New Pricing Model for CA


Doug_N
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, richoffan said:

If Chief decides unchecked transfer of existing licenses is detrimental to the profitability of the company that is, and always has been, their prerogative.

 

Tad naïve to think the sudden change in CA policy, (of 30+ yrs?) didn't coincide with the Nov.29th Announcement of the new Subscription Model......

 

48 minutes ago, richoffan said:

Might I suggest you request a License Transfer Request Form and post it here. It would be helpful if you highlighted the changes to the form that are causing so much angst

 

How would that be possible since Chief NO LONGER ALLOWS IT ? ..... 

 

M.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, richoffan said:

I must have missed that. Where did Chief post that? 

 

They didn't Officially, that's what Lew has been trying to tell you, he called them this week to get the Transfer Form after the Announcement and they said  "we don't do that, never have"      ............. which most people here know is not the truth of it at all...... just look at the Offers Forum for past "For Sale" Posts.....  or this thread in the Sales Forum..... 

 

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/33430-buying-used-license-on-chieftalk/?tab=comments#comment-282198

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

How would that be possible since Chief NO LONGER ALLOWS IT ? ..... 

 

8 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

They didn't Officially,

That's what I mean. I misunderstood Rene's post and the response here regarding "backup payment" complaining about not being able to have a card on file. Derek emailed me directly regarding Chief's policy and that it was indeed possible. So perhaps misunderstanding. I thought Lew asked about selling his license - just his X14 and was told they didn't do that. Which they don't - they transfer rights of use. For all versions. If a user could sell a version and retain a version Chief Architect wouldn't have survived the Clinton administration.  A little feudal but there you are. Perhaps Chief could chime in with a clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

So from what I read, if I do have the X14 license with SSA, and if I want to sell it, according to  Lew, we are not able to sell it ' as a perpetual license?, and the new owner will pay the SSA fee instead of the subscription fee?

I think I can foresee is this our perpetual license fee will eventually go up to the yearly subscription level. Something which needs to be stressed to the 'Higher Management' that our group needs to be treated with more respect.. just a thought.

 

Frank.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lbuttery said:

A condition suddenly becoming inconvenient for you does not establish bad faith.

 

Ummm, yes it is bad faith 

 

they allow A  for decades and then they stop A - NOT allowed - with NO warning

 

that is BAD FAITH

 

Lew

Lew,

 

What would you consider good faith?  If the ongoing model is a subscription model only, then what is your investment worth?  How much notice would you accept, when every potential buyer would know that they can't upgrade, can't get SSA anymore? 

 

Now there are two paths to continue in the future.

For existing current users, keep paying the SSA and get a substantial discount as compensation for lost value on a resale. if your SSA lapses you can still keep using the program but not update, nor opt back in.

For new or lapsed users, pay the subscription price (annually or monthly) and if the subscription lapses the program is disabled.

 

Imagine how I felt have purchased an AutoDESK full suite for AutoCAD and Inventor for $11,500 and then be told, you have to switch to the subscription. I was already in the subscription stream with the annual maintenance program, which updated my products automatically.  What about my investment in that crazy expensive license?  Too bad.  Oh but I did get a substantial discount of the subscription if I kept it current.  I still felt bitter, but at least I did get the discount compared to those others coming into the program later. The permanent licenses were cancelled!  No chance of carrying on with the last version, it stopped working.  Well CA is offering us a better deal than that.  Think about it.  I am not sure about transferring the older license between machines in the future, but how long would you expect a company to support an old version?  

 

Now what about your work?  Do you allow your clients to resell your designs for buildings to others?  I suspect that the design is your copyright, and you have some provision in your drawings and contracts that prohibits that (or you should).  I get the hard feelings, but what CA is doing is to protect their long-term viability, and to get a firm financial footing to keep improving and maintaining the product for both current users and future users, It is a wise decision even if it is not that popular.  A really popular decision with be to offer the program for free but that wouldn't be sustainable.  So I feel your pain, but would ask you to reflect on the reality facing the company in staying financially healthy, 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the logic behind wanting to force regular users into a subscription model.... it's cashflow and a lower barrier for entry for new users.... Adobe did it, Microsoft did it....

 

I'm not a fan of it though which is why I have the last standalone versions of Office and CS.  With CA, you are (with the SSA carrot and update price stick) locked into a choice that I'm not overly comfortable with.....

 

I moved over from AutoSketch and started with buying X9, also bought X11 outright and have upgraded along the way with SSA...

 

Some of the updates are welcome but the whole PBR engine change has also placed people (me anyway) in the position that I need to seriously upgrade my desktop as it doesn't even do the basic renders anymore.  3 Years ago I bought a computer with a GeForce 1660Ti video card that was totally ok with most of the updates until they changed the rendering engine.  Now I can't even do a basic render anymore (this image is a simple render using default interior settings after TWO HOURS)....  It's such a poor quality that I don't even bother now and I can't do the PBR as my card isn't within min specs...

 

So, I started looking into the cost of the lastest cards (around $1000) a couple of months ago based on the requirements being at least an RTX 3030.  I figured then that I may as well upgrade the whole computer which meant around $4k..... but found a few deals around $3k for what I wanted, only to find the minimum specs have stepped up again so soon it's back to the start!  It's gone from a 3030 to a 3060 and now a 3080 all within a very short period of time.

 

CA in my opinion needs to figure out if they want to be a twinmotion clone or an architectural software provider.

 

Which goes back to my conundrum.... I was perfectly happy with the software for my needs and using twinmotion IF I needed a higher quality render....

 

If we are locked into a SSA as the only way to get updates then the CA changes also affect the hardware needed to run it as CA appear to be in a steep rendering development curve that I for one don't really want to be part of.  Don't get me wrong, I have no issue updating my desktop as when I do I go at our near top of the specs (I only draw my own projects and a select number of clients so it's not my primary means of earning an income)..... but I'm uneasy at the speed at which the minimum requirements keep changing and it no longer does even a basic render...... 

 

My point here is that the pace of (rendering) change at the expense of actual productive requests/features by full time members here is seriously giving me pause for thought.....

 

Thanks

Untitled 1.jpg

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kbird1 said:

How would that be possible since Chief NO LONGER ALLOWS IT ? ..... 

I must have missed that. Where did Chief post that? 

well its true now

 

unless she was mistaken or lied to  me ?

 

I can try again tomorrow

 

Lew

Expand  

This the last post I saw on this. Was it confirmed? I would think Chief would post an answer as they have on many other concerns. It isn't a concern to me for my previously stated reasons but it obviously is to many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ongoing model is a subscription model only, then what is your investment worth? 

 

It was worth $2500 approx. - now it is GARBAGE

 

with warning my license could have been sold and transferred to another user

a user who might stay with Chief for decades like I did

 

they would have been able to keep the SSA going for that license and been happy Chiefers

 

now a new buyer's only option is the subscription model 

will they buy - who knows ?

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DRAWZILLA said:

lew, Bad Faith is a legal term which means that Chief would have a fiducary duty to its customers

That's actually true if the contract establishes the duty ie: you will then be able to transfer your rights at will. The insurance company will pay damages if X,Y,Z  Bad Faith is an intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling a legal or contractual obligation or intentionally misleading another. Chief has done neither. Whether or not license transfer is permitted (still debatable - want to hear from Chief) is still at their option. To completely eliminate the transfer would be a breach of the EULA. Not a lawyer, thank God - my sister is and that is bad enough... This is however pretty basic stuff to know if you're in business.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, richoffan said:

That's actually true if the contract establishes the duty ie: you will then be able to transfer your rights at will. The insurance company will pay damages if X,Y,Z  Bad Faith is an intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling a legal or contractual obligation or intentionally misleading another. Chief has done neither. Whether or not license transfer is permitted (still debatable - want to hear from Chief) is still at their option. To completely eliminate the transfer would be a breach of the EULA. Not a lawyer, thank God - my sister is and that is bad enough... This is however pretty basic stuff to know if you're in business.

 

isn't that what I'm saying, we all have attorney friends, and family Chief is not responsible for a change in policy. an agreement to lease or rent a computer program is quite different than an insurance policy. if you know your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doug_N said:

The permanent licenses were cancelled!  

Well CA is offering us a better deal than that. 

 

Are they? I wondered in the other thread if legacy licenses with expired SSA might one day be deactivated, and got some heat for it. People said "don't worry CA said they would keep working"..... but for how long? People said "they can't guarantee the software will work on your OS forever"... which isn't even the point.

 

The question I have is, will they commit to legacy licenses owners that they won't kill those inactive licenses?

 

So far it's still unclear IMO and I think CA should clarify that... but I'm guessing they won't make any such public commitment, and we'll just have to go forward hoping we don't get strong-armed onto the subscription model. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell if CA is making a good business decision by going this route.  Microsoft has paid a price for doing a similar action in it's handling of the MS Office Suite of products.  Sales by subscription are down significantly.  Adobe has taken a similar hit in revenue due to changing to subscription based sales and then scaling back upgrade and development of the core products.  My personal take is this is a typical move by business's in the software industry attempting to protect their revenue streams by punishing everyone instead of going after those who abuse the letter of the law and the EULA you agree to with the original conventional purchase schema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, msm8378 said:

Adobe has taken a similar hit in revenue due to changing to subscription based sales and then scaling back upgrade and development of the core products...

 

Microsoft has paid a price for doing a similar action in it's handling of the MS Office Suite of products.  Sales by subscription are down significantly.

Are you sure? Or projecting? What source are you using for the information?

 

This article seems to suggest Adobe's revenue is strong and getting stronger

 

"Adobe sees sales rising due to 'massive market opportunity' in the years ahead"

 

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3892439-adobe-sees-sales-rising-due-to-massive-market-opportunity-in-the-years-ahead

 

Another article. "Adobe announced record revenue for the third quarter as the company continued to profit from its subscription-based business model."

 

..and another article stating (you can easily google the source)... "Microsoft 365 consumer subscriptions have also grown again this quarter, up 13 percent to 61.3 million. Microsoft continues to promote its subscription offerings in Windows and on new laptops that are shipped by third-party OEMs. Microsoft Office will soon become Microsoft 365 in a major brand overhaul, so that will likely help drive growth around the company’s Office-based subscriptions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, msm8378 said:

... Microsoft has paid a price for doing a similar action in it's handling of the MS Office Suite of products.  Sales by subscription are down significantly...

True, subscriptions have hurt the software industry, but as far as I know, Microsoft hasn't gone down hill because of that.  Here's an alternate view.

 

Microsoft has gone to the subscription model for its Office offering, BUT, they also offer a permanent licence model.  And I think this is the best of both worlds.  You want the "latest, no hassle, willing to pay whatever" ?  Subscription is the way.  On the other hand, you want stability of your environment (read: my licences won't go belly up at one point), then buy the permanent licence.

 

Microsoft's strategy is to suck you into the subscription model with additional features (do you need them?) and sustained software versions as long as you pay.  But they don't alienate existing license based users that need/want to keep using the product even if they don't update over time.  But what if all users go the permanent licence way?  No recurring revenue, right?  But Microsoft will EOL support of versions of the Office package over time, so new revenues eventually from that group.

 

Personally, I like the stability option of a permanent licence and if EOL comes up, I'll decide based on where I'm at in my business at that time.

 

So, question: why can CA not offer the equivalent and follow Microsoft's lead ?  For this to succeed, CA needs to offer advantages for both approaches, subscription and permanent license.

 

P.S. What would be great and totally transparent is for CA to honestly explain their thinking process on their current pricing structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Microsoft 365 consumer subscriptions have also grown again this quarter, up 13 percent to 61.3 million

 

I'm pretty happy with my Office rental, because it's only like $8 a month. I could buy it but the rental let's you jump in / jump out. It's a decent program.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the stability option of a permanent licence and if EOL comes up

 

I agree,

 

with MS Office I stayed with Office 2007 until EOL then I went to 2010 the 2016 and now 2019

 

I plan to avoid 365 as long as i can 

 

Each time I need to upgrade office I go on Ebay and find a version for around $100

If needed I will buy an older PC to run it and keep that PC as an offline workstation

 

I dislike cloud based computing and only use cloud for storage using Carbonite

 

Lew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion here is interesting and thoughtful (unlike other forums I have encountered)...

 

Revised and extended remarks as follows:

 

Re: Microsoft...The "Consumer" market is a very small market share compared to the core target they have with Corporate Commercial/Industrial Businesses in mind and the quantity licensing it nets them.  These quantity license deals often are for the larger and more feature filled package options, thus higher subscription rates versus the $8 Home User (consumer) package.  I know of a number of entities in this area that have switched to Apache Open Office and alternative products for Project Management, DTP, etc...  The basis I used for my original comment was information taken from an information sheet in my stock portfolio concerning revenue and earnings for MS.

 

Re: Adobe...I am trying to recall/re-find the data to support my statement and will post it when I can run it down again.

 

My bottom line take goes back to my college days with Business/Economics 101..."The primary purpose of any commerce based enterprise is to make as much of the customer's money your money in any way possible without violating any law or basic principles of personal or business ethics."...So I really don't fault CA for following the "Pack" on this one, although it is concerning to me, personally, given the financial investment I have put into CA to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2022 at 4:55 PM, Michael_Gia said:

Since X7 and including the original price, I’ve payed close to $10,000 CAD, and I’m not allowed to sell the product that belongs to me to recoup some of that?
You’re ok with this?

No, I'm not okay with the unilateral suspension of license transfers, since the initial purchase of the license was predicated on possible future transfer, if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share