr. Wolfe realizes that AutoCAD, Inventor, and Solidworks have a major presence in the oilfield equipment and tools and in the case of SW and Inv have replaced Pro-E in a few places around Houston.

  • We use AutoCAD for lots of unimportant things. As long as you don’t count your buildings, roads, bridges, planes trains, and automobiles *important*.

    I think both sides need to step back and see that yes, the software is important. But NOT without us users and our skills. Conversely, we wouldn’t be where we are today without the software.

    Nor should either should feel too self-important without the other. AutoCAD obviously needs users. But as a user I am really happy to have such a tool.

    I’ve been doing this stuff since the 70’s. I know the level of design I could put out before CAD. And how long it took. No contest – I’ll stick with today.

    Until tomorrow comes and I get the chance to learn some more, and me AND the tool get better together.

  • We use AutoCAD for lots of unimportant things. As long as you don’t count your buildings, roads, bridges, planes trains, and automobiles *important*.

    I think both sides need to step back and see that yes, the software is important. But NOT without us users and our skills. Conversely, we wouldn’t be where we are today without the software.

    Nor should either should feel too self-important without the other. AutoCAD obviously needs users. But as a user I am really happy to have such a tool.

    I’ve been doing this stuff since the 70’s. I know the level of design I could put out before CAD. And how long it took. No contest – I’ll stick with today.

    Until tomorrow comes and I get the chance to learn some more, and me AND the tool get better together.

  • +1 everyone except Evan.

    Just today… I was able to use AutoCAD to find a mistake (made in autocad) that left uncorrected could have lead to many issues including someone getting dead. pretty ‘critical’ there old buddy.

    This is less about what one person’s opinion is in light of ‘financial results’ and more about a misunderstanding of product development in general. I’m not gonna go on, but Al and Kevin you got it dead on.

    Oh, and if you think autodesk products are cheap, try looking at Flame, Flint or Inferno. If price is the measuring stick, then heck, (with one of these alone) autodesk wins.

    so over it.

  • +1 everyone except Evan.

    Just today… I was able to use AutoCAD to find a mistake (made in autocad) that left uncorrected could have lead to many issues including someone getting dead. pretty ‘critical’ there old buddy.

    This is less about what one person’s opinion is in light of ‘financial results’ and more about a misunderstanding of product development in general. I’m not gonna go on, but Al and Kevin you got it dead on.

    Oh, and if you think autodesk products are cheap, try looking at Flame, Flint or Inferno. If price is the measuring stick, then heck, (with one of these alone) autodesk wins.

    so over it.

  • DF

    Its quite demoralizing to see people ridicule and belittle the software that we write. I am pretty sure users feel the same.

    Welcome to the world of Bentley users. But I think that what the OP perhaps meant was that AutoCAD (which is the product most synomous with ADSK) is pretty much just another bog-standard DWG editor – which I think that Autodesk themselves realise, with their aggressive acquisitions of more specialised products, as well as their efforts to develop an add-on ecosystem like Bentley’s.

    Anyway, I look forward to the OP’s follow-up, if any (and wonder at the defensivesness of people who confuse their tools with their work).

  • DF

    Its quite demoralizing to see people ridicule and belittle the software that we write. I am pretty sure users feel the same.

    Welcome to the world of Bentley users. But I think that what the OP perhaps meant was that AutoCAD (which is the product most synomous with ADSK) is pretty much just another bog-standard DWG editor – which I think that Autodesk themselves realise, with their aggressive acquisitions of more specialised products, as well as their efforts to develop an add-on ecosystem like Bentley’s.

    Anyway, I look forward to the OP’s follow-up, if any (and wonder at the defensivesness of people who confuse their tools with their work).

  • I’d REALLY like to see Steve Wolfe come out and defend his work. So far there seems to be a lot of agreement that Steve stuck his foot in his mouth. I wonder why he does not come out and either a) apologize for his comments or b) defend them? It’s easy to say something inflammatory and watch the results. It is quite another to be able to defend your position logically.

  • I’d REALLY like to see Steve Wolfe come out and defend his work. So far there seems to be a lot of agreement that Steve stuck his foot in his mouth. I wonder why he does not come out and either a) apologize for his comments or b) defend them? It’s easy to say something inflammatory and watch the results. It is quite another to be able to defend your position logically.

  • I have written an open letter to Mr. Wolfe asking him to either defend his work or apologize for his statements…

    http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10600

  • I have written an open letter to Mr. Wolfe asking him to either defend his work or apologize for his statements…

    http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10600

  • Sean,

    Interestingly Ralph Grabowski is asking on his blog whether Steve Wolfe should be allowed into AU or not?

    Let me put it this way. Someone who comes along and pisses all over my programmers and customers and then goes away without saying a word is not going to be allowed close to my office, let alone a user conference where all my customers will be present. I don’t care who the person is or what he has or has not done. There are some lines you just cannot cross.

  • Sean,

    Interestingly Ralph Grabowski is asking on his blog whether Steve Wolfe should be allowed into AU or not?

    Let me put it this way. Someone who comes along and pisses all over my programmers and customers and then goes away without saying a word is not going to be allowed close to my office, let alone a user conference where all my customers will be present. I don’t care who the person is or what he has or has not done. There are some lines you just cannot cross.

  • AU is a private event. They can do as they wish. However I agree. Why would I let a person come to my event who trashes my products and users?

    I do however feel that they could at the least refund his entrance fee (if they have not already done so).

  • AU is a private event. They can do as they wish. However I agree. Why would I let a person come to my event who trashes my products and users?

    I do however feel that they could at the least refund his entrance fee (if they have not already done so).

  • I just did an interview with Carl Bass, the CEO of Autodesk, wherein I asked him about Steve’s and Evan’s comments. See answer to question (4) at http://www.deelip.com/?p=818

  • I just did an interview with Carl Bass, the CEO of Autodesk, wherein I asked him about Steve’s and Evan’s comments. See answer to question (4) at http://www.deelip.com/?p=818

  • It's easier to chain him to a dunking chair at the design slam if he is already there

    John

  • Oh this is true…The end is we don”t take anything along…