Buzz Kross on Inventor

Robert “Buzz” Kross is the Senior Vice President of the Manufacturing Solutions Division at Autodesk. He joined Autodesk in 1993 after Woodbourne Inc., a company he co-founded, was acquired by Autodesk. I met Buzz a couple of times at COFES. From my conversations with him I get the impression that he is extremely passionate about one thing – Autodesk Inventor. And he knows a hell of a lot about it and what it can do. After all, Woodbourne used to develop parametric design tools for AutoCAD and over the years Buzz has greatly influenced Autodesk’s MCAD products like AutoCAD Mechanical and MDT, not just Inventor.

That is why I was quite surprised when I read a comment made by Evan Yares on this blog. The comment was in response to a post where I brought to light Steve Wolfe’s ridiculous statement about Autodesk’s products being used for “relatively important” tasks. Evan wrote:

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.

So I decided to get it straight from the horse’s mouth and sent Buzz an email. I wrote:

I am wondering if you are being misquoted here. Do you truly believe that Inventor is lagging behind the competition in the manner that you have been portrayed in the comment?

And here is Buzz’s reply:

I did read your blog, Evan’s comments as well as Stephen’s. I guess I am crazy enough and I am being misquoted here. Inventor is ready for any job in the world. The 2010 version (shipping now) is the best in the industry. 2011, shipping soon, with its integrated direct manipulation capability will extend our lead. Add my Alias products, which is key to virtually every car design in the world, and you have flexibility and power beyond anything others offer.

Actually this is the job of Autodesk PR – to clarify statements and quotes attributed to their executives and employees. But since this happenned on my blog I decided to do my bit to straighten things out.

I do not appreciate people using my blog as a medium to misquote or misrepresent others for whatever reason.

  • I find it curious that both you and Buzz refer to Evan “misquoting”. Either you read something into Evan’s comment that I did not, or you have an ulterior motive to discredit him. Evan might be full of BS, but your portrayal of him as dishonest strikes me as unprofessional.

  • I find it curious that both you and Buzz refer to Evan “misquoting”. Either you read something into Evan’s comment that I did not, or you have an ulterior motive to discredit him. Evan might be full of BS, but your portrayal of him as dishonest strikes me as unprofessional.

  • Owen,

    Evan does have a way with words. From Buzz’s reply it is quite obvious that he does not appreciate the way Evan uses his name and the things he told him while expressing his own opinions that go to discredit the products that Buzz stands for.

    If someone quoted something I said and then used it to discredit one of my own products, I would feel the same. I guess, as a software developer yourself, you would feel the same too.

    I am in no way trying to discredit Evan. Just reminding him and everyone else that such comments will not go unnoticed by me.

  • Owen,

    Evan does have a way with words. From Buzz’s reply it is quite obvious that he does not appreciate the way Evan uses his name and the things he told him while expressing his own opinions that go to discredit the products that Buzz stands for.

    If someone quoted something I said and then used it to discredit one of my own products, I would feel the same. I guess, as a software developer yourself, you would feel the same too.

    I am in no way trying to discredit Evan. Just reminding him and everyone else that such comments will not go unnoticed by me.

  • I would like to add that I believe that Evan is anything but dishonest. I applaud his contributions to the industry while he was running the ODA.

    Just that I am finding it hard to come to terms with the fact that he now believes that AutoCAD is mostly used to do “mundane tasks”. I always considered Evan as a person who stood up for 2D CAD users and highlighted the importance of their data stored in DWG files. But now, he agrees with Steve’s ridiculous theory that 2D drafting is something which is “relatively unimportant”. How can the output of doing something unimportant (drafting) result in data which is important (DWG files)?

    I found Evan using Buzz’s name and the things he told him (confidentially or otherwise) to then further discredit Inventor particularly alarming. And that is precisely what prompted to me investigate further.

  • I would like to add that I believe that Evan is anything but dishonest. I applaud his contributions to the industry while he was running the ODA.

    Just that I am finding it hard to come to terms with the fact that he now believes that AutoCAD is mostly used to do “mundane tasks”. I always considered Evan as a person who stood up for 2D CAD users and highlighted the importance of their data stored in DWG files. But now, he agrees with Steve’s ridiculous theory that 2D drafting is something which is “relatively unimportant”. How can the output of doing something unimportant (drafting) result in data which is important (DWG files)?

    I found Evan using Buzz’s name and the things he told him (confidentially or otherwise) to then further discredit Inventor particularly alarming. And that is precisely what prompted to me investigate further.

  • Charles Hooke

    Deelip, in the same comment you are referring to Evan also said

    [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 believe that was way under the belt. Telling a developer on his own blog that his software is unimportant (relatively or not), is sickening and says a lot a the person saying such a thing. What I found ironic is that after Evan got kicked out of the ODA he has been roaming around saying that he is the president of PureCor, a company that has absolutely no products to show for itself after all this time. Evan should be the last person trying to belittle someone who actually has products.

    And Owen just because someone is known to talk BS it doesn’t mean that he should get away with it all the time. I am glad Deelip brought this up. There are too many *nice* people who are willing *take it* lying down.

    From his recent rantings it appears that Evan has an axe to grind against Deelip. Not sure why. But I am glad Deelip is not doing the politically correct thing and being *nice*.

  • Charles Hooke

    Deelip, in the same comment you are referring to Evan also said

    [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 believe that was way under the belt. Telling a developer on his own blog that his software is unimportant (relatively or not), is sickening and says a lot a the person saying such a thing. What I found ironic is that after Evan got kicked out of the ODA he has been roaming around saying that he is the president of PureCor, a company that has absolutely no products to show for itself after all this time. Evan should be the last person trying to belittle someone who actually has products.

    And Owen just because someone is known to talk BS it doesn’t mean that he should get away with it all the time. I am glad Deelip brought this up. There are too many *nice* people who are willing *take it* lying down.

    From his recent rantings it appears that Evan has an axe to grind against Deelip. Not sure why. But I am glad Deelip is not doing the politically correct thing and being *nice*.

  • Charles,

    Yes, that part of Evan’s comment was indeed under the belt. But that’s Evan for you and I have learned to accept him the way he is.

    Actually, I didn’t want to bring up that part of the comment. But now you have. So let me say something about it. Criticizing someone’s products is perfectly all right, as long as the criticism is constructive. I do it all the time on this blog. If Evan or anyone else had said that my OBJ import plug-in for SolidWorks sucks because it ignores NURBS surfaces and imports only meshes, that would be perfectly fine with me. In fact, I would welcome that and make a note of it on my To Do list. But calling the plug-in unimportant (as you put it, relatively or not) is not constructive criticism. That’s rather insulting, not just to the user of the software who has paid money for it because he needs it, but also to the developer who spent days or months developing it. And that was precisely the point that I was trying to make in my earlier post about Steve Wolfe’s comment.

    This is not the first time Evan has said such a thing and neither will it be the last. In another comment to the same post he even suggested that my opinion was biased because I was in an Autodesk developer meeting. You need to take such utterances by Evan with a pinch of salt.

    As far as Evan having an axe to grind against me, that’s not the case. We just disagree on a lot of things, that’s all.

    I have also given thought to the possibility that Evan didn’t completely think his comment through before hitting the Submit button, which hopefully is the case. I say this because Evan has dedicated a large part of his career to 2D CAD users and the things that they do with 2D data. Normally, he would never agree with Steve’s comment or reinforce it by saying that AutoCAD is mostly used for mundane tasks. That’s just not the Evan I know.

  • Charles,

    Yes, that part of Evan’s comment was indeed under the belt. But that’s Evan for you and I have learned to accept him the way he is.

    Actually, I didn’t want to bring up that part of the comment. But now you have. So let me say something about it. Criticizing someone’s products is perfectly all right, as long as the criticism is constructive. I do it all the time on this blog. If Evan or anyone else had said that my OBJ import plug-in for SolidWorks sucks because it ignores NURBS surfaces and imports only meshes, that would be perfectly fine with me. In fact, I would welcome that and make a note of it on my To Do list. But calling the plug-in unimportant (as you put it, relatively or not) is not constructive criticism. That’s rather insulting, not just to the user of the software who has paid money for it because he needs it, but also to the developer who spent days or months developing it. And that was precisely the point that I was trying to make in my earlier post about Steve Wolfe’s comment.

    This is not the first time Evan has said such a thing and neither will it be the last. In another comment to the same post he even suggested that my opinion was biased because I was in an Autodesk developer meeting. You need to take such utterances by Evan with a pinch of salt.

    As far as Evan having an axe to grind against me, that’s not the case. We just disagree on a lot of things, that’s all.

    I have also given thought to the possibility that Evan didn’t completely think his comment through before hitting the Submit button, which hopefully is the case. I say this because Evan has dedicated a large part of his career to 2D CAD users and the things that they do with 2D data. Normally, he would never agree with Steve’s comment or reinforce it by saying that AutoCAD is mostly used for mundane tasks. That’s just not the Evan I know.

  • I did not read Evan’s comment as “quoting” Buzz Kross, nor did I get the impression that Evan claimed to speak for Buzz. Maybe I misinterpreted what Evan said. My complaint is only about how I perceive Evan’s words to have been twisted into something he did not say. As a regular commenter here on your blog, I want to be confident that my words won’t be misrepresented, even when they are not perfectly formed.

  • I did not read Evan’s comment as “quoting” Buzz Kross, nor did I get the impression that Evan claimed to speak for Buzz. Maybe I misinterpreted what Evan said. My complaint is only about how I perceive Evan’s words to have been twisted into something he did not say. As a regular commenter here on your blog, I want to be confident that my words won’t be misrepresented, even when they are not perfectly formed.

  • Deelip:

    I really didn’t want to have to go through all this. But, considering the situation, I figure it’s necessary.

    – You said I quoted Buzz. I did no such thing.

    – I expressed an opinion that Buzz would like to win a big powertrain design deal. I did not say he told me this. My opinion was based partially upon some open (non-confidential) conversations with him, as well as some conversations with CAD industry analysts. He didn’t seem to have a problem with this opinion. (Why would he? Because winning a big powertrain design deal would be a “bad” thing?)

    – You said you wrote in an email to Buzz “I am wondering if you are being misquoted here. Do you truly believe that Inventor is lagging behind the competition in the manner that you have been portrayed in the comment?” I didn’t say, imply, or portray such a thing in any way. You flat made that up.

    – I expressed an opinion that Autodesk won’t win a major airframe or body-in-white deal in the near future. The basis of my opinion is not technology, but market dynamics. The incumbents, DS and Siemens, are very strong, and will act aggressively to try and keep Autodesk out of that market segment. (Whether I’m right or wrong is really immaterial. It’s just an opinion. You can tell since I started it with the phrase “I don’t think….”)

    – The part of my comment you edited out in this post was where I said “I’m not saying it won’t happen (Autodesk winning a major aerospace or automobile deal). Someday.” By selectively editing, you made it seem like I was being negative towards Autodesk.

    – You said “I do not appreciate people using my blog as a medium to misquote or misrepresent others for whatever reason.” Since I never quoted or even paraphrased Buzz, I can’t see how you could say I misquoted or misrepresented him.

    – None of the opinions I expressed in any way “discredit[ed] the products that Buzz stands for.” I’ve carefully reread my comments multiple times, to be certain. I specifically said “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.” Leaving the issue of Steve aside for the moment (as it’s not germaine here), that statement implicitly includes me.

    – You seem to be offended by the term “mundane tasks.” I used this term in a comment as follows:

    “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. . . though widely used, are more often used for mundane tasks.”

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines mundane as “Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary.” So, my statement was essentially that AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT are more often (when compared with e.g. Inventor and Revit) used for “ordinary” tasks. Is that somehow offensive to you, or does it somehow denigrate Autodesk, or users of AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT? Just because something is mundane or ordinary does not mean it’s trivial. The “ordinary” tasks AutoCAD users have been doing for over 20 years include things like hospitals, highways, and bridges.

    The word mundane is no insult.

    – You said of me, “he now believes that AutoCAD is mostly used to do ‘mundane tasks’.”

    That’s a mischaracterization. I said that AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT are more often used to do mundane (ordinary) tasks than Inventor and Revit are. Hasn’t Autodesk been telling people for years that Inventor and Revit are more capable of doing advanced tasks than AutoCAD? Wouldn’t that imply exactly what I said?

    -You said “I found Evan using Buzz’s name and the things he told him (confidentially or otherwise) to then further discredit Inventor particularly alarming.”

    The only thing I said about Inventor was that it is “used for relatively strategically important processes.” Is that bad?

    In no way did I use Buzz’s name, or anything he told me, to discredit Inventor. Further, your implication that I might have disclosed confidential information provided to me by Buzz is offensive and reckless. Pause for a moment to consider how such an accusation could affect you.

    – You said “he even suggested that my opinion was biased because I was in an Autodesk developer meeting.” This was in response to my comment “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.”

    It’s not an accusation of inherent bias. It’s just a recognition of “affect heuristic.” Almost everyone is subject to it. (You can look it up if you want.)

    – You said that the following comment I made was “under the belt”:

    “[U]ntil the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode {sic} 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 admit that statement needs some clarification.

    Let me use Boeing as an example: For Boeing, product development is a strategically critical process. In this context, I’m using the word “critical” in the sense that it’s used in business process management and reliability analysis: as a relative measure that combines both the consequences (i.e., severity) of a particular failure mode and its frequency of occurrence. Product development particularly of the 787, is a “relatively important” process (compared to other processes), because the consequences (potential financial losses) to the company from problems with this process completely overshadow the potential losses from problems with most other processes (except, probably, SCM.)

    Boeing uses CATIA as the backbone of its “relatively important” 787 product development process. As you indicated, Boeing also uses your software. While I don’t know which of your products they use (or what process it’s used in), I’m assuming it is one or more data translation programs. Irrespective, the question to ask is whether, if your software messes up, it’s likely to cost Boeing billions of dollars in direct income, and tens of billions of dollars in market capitalization. Because that’s the worst-case result if CATIA messes up.

    The key here is that “importance” is in the process, not the tool. CATIA is important to Boeing because its product development process is reilant upon it, and because it would be hard to replace, without causing massive disruption. Sycode software, no matter how valuable and useful, would still be a lot easier for Boeing to replace than CATIA.

    So, to paraphrase my earlier comment: Until the day that we hear Boeing announce that they’re designing their next airliner with Sycode software instead of with CATIA, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument that your software is as important to Boeing as CATIA is.

    That’s no denigration of your software. And it’s not hitting below the belt.

    – You said “Criticizing someone’s products is perfectly all right, as long as the criticism is constructive… But calling the plug-in unimportant… is not constructive criticism.”

    I didn’t criticize your products. I didn’t call your products unimportant.

    – In my comments, I didn’t say any product was unimportant, nor did I say any task was unimportant. I NEVER EVEN USED THE WORD “UNIMPORTANT” IN MY COMMENTS.

    – Please go back and read what I wrote in my comments to your “Are Autodesk Products Unimportant” post. Then tell me, word for word, what I said that misquoted, misrepresented, denigrated, criticized, or insulted any person, company, or product.

    P.S. — You misrepresented Steve Wolfe’s words too. He never said Autodesk products are unimportant.

  • Deelip:

    I really didn’t want to have to go through all this. But, considering the situation, I figure it’s necessary.

    – You said I quoted Buzz. I did no such thing.

    – I expressed an opinion that Buzz would like to win a big powertrain design deal. I did not say he told me this. My opinion was based partially upon some open (non-confidential) conversations with him, as well as some conversations with CAD industry analysts. He didn’t seem to have a problem with this opinion. (Why would he? Because winning a big powertrain design deal would be a “bad” thing?)

    – You said you wrote in an email to Buzz “I am wondering if you are being misquoted here. Do you truly believe that Inventor is lagging behind the competition in the manner that you have been portrayed in the comment?” I didn’t say, imply, or portray such a thing in any way. You flat made that up.

    – I expressed an opinion that Autodesk won’t win a major airframe or body-in-white deal in the near future. The basis of my opinion is not technology, but market dynamics. The incumbents, DS and Siemens, are very strong, and will act aggressively to try and keep Autodesk out of that market segment. (Whether I’m right or wrong is really immaterial. It’s just an opinion. You can tell since I started it with the phrase “I don’t think….”)

    – The part of my comment you edited out in this post was where I said “I’m not saying it won’t happen (Autodesk winning a major aerospace or automobile deal). Someday.” By selectively editing, you made it seem like I was being negative towards Autodesk.

    – You said “I do not appreciate people using my blog as a medium to misquote or misrepresent others for whatever reason.” Since I never quoted or even paraphrased Buzz, I can’t see how you could say I misquoted or misrepresented him.

    – None of the opinions I expressed in any way “discredit[ed] the products that Buzz stands for.” I’ve carefully reread my comments multiple times, to be certain. I specifically said “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.” Leaving the issue of Steve aside for the moment (as it’s not germaine here), that statement implicitly includes me.

    – You seem to be offended by the term “mundane tasks.” I used this term in a comment as follows:

    “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. . . though widely used, are more often used for mundane tasks.”

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines mundane as “Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary.” So, my statement was essentially that AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT are more often (when compared with e.g. Inventor and Revit) used for “ordinary” tasks. Is that somehow offensive to you, or does it somehow denigrate Autodesk, or users of AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT? Just because something is mundane or ordinary does not mean it’s trivial. The “ordinary” tasks AutoCAD users have been doing for over 20 years include things like hospitals, highways, and bridges.

    The word mundane is no insult.

    – You said of me, “he now believes that AutoCAD is mostly used to do ‘mundane tasks’.”

    That’s a mischaracterization. I said that AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT are more often used to do mundane (ordinary) tasks than Inventor and Revit are. Hasn’t Autodesk been telling people for years that Inventor and Revit are more capable of doing advanced tasks than AutoCAD? Wouldn’t that imply exactly what I said?

    -You said “I found Evan using Buzz’s name and the things he told him (confidentially or otherwise) to then further discredit Inventor particularly alarming.”

    The only thing I said about Inventor was that it is “used for relatively strategically important processes.” Is that bad?

    In no way did I use Buzz’s name, or anything he told me, to discredit Inventor. Further, your implication that I might have disclosed confidential information provided to me by Buzz is offensive and reckless. Pause for a moment to consider how such an accusation could affect you.

    – You said “he even suggested that my opinion was biased because I was in an Autodesk developer meeting.” This was in response to my comment “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.”

    It’s not an accusation of inherent bias. It’s just a recognition of “affect heuristic.” Almost everyone is subject to it. (You can look it up if you want.)

    – You said that the following comment I made was “under the belt”:

    “[U]ntil the day that we hear a major aerospace or automobile manufacturer announce that they’re designing their products using software from Syscode {sic} 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 admit that statement needs some clarification.

    Let me use Boeing as an example: For Boeing, product development is a strategically critical process. In this context, I’m using the word “critical” in the sense that it’s used in business process management and reliability analysis: as a relative measure that combines both the consequences (i.e., severity) of a particular failure mode and its frequency of occurrence. Product development particularly of the 787, is a “relatively important” process (compared to other processes), because the consequences (potential financial losses) to the company from problems with this process completely overshadow the potential losses from problems with most other processes (except, probably, SCM.)

    Boeing uses CATIA as the backbone of its “relatively important” 787 product development process. As you indicated, Boeing also uses your software. While I don’t know which of your products they use (or what process it’s used in), I’m assuming it is one or more data translation programs. Irrespective, the question to ask is whether, if your software messes up, it’s likely to cost Boeing billions of dollars in direct income, and tens of billions of dollars in market capitalization. Because that’s the worst-case result if CATIA messes up.

    The key here is that “importance” is in the process, not the tool. CATIA is important to Boeing because its product development process is reilant upon it, and because it would be hard to replace, without causing massive disruption. Sycode software, no matter how valuable and useful, would still be a lot easier for Boeing to replace than CATIA.

    So, to paraphrase my earlier comment: Until the day that we hear Boeing announce that they’re designing their next airliner with Sycode software instead of with CATIA, I don’t think you’ve got much of an argument that your software is as important to Boeing as CATIA is.

    That’s no denigration of your software. And it’s not hitting below the belt.

    – You said “Criticizing someone’s products is perfectly all right, as long as the criticism is constructive… But calling the plug-in unimportant… is not constructive criticism.”

    I didn’t criticize your products. I didn’t call your products unimportant.

    – In my comments, I didn’t say any product was unimportant, nor did I say any task was unimportant. I NEVER EVEN USED THE WORD “UNIMPORTANT” IN MY COMMENTS.

    – Please go back and read what I wrote in my comments to your “Are Autodesk Products Unimportant” post. Then tell me, word for word, what I said that misquoted, misrepresented, denigrated, criticized, or insulted any person, company, or product.

    P.S. — You misrepresented Steve Wolfe’s words too. He never said Autodesk products are unimportant.

  • “You misrepresented Steve Wolfe’s words too. He never said Autodesk products are unimportant.”

    He did no such thing. Reread his post.

    Steve said Autodesk products are used for unimportant tasks. This is what Deelip said as well. This is the issue many of us have taken issue with. And I find it telling that you are the only one defending him. Where is Steve defending his words? Why did he change the title of his article?

    It’s pretty obvious no one here (except you, who has had a pissing contest with Autodesk for many years) is agreeing with him…

  • “You misrepresented Steve Wolfe’s words too. He never said Autodesk products are unimportant.”

    He did no such thing. Reread his post.

    Steve said Autodesk products are used for unimportant tasks. This is what Deelip said as well. This is the issue many of us have taken issue with. And I find it telling that you are the only one defending him. Where is Steve defending his words? Why did he change the title of his article?

    It’s pretty obvious no one here (except you, who has had a pissing contest with Autodesk for many years) is agreeing with him…

  • Sean:

    The title of Deelip’s post was “Are Autodesk’s Products Unimportant?” This is a straw man. It misrepresents what Steve said his article.

    In any event, what I was initially trying to do was explain what I thought Steve was trying to communicate in one poorly worded sentence in a four page article.

    Given how I’ve been attacked, are you surprised that no one else is willing to speak up? Are you surprised that Steve isn’t here himself?

  • Sean:

    The title of Deelip’s post was “Are Autodesk’s Products Unimportant?” This is a straw man. It misrepresents what Steve said his article.

    In any event, what I was initially trying to do was explain what I thought Steve was trying to communicate in one poorly worded sentence in a four page article.

    Given how I’ve been attacked, are you surprised that no one else is willing to speak up? Are you surprised that Steve isn’t here himself?

  • In my opinion If Steve is unwilling or unable to defend his statements then he has no business publishing them in the first place. He said something inflammatory. He knew he’d get push back. His unwillingness to respond anywhere seems to imply that he realizes he was wrong. If not why not defend his work?

    You should not have to “fight his fight”.

  • In my opinion If Steve is unwilling or unable to defend his statements then he has no business publishing them in the first place. He said something inflammatory. He knew he’d get push back. His unwillingness to respond anywhere seems to imply that he realizes he was wrong. If not why not defend his work?

    You should not have to “fight his fight”.

  • After reading Evan’s response, I think I need to throw away my assumption (and hope) that he had not completely thought through his comments before hitting the “Submit” button.

    I agree with Sean, if someone cannot stand by his words, then he has no business publishing them in the first place. I would include Randall Newton in this as well, the owner of the publication and editor who supposedly approved the article.

    At least Evan is making an attempt to justify his words, however pathetic that attempt may be. But he should realize that his policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can sometimes leave him with his head sticking out, as appears to be the situation in this case.

  • After reading Evan’s response, I think I need to throw away my assumption (and hope) that he had not completely thought through his comments before hitting the “Submit” button.

    I agree with Sean, if someone cannot stand by his words, then he has no business publishing them in the first place. I would include Randall Newton in this as well, the owner of the publication and editor who supposedly approved the article.

    At least Evan is making an attempt to justify his words, however pathetic that attempt may be. But he should realize that his policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can sometimes leave him with his head sticking out, as appears to be the situation in this case.

  • Charles Hooke

    I can see why Deelip thinks Evan’s response is pathetic. This is what Evan wrote in his original comment.
    [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]

    and this is how Evan explains it now
    [I expressed an opinion that Buzz would like to win a big powertrain design deal. I did not say he told me this.]

    Obviously, Evan thinks that we are all stupid to even consider accepting such a ridiculous explanation.

    Also I found it odd that Evan does not even know which of Deelip’s products or custom solutions Boeing is using and where they are using it and yet passed judgment on their importance. Maybe Evan should develop some *important* products himself before commenting on the relative importance of those made by others, especially since people are actually paying good money to use them.

    Actually I found Deelip’s ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ analogy quite funny. It looks like Steve quietly lobbed a grenade and ran away to hide in the bushes. Evan blindly charged out to cover for Steve and now finds himself take all the bullets. And instead of following Steve he is still standing his ground and fighting.

    Evan should simply keep quiet like Steve and hope this blows over. By opening his mouth he is simply making things worse for himself.

  • Charles Hooke

    I can see why Deelip thinks Evan’s response is pathetic. This is what Evan wrote in his original comment.
    [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]

    and this is how Evan explains it now
    [I expressed an opinion that Buzz would like to win a big powertrain design deal. I did not say he told me this.]

    Obviously, Evan thinks that we are all stupid to even consider accepting such a ridiculous explanation.

    Also I found it odd that Evan does not even know which of Deelip’s products or custom solutions Boeing is using and where they are using it and yet passed judgment on their importance. Maybe Evan should develop some *important* products himself before commenting on the relative importance of those made by others, especially since people are actually paying good money to use them.

    Actually I found Deelip’s ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ analogy quite funny. It looks like Steve quietly lobbed a grenade and ran away to hide in the bushes. Evan blindly charged out to cover for Steve and now finds himself take all the bullets. And instead of following Steve he is still standing his ground and fighting.

    Evan should simply keep quiet like Steve and hope this blows over. By opening his mouth he is simply making things worse for himself.

  • Charles,

    Yes, that is one of the many reasons why I found Evan’s response pathetic.

    Actually, I do not consider this whole thing funny at all. You see, people who regularly read my blog and leave comments on it generally know where Evan, I and other commenters come from. None of our impressions of AutoCAD, Inventor or for that matter, any other Autodesk products is going to change due to these kinds of discussions.

    But what is more important is that this blog (like all other blogs) is heavily spidered by search engines and most of the traffic (15,000 + page views a month) comes from unsuspecting people all around the world, in search of views, reviews or just general information about a product. These people are not aware of the underlying politics and history behind such discussions and create their impressions by reading the content from a high vantage point, without spending too much time on the details of what, how and why something was said.

    Contrary to how Evan wishes to defend his comments, this is really not about each word, comma and exclamation mark and how they were strung together in his comments. A reader skimming through the post and comments will simply take the gist of what was said and move on.

    It is one thing for bloggers/analysts/press to give their own opinion about the capabilities of a product. Readers know how to filter things out. But it is entirely a different thing to express an opinion and then use something said by an employee of the company (let alone a Senior Vice President) to back it up or give it credibility. The effect of doing such a thing is far more powerful. That’s why Buzz is distancing himself from Evan’s comments. Readers take note of such references.

    And no, it is not ok to lob a grenade and hide in the bushes. Evan is known to stand up for things, be it his own words or issues that he thinks are important. I am not sure I can say the same about Steve Wolfe.

  • Charles,

    Yes, that is one of the many reasons why I found Evan’s response pathetic.

    Actually, I do not consider this whole thing funny at all. You see, people who regularly read my blog and leave comments on it generally know where Evan, I and other commenters come from. None of our impressions of AutoCAD, Inventor or for that matter, any other Autodesk products is going to change due to these kinds of discussions.

    But what is more important is that this blog (like all other blogs) is heavily spidered by search engines and most of the traffic (15,000 + page views a month) comes from unsuspecting people all around the world, in search of views, reviews or just general information about a product. These people are not aware of the underlying politics and history behind such discussions and create their impressions by reading the content from a high vantage point, without spending too much time on the details of what, how and why something was said.

    Contrary to how Evan wishes to defend his comments, this is really not about each word, comma and exclamation mark and how they were strung together in his comments. A reader skimming through the post and comments will simply take the gist of what was said and move on.

    It is one thing for bloggers/analysts/press to give their own opinion about the capabilities of a product. Readers know how to filter things out. But it is entirely a different thing to express an opinion and then use something said by an employee of the company (let alone a Senior Vice President) to back it up or give it credibility. The effect of doing such a thing is far more powerful. That’s why Buzz is distancing himself from Evan’s comments. Readers take note of such references.

    And no, it is not ok to lob a grenade and hide in the bushes. Evan is known to stand up for things, be it his own words or issues that he thinks are important. I am not sure I can say the same about Steve Wolfe.

  • Deelip,

    I find it tragic that you seem not to understand the difference between attacking an argument, and attacking a person.

  • Deelip,

    I find it tragic that you seem not to understand the difference between attacking an argument, and attacking a person.

  • Evan,

    I must say that your personal attacks on me, my motives and my products do give an indication of how much you understand the difference as well.

    Having said that I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand up for yourself and others. Too bad that the people you are standing up for do not feel the need to stand up for you.

  • Evan,

    I must say that your personal attacks on me, my motives and my products do give an indication of how much you understand the difference as well.

    Having said that I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand up for yourself and others. Too bad that the people you are standing up for do not feel the need to stand up for you.

  • Anonymous

    From Answers.com

    (Q) Why intelligent people make stupid mistakes?

    (A) They make mistakes because they do not care enough to pay attention to the matter at hand and/or do not understand or care about the consequences following from their actions regarding the matter.

  • Anonymous

    From Answers.com

    (Q) Why intelligent people make stupid mistakes?

    (A) They make mistakes because they do not care enough to pay attention to the matter at hand and/or do not understand or care about the consequences following from their actions regarding the matter.

  • Deelip,

    Your last statement was perfect to the core. I’m sure Steve Wolfe, would have read this 😉

    Steve Wolfe, any comments ?

  • Deelip,

    Your last statement was perfect to the core. I’m sure Steve Wolfe, would have read this 😉

    Steve Wolfe, any comments ?

  • 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