Your CAD for Clunkers idea is a good one and I see that there is now a competitive upgrade offer available for ArchiCAD under the same tag-line. We have considered offering a compelling incentive to our older-version customers in order for them to “get current”. However, a steep discount to hold-outs can be seen as a slap-in-the-face to our customers who upgrade on a regular basis.

As Jonathan expressed earlier in this thread, not everyone wants to be on the cutting edge. Our technical support staff receives calls on a regular basis from people who want to know how to run 5 to 10 year old versions of DataCAD on XP and Vista rather than upgrade. Why? Because that old version is “good-enough”.

Since upgrade revenue fuels continued development, we’d certainly like to see more of our customers stay current.

Mark F. Madura
President/CEO
DATACAD LLC

I can understand this for competitor cross grades maybe but even then.

Within a platform I reckon youd kill the subscription market.

Put it this way. My cellphone company has a new network but it’s offering more to people on other networks to move to them that it is to me, the existing customer, to stay and upgrade. That’s why I’m looking at a new providor.

Yes the Legacy program is still around and I think one is in place now. But I am talking about radical discounts. Mega discounts. My eyes are popping out of my head discounts.

Let’s see some of those…

But the Jet America $9 airfare did not work out – so I am not holding my breath.

Mark

Thanks for reading and have a good one.

Jeffrey

I agree that no one should upgrade unless there is a valid – defend-able – reason that increases productivity, reduces problems or enhances capabilities.

Most firms that I speak with are skipping a release – based on the concerns you have raised (which I agree with)

Your concept of bug fix releases is interesting. Sometimes it sure would be nice to get the fixes without the “extras”.

Thanks,

Mark

I apologise that my previous reply was perhaps a little reactionary and largely critical, but I still can’t agree with the popular premise that upgrading old CAD software will save money.

There is little doubt that each new version displays a myriad of new ‘features’ but often at the expense of day to day useability, load up time, stability etc.

Using your low energy light bulb analogy, surely if we are to experience an improvement in the latest CAD version we would see something like a reduced load up time or memory foot-print, maybe a quicker response in the rendering times or drawing layout updates? And none of this would require hardware replacement!

The low energy light bulb is pretty much a ‘no brainer’, you get an increase in light output for the same electrical input. No fitments need replacing in order to reap the benefit of the new version and the improvement is indeed experienced.

I’ve un-intentionally deflected the core message of your original post. How about if the CAD vendors offered us a choice of like-for-like updated replacements of our old software as well as bloatware upgrades. This new upgrade would have all of the bugs fixed but no new wizz-bangs. It would run equally well on the existing hardware.

Importantly, it would also have a choice of EULA, 1-legitimate CAD user, 2-potential thief, 3-potential hacker….etc.

As the legitimate CAD user I would find that my version of the EULA would be less than a paragraph of respectfull and honestly worded intent, aimed at creating a trusting and lasting business relationship.

Versions 2, 3…of the EULA would of course be nasty gobbledegook. Indeed, most of the vendors would only be required to create a version 1 EULA:-)

Thank you for listening,

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Point well made… I am not trying to say that the old will not work, but that the financial disincentives of moving toward the new could be swept aside.

Like the owners of the old clunker cars who are still able to get to the grocery store and back – old CAD still works.

What I am suggesting could be akin to replacing your old, high watt light bulbs with newer, low energy ones – in the long run it saves money.

I’m guessing that you do not often use a CAD programme to solve design problems…other than notional ones?

I’m also guessing that you perceive ‘newer’ to be ‘better’ and that somewhere, you have a draw full of ‘old’ mobile phones and other gadgets?

Whilst I’m on a roll I’ll also hazard a further guess that you would find it difficult to imagine that there may be designers out there that can now look past the continual hype and churn?

Some of us have to focus on the real job in hand, ie designing, with the ‘old clunker’ applications. In the right hands, these clunkers are more than capable of the task required (Concord and the Lunar landing equipment was I believe designed with pencil and paper).

These CAD clunkers will load & run fast on low spec modern PC’s and generally we bailed out of the upgrade race at a time when our specific flavour of CAD worked relatively bug free with the rest of our applications.

Moving to the latest and greatest CAD release can require a sizeable chunk of cash to be spent on hardware and also non-CAD related software with which we interface. The system de-bugging can also be extensive as can the re-familiarisation process.

I enjoy a spot of diversion as much as the next person but we need the majority of people in industry to be able to discern when they have an adequate capability in their hands and to then get on with the job!

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Perhaps Autodesk could offer financing as well? They could offer a super low rate to cover any costs right now, where money is tight, and yet Autodesk would make more money on the interest collected. Not sure Autodesk wants to get into the financial sector, but it would provide additional revenue.

Now the big question is…..will Autodesk read this article and offer the “CAD for Clunkers” deal?