Chief Architect Software Licensing Changes Beginning January 10, 2023

[mthd97]

End of life Chief Architect being upgradeable will happen on Jan 10 2023 for those who choose to not upgrade before that date. (That’s very clear to all of us)

 

End of life CA being upgradable ends when SSA lapses or when the current users are retired and no longer spend money on SSA. (As I understand is the case right now or will that eventually change ?)

 

Eventually we owners of a copy of CA whatever version it is will pass away. Can we pass on a workable copy of CA to our children ? (Probably Not ?)

 

I don’t use Revit and never have, except as a demo version many years ago. We can’t own a copy of that anymore and I am not sure what the policy was when moving to their recent, by subscriptions only policy ? Whatever the case Autodesk Revit is definitely in a different league to Chief Architect. Most of those users of CAD BIM software would consider CA as a mere toy or a bit like home designer is to premier.

 

That analogy is not quite correct and I have put them right. Sure some of those CAD BIM software products are like a very expensive sports car but Chief Premier none the less is like a slightly older model but new corvette to me.

 

This new subscription charging could put the development staff under tremendous pressure from their new customers and force Chief to grow more rapidly ? A bit like how the new corvettes now have a mid placed engine like many modern sports cars now have.

 

I think that if CA wants to be a player in the big league that they will need to make some significant changes to accommodate 3D Open BIM model sharing with Revit and other big league players. I believe that if they do that then they will survive but if not they will diminish. 

 

Autodesk bought Revit in the early 2000’s. Who knows, they might even offer to buy CA in the future or at least make a bid for it ? Not ruling out any other CAD software conglomerates from looking at CA either ?

 

This would be a good thing for CA and I would not regret getting back on board with SSA. Especially if they were adopting IFC 3D model sharing capabilities or some other method of doing so ? That’s how the real world of AEC Open BIM is operating now. I think that will not happen with a predominately residential product that only does 2D DWG open BIM sharing ?

 

Who knows, I could be wrong but it’s very interesting to see what will happen to CA in the near future ?

 

I have enjoyed using Chief Architect for a long time. Although I have had to sometimes fight the program in past in order to get it to do what I wanted but not so much anymore because of how it has developed recently.

 

I hope Chief Architect graduates successfully into the big league because if it does, it will be good for any CAD full 3D BIM users out there.

 

 

[SHCanada2]

never know, maybe this change will cause a run on product sales.

 

For me I will also pay a premium to ensure there is also competition n the marketplace. The reason I would not choose revit is because if everyone went to revit, then a) no one would listen to what you want as the pool is so large b) they become more expensive due to no competition. And not to mention the grass is not always greener on the other side. I have seen revit plans with so many errors in them, you could tell how much was hand built/manipulated

 

In my view, CA does a good job of listening to their users. I personally do not use the support service very often other than to report bugs. One thing CA could do is to charge for support differently than product  (if it made a large monetary difference). CA has great videos, as do other people and a great user community. By separating support out, it may give a monetary break to those that want to take the risk to learn it themselves, and allow CA to be more price competitive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SHCanada2]

6 minutes ago, mthd97 said:

Especially if they were adopting IFC 3D model sharing capabilities or some other method of doing so ? That’s how the real world of AEC Open BIM is operating now

 

What is the purpose of BIM for residential design? Around here the trades and the floor/roof people put together packages based on the plans provided. Or are you suggesting CA get into the non residential market?

[mthd97]

2 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

 

What is the purpose of BIM for residential design? Around here the trades and the floor/roof people put together packages based on the plans provided. Or are you suggesting CA get into the non residential market?

There are many good things inside Chief that could be utilized for commercial projects, it’s cabinets and it’s libraries.

 

These other programs also do low rise residential projects as well. The 3D framing is great inside CA and that could be used along with other engineering applications to finish the structure to engineering standards including finishing its trusses etc. 

 

Further 3D editable model sharing would be great if another program could import a 3D model not just a 2D dwg drawing.

[lbuttery]

I suggested over a decade ago that perhaps a metered payment system might be viable

 

for example, the client buys 10 or 80 hrs of usage of Chief

when that amount depletes they buy more time on the meter

 

thus, the heavy user pays the most - perhaps with a monthly maximum of $200

 

whereas the light, occasional user of Chief only pays for what they use as they use it

 

forcing new users to pay "full freight" of $200/month will possibly scare of "low level" users

 

where if their business becomes successful - they might become heavy users ?

 

Lew

[SHCanada2]

6 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

 

for example, the client buys 10 or 80 hrs of usage of Chief

when that amount depletes they buy more time on the meter

or they only get X number of plan files as the new user will take more time ...but that would be very difficult to implement.

 

or you do the time thing, but the first year is discounted. but even that doesnt work because if I spend a bunch of time on a product defect or undocumented feature, I'd want a credit.  

[mthd97]

2 hours ago, lbuttery said:

I suggested over a decade ago that perhaps a metered payment system might be viable

 

for example, the client buys 10 or 80 hrs of usage of Chief

when that amount depletes they buy more time on the meter

 

thus, the heavy user pays the most - perhaps with a monthly maximum of $200

 

whereas the light, occasional user of Chief only pays for what they use as they use it

 

forcing new users to pay "full freight" of $200/month will possibly scare of "low level" users

 

where if their business becomes successful - they might become heavy users ?

 

Lew

Yes I know you did and I agreed with you.

 

They argued that CA is BIM software and yes it is to some extent but it’s not full 3D open BIM model sharing. This is where you can edit each other’s model like Archicad and Revit can already do with each other in order for the engineers to complete the structure in Revit and send the model back into Archicad.

 

Engineers certainly prefer Revit with the engineering capability plug in or whatever it is that they use with it ?

 

Still Chief Architect is a very good program for residential work in the US and it doesn’t really matter if they choose to participate in 3D BIM model sharing or not.

 

I am a quantity surveyor and estimator by trade and I can’t see the subscription price of Chief Architect being about two thirds of Revit Full ? I could be wrong. they may indeed get that for it ? The PBR render engine values are what usually bump the price up inside any CAD software solution.

 

“You don’t want to price yourself out of the market” is a common saying down this way. If Chief Architect was half the price of Revit full then that would appear to be a more realistic figure to ask ? That’s up to them to set the price and only time will tell how many new users will take up Chief Architect Premier. It’s certainly appears that many have taken up Chief Architect Interiors to me ? 

 

You know how it is with buying a fiancé a diamond ring ? What are they worth to you and what can you afford ?

 

Just another interesting subject to discuss for us. I think I wasted enough time gas bagging about the new subscription policy of Chief Architect.

[DRAWZILLA]

18 hours ago, OkcDesigner said:

Do you understand we just saw the new customer get slaughtered in front of us and we will not be slaughtered next. 

Tell that to the frog they are boiling.

All I see here is a lot of everyone guessing on what will happen in the future. No one really knows at this point. We should all just cool it until we know for sure. Only thing we know is that some prices will change.  For me nothing changes yet.

[SabGroup]

I will renew my SSA, but seeing these changes is enough to make me want to consider alternatives. Many have commented that this change is only going to affect new customers. I also think that many of us here sense that Chief Architect will eventually transition all customers to this new subscription plan.

I suspect some of us on here run and manage our own business and have our own clients and builders that we work for.

If my price is (n), and I were to inform my clients that my price starting January is going to be (4n), I think their first question to me would be "what increased value am I getting from you for (4n)?" 

If my response is that they will be getting basically the same service, is it reasonable for me to think that my clients will not consider alternatives for their architectural needs?

As many of you have learned through experience, much of the success we experience in this business is a result of the relationships that we form with our clients and home builders. Because of these relationships, we would never send such a message in the above example any more than our client would send us a message saying that were only going to pay us (n/4).

 

Unfortunately the reality is that all business relationships do not work this way, and the loyalty of a customer to a company will never be rewarded in kind.

 

[Joe_Carrick]

I believe that CA can't rely on the current SSA to support the existing cost of development and support.

There is only a limited potential customer base and it's probably already been substantially realized.  Unfortunately, a great number of those customers have elected not to pay for SSA.  That means CA's revenue is too low.

 

Since they have the "Perpetual License" even for those who don't have SSA it's a problem.  If there was a way to convert all (or at least a large portion) of the "non SSA" users to "SSA_Lease" it might solve CA's profitability issue.  The key would be that in order to continue using Chief Architect the users would have to pay the annual $595.  That amount could be locked for all current users.  New users would have a SSA_Lease fee at future $$.

 

This would IMO be a better solution.  The key would be how to convince non-SSA users to upgrade.

[smashing]

What an absolutely terrible decision you are making. This is the worst news ever.

 

Subscription software models are a curse on humans and I pray there is a user revolt.

 

You will never get another cent out of me. That much is for sure.

 

[HumbleChief]

3 hours ago, SabGroup said:

I will renew my SSA, but seeing these changes is enough to make me want to consider alternatives. Many have commented that this change is only going to affect new customers. I also think that many of us here sense that Chief Architect will eventually transition all customers to this new subscription plan.

I suspect some of us on here run and manage our own business and have our own clients and builders that we work for.

If my price is (n), and I were to inform my clients that my price starting January is going to be (4n), I think their first question to me would be "what increased value am I getting from you for (4n)?" 

If my response is that they will be getting basically the same service, is it reasonable for me to think that my clients will not consider alternatives for their architectural needs?

As many of you have learned through experience, much of the success we experience in this business is a result of the relationships that we form with our clients and home builders. Because of these relationships, we would never send such a message in the above example any more than our client would send us a message saying that were only going to pay us (n/4).

 

Unfortunately the reality is that all business relationships do not work this way, and the loyalty of a customer to a company will never be rewarded in kind.

 

I think that if your design pricing will increase (4n) over your current pricing because the price of the software you use will increase $00.00 after you renew your SSA and that somehow that will increase your design fees by (4n)? Not getting the logic, or perhaps the business model needs a closer look.

[HumbleChief]

2 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

I believe that CA can't rely on the current SSA to support the existing cost of development and support.

There is only a limited potential customer base and it's probably already been substantially realized.  Unfortunately, a great number of those customers have elected not to pay for SSA.  That means CA's revenue is too low.

 

Since they have the "Perpetual License" even for those who don't have SSA it's a problem.  If there was a way to convert all (or at least a large portion) of the "non SSA" users to "SSA_Lease" it might solve CA's profitability issue.  The key would be that in order to continue using Chief Architect the users would have to pay the annual $595.  That amount could be locked for all current users.  New users would have a SSA_Lease fee at future $$.

 

This would IMO be a better solution.  The key would be how to convince non-SSA users to upgrade.

This is the same problem all software companies face when their software becomes so capable there's no longer any need to upgrade, or in this case renew the SSA contract. Think of Microsoft Word or Excel. They have been way more than capable for 95% of their users for a decade at least giving user no need to upgrade - ever - giving the software company no renewal revenue. It's bad business model.

 

One thing this change might bring about, from Chief's top line revenue at least, is it may encourage (force?) current users to renew their SSA and keep renewing their SSA to avoid the subscription costs and provide CA with their needed monthly/yearly revenue.

[plannedRITE]

This is extremely frustrating news and I can't understand why this is seen as a good option. 

I feel that common sense would dictate that in a move like this (a MASSIVE price hike) should go hand in hand with an announcement that benefits the consumer. I see almost no benefit anywhere that this will benefit the users. This appears to be a negative for everyone except for Chief's pockets. The only glimmer of hope is that the extra revenue will allow better/more engineers to be hired to sort out issues faster, implement requests faster, and just make a better software that doesn't run so poorly.

Where is the benefit to consumers? Why are we just being slapped with a huge price tag or forced to buy multiple licenses now while praying that you don't pray on legacy users and bump our SSA fees to match the subscription fees down the road?

My business will not be affected much by this but we are blessed enough to stay busy. New users and users only doing a few plans a year are going to be turned off by this. I'm also shocked at the timing, the market is cooling down so why would this happen now? If I slowed down enough to have to stop paying for SSA I'd probably start looking at other offerings instead of coming back to a big subscription middle finger from CA when I'm ready to pick things back up.

I understand that the profit margins may be slim and slimming. But the most foolish POSSIBLE way to pad the pockets is to just slap everyone with a new, higher fee and not offer anything additional to the consumer to make it worth it.  Why would this be the announcement and not "Look at these incredible features coming with X15 that will cost our company more but will seriously benefit the user! And due to how great this update is we are changing our pricing model to be XYZ." That I could understand.

I'm venting and more frustrated than I probably should be but I just can't understand why this would be a good idea.

[plannedRITE]

Additional question: one of my draftsman has been using the rent to own option to have his own license. He is only about 6 months in. So when he finishes the 2 years and owns the perpetual license  (X16 at that time, I'm assuming) what happens with SSA? Will he be able to pay the annual $595 a year to receive updates or be forced to pay the $2000 a year to keep his software current with mine so that we can actually work on plans together?

I need to know what will happen there so that I can decide if I need to fork over money for additional licenses this month.

[Chrisb222]

5 minutes ago, plannedRITE said:

Additional question: one of my draftsman has been using the rent to own option to have his own license. He is only about 6 months in. So when he finishes the 2 years and owns the perpetual license  (X16 at that time, I'm assuming) what happens with SSA? Will he be able to pay the annual $595 a year to receive updates or be forced to pay the $2000 a year to keep his software current with mine so that we can actually work on plans together?

I need to know what will happen there so that I can decide if I need to fork over money for additional licenses this month.

 

As I understand the terms as they stand at this point in time, yes, he will receive a "perpetual" license upon completing the rental agreement.

 

See the FAQs linked elsewhere in this thread.

 

That being said, I personally am not counting on "perpetual" being - until the end of time. 

[SabGroup]

11 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

I think that if your design pricing will increase (4n) over your current pricing because the price of the software you use will increase $00.00 after you renew your SSA and that somehow that will increase your design fees by (4n)? Not getting the logic, or perhaps the business model needs a closer look.

This is an analogy putting me in place of Chief Architect, and my clients in the place of Chief Architect's users. If you notice I said that I would never send such a message to my clients. But I do agree that any business increasing fees by such an amount needs to look at their business model.

[Doug_N]

I have been thinking about this change a lot.  I wonder how much of the house design market that CA has?  How much can it grow? I do a fair bit of work in the Toronto and surrounding area here in Canada, and I don't run into many designers or architects that are my competitors that use CA.  Why not, I wonder?  No sales presence in Canada is only likely reason.  But Canada is a much smaller market as well, perhaps 10% of the US market.  

 

As for the pricing model in the near future, the subscription model is not much different than the SSA agreement.  No perpetual license model is a problem for anyone who has a long dry period in business, but there seems to be a drift in this direction from all software companies, and even some automobile companies. (Yes I am looking at you GM and Tesla).  

 

In my opinion, the step here is a bit of a stumble.  It lets in people who would have balked at the current perpetual license fee of $3,295 that is true.  I wonder how many of us are SSA subscribers?  Would we all be willing to pay, say, $750 per year to help CA achieve a better level of sustainability?  In a way this increase will have the newcomers paying to haul our freight to some extent, but over time we will fade out, and in a decade or so, there will only be newcomers.  

 

I am an AutoCad subscriber as well, and still have my license, but let me tell you, AutoDesk does not support their users the way that Chief does.  They are constantly changing and fractionalizing their products, so you have to bob and weave to get what you need to do what you did last year.  No point in complaining to AutoDesk either because they are deaf to user pain.  

 

The support that CA supplies in the forum is so much appreciated, that I can't believe my luck to be a CA user. That is what sets CA apart from other companies in this field.  In any case, after this long winded and rambling post, I offer my assurance that I will continue to be a CA user and maintain my SSA and even support a modest bump in price to see CA succeed. 

[Kbird1]

On 12/6/2022 at 12:44 PM, plannedRITE said:

need to know what will happen there so that I can decide if I need to fork over money for additional licenses this month.

 

The FAQ is here : https://www.chiefarchitect.com/licensing/***

 

*** Chief has changed the link above to lead to the Upgrade Page now

 

 

M.

 

 

[birneyd]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:37 PM, Bondbuilding said:

Hello Friends and Chief Sales!

24 year user here... I have recommended and gotten more friends using this software than I can remember.

This is interesting news from Chief. For me personally it has provoked a lot of thought about my personal situation and relationship with Chief going forward.  I have read the entirety of the comments which mainly seem focused on the SSA relationship in the future.  The comments are interesting and I get that Chief needs to make a profit!  I think the issue with me is that not one size fits all, and It seems that the new pricing program is geared towards a "Heavy User", someone making a living drawing plans.  I want to make some comments that don't seem to factor in to Chiefs thinking about the purchase model going forward.  I totally get that all the big players have gone to the subscription model. 

 

I started with Chief 6.. 22 some years ago ...upgraded to 8...then to V10 ...then to X7 Premier which is where I am now. I want to say Chief 6 was $1400 all those years ago. (which seemed like a lot!) I have seen the software evolve quite a bit over the years.  I have never had SSA other than the original purchase included. (this was generally offered/presented as Customer Product Assistance/Service which I very rarely if ever needed)  

I am a Home Builder/General Contractor and I only use the program to design homes that I personally speculatively build or custom design for clients to custom build. This amounts to probably an average of 2-3 plans a year. I am getting near the back end of my career and it makes absolutely no sense that I would need to or want to pay in perpetuity $2000 a year or $200 a month just to use the work already created, or draw a handful of additional plans per year.  Obviously I can always open the files with the original program......but we all know that once you open a file with the new version you can't go back. The situation does present some concern if the program fails or ceases working will a new future operating system. This could put me in a situation where I really don't have a lot of options.  I feel pressured now to buy an owned version of X14 before Jan 9th...or use what I have until it dies.  If I buy X14, how long will it be supported as an owned version?....

Then what?

I go stints where I don't use the software for months..maybe as long as a year and then may draft 3 home plans with it. I had a fairly significant run in the 2009 bust where I didn't use it at all for a couple of years.

The software is an absolute marvel, ...but the fact is it does about twice as much stuff as I could actually care about.  I'm not trying to create perfect 3D houses with perfect renderings and imaginary accoutrements. I am drawing 2D house plans.  Obviously the function of drawing and creating in the program is in 3D, but the end goal for me is to have some 2D plans. It's is, and was, a brilliant concept. A person composes a a 2D drawing dictating its 3D properties and can see and take views of it. A person can draw an awesome 3D house if they want to put the time in!  One of the things I say to my customers is that "while we are going to have some 3D modeling, the focus here is to complete a set of 2D plans to build a Real House ...not create a perfect "virtual one"".

Other features the software does, again, are not super useful to me, (estimating, generated materials list, intricate framing diagrams etc) ...because they require too much time perfecting the "virtual home" to use. For me the time effort for me as a Builder is better spent doing it old school...labeling the 2D plans with the methods and features... "floor trusses 16" OC" etc   and then sitting down and figuring it out.  (This is just me...to each his own)

Lastly... My younger brother who does remodeling uses Home Designer Pro. He doesn't typically do whole homes and does not want to pay big money for software for a handful of remodels per year.  I have helped him finish some plans in Home Designer is not significantly different or better than my X7 as far as functional modeling...but it does kind of stink as far as the restricted feature set...(no preset plan views, inability to change views on the Layout Page, only 5 Layout pages...and a few other things). Honestly, if Home Designer Pro did just a few more things it would work for me perfect.  

 

If the whole method is going to subscription, then it seems that Chief should have some sort of cheaper subscription for a light or intermittent and Long Time User.. like me....or .....something a little better than Home Designer but not quite as full fledged as Premier 14.  I'm sure it's a fine line to determine the feature set of Home Designer Pro so a person will buy Chief Premier....but $60 a month going to $200 a month with nothing in between is a big leap when there are a significant amount of features in the step up software that a Builder Type or Remodeler Person could care less about.  Maybe a light user lease or legacy plan.  ( I get this would be super hard to administer but might be worth retaining some users).

It's been a long ride ...hopefully its not over for me.  ✌️

 

 

 

 

I have many of the same concerns.  I have used Chief primarily for my own home construction (at x14 and started well before they had "x" versions).  I have found CA very useful for visualization, but not very practical for detailed structural design because it is simply too automatic and doesn't deal well with unique structure designs. For example, our house uses drop trusses for 2nd and 3rd floors and Chief insisted (at least at the time) on using rim joists.  I patched around the issue for the 3d view and made a lovely set of visuals, but still had to draw all the structural cross sections in a 2D CAD program (Visual CADD is my program of choice).  I don't think that has changed much over the years.  I still keep CA active as the house is a continually evolving beast and I try to keep the plan up to date.  I also occasionally draw plans for neighbors' projects so they can see what they are going to get with a planned remodel, but CA is not a revenue generator for me.  I will probably keep the SSA alive until or unless CA prices it beyond good sense, but I unconditionally dislike (maybe even hate) the rental model.  In my view, it is much like phone plans that are where they are because the phone companies are either too lazy or too stupid to manage their businesses based on usage revenue.  

 

If CA is bent on going to the rental model, then my suggestion would be to add an additional feature that allows the program to be loaded for a nominal fee and bills by hours used (the license activator connects to mommy in any case).  That would allow for casual users to have access to the program and potentially increase the user base beyond the high-output pro base that will be the only users left with the current new model.

[plannedRITE]

28 minutes ago, Chrisb222 said:

 

As I understand the terms as they stand at this point in time, yes, he will receive a "perpetual" license upon completing the rental agreement.

 

See the FAQs linked elsewhere in this thread.

 

That being said, I personally am not counting on "perpetual" being - until the end of time. 

 

21 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

The FAQ is here : https://www.chiefarchitect.com/licensing/

 

 

M.

 

 

Yes I did read through this but it doesn't say if SSA is an option at that point. SSA is included in the rent to own option at the moment but my questions is once he finishes the 24 months of payments and owns the perpetual license for that version, can he pay for SSA to ensure "free" upgrades to future versions just as it works now? It seems that he would then have to pay the subscription model to upgrade to the future versions.

[Kbird1]

8 minutes ago, plannedRITE said:

 

Yes I did read through this but it doesn't say if SSA is an option at that point. SSA is included in the rent to own option at the moment but my questions is once he finishes the 24 months of payments and owns the perpetual license for that version, can he pay for SSA to ensure "free" upgrades to future versions just as it works now? It seems that he would then have to pay the subscription model to upgrade to the future versions.

 

Confirm with Sales, with a phone call, but the way I read the FAQ nothing changes for him, and he gets a perpetual License on completing his Rent to own Contract, which means he receives a Perpetual license and continues on with the current SSA Option  ( $595) like many of us. ( he could also buy out the rent to own now I guess, though I'm not sure if there is any advantage, though it guarantees a perpetual license before Jan.9th).

 

Mick.

[DavidJames]

13 minutes ago, birneyd said:

If CA is bent on going to the rental model, then my suggestion would be to add an additional feature that allows the program to be loaded for a nominal fee and bills by hours used (the license activator connects to mommy in any case).  That would allow for casual users to have access to the program and potentially increase the user base beyond the high-output pro base that will be the only users left with the current new model.

 

The only way the billed-per-hours-used model would work is if Chief received some major polishing and improvements. 

When I was using Chief solely for new-builds and renovation plans, I constantly encountered myself having to spend hours upon hours trying to figure out why the software was doing "x" when I wanted it to do "y". As the projects became more complicated, the frequency of issues I encountered also increased. It was incredibly frustrating. 

I can only imagine how much that frustration would get amplified if one was now having to spend money on those hours where there's almost zero productivity. 


 

[Chrisb222]

1 hour ago, birneyd said:

If CA is bent on going to the rental model, then my suggestion would be to add an additional feature that allows the program to be loaded for a nominal fee and bills by hours used (the license activator connects to mommy in any case).  That would allow for casual users to have access to the program and potentially increase the user base beyond the high-output pro base that will be the only users left with the current new model.

 

The current rental program now allows you to start and stop - and restart - whenever you want. A post by CA earlier in this thread mentioned that will still be an option going forward into the new pricing plans.

[smashing]

I am so annoyed by this decision, and so bitterly disappointed. My entire view of the company has changed.

 

I sat down to use CA just now and that's when it dawned on me. I have had this warm, fuzzy, loving and benevolent feeling towards this company, that has grown and grown over many years, and I realize in large part it’s because of the straightforward, ‘honest’, buy-to-own model. This feeling grew as I progressed from a version I bought in a computer store in the mid 90s, through every version of Home Designer, to finally shelling out for Chief Architect this year. 

 

I am not an architect, I'm a home owner and DIY'er. I've upgraded each time I moved to a new home, or embarked on a new renovation project. I loved that 'progression', an investment in the software and my own skills, that made me feel like a valuable and loyal customer, and the excitement that came each time I upgraded, by unlocking new features and possibilities. I was happy to pay for the not insignificant upgrade cost each time.

 

The upgrade to Chief Architect this year was a massive outlay for me. I justified it in my mind that I would own this powerful and professional piece of software for a long time to come, a significant step in my progression as 'amateur architect', at least until my next home or renovation project, when I'd have happily paid out yet another significant (but still manageable) outlay to upgrade or update.

 

So I feel I supported this company for an extremely long time, extolling and lauding the software to innumerable friends, over two decades plus, with many of my friends joining the Home Designer train too. So frankly this feels like a gigantic kick in the balls. Nearly 30 years of good feelings and vibes, destroyed in one email.

 

While the company may have done the figures and worked out how much additional revenue this will bring them, the fact remains this company will never be able to calculate the loss of goodwill and feelings from people - perhaps like myself - who still believe in the concept of owning things, rather than renting them. 

 

What a damn damn shame.