Chief Architect Software Licensing Changes

[Fairhaven_Homes]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. I think I'll just hang on to the program without SSA and tinker on occasion.

 

 

[Doug_N]

Here is what it boils down to.  

CA has changed how they are going to license their products, namely by moving to a complete subscription model rather than a maintenance/upgrade model.

 

1. In some circumstances to be determined by CA a licence can be transferred to another party.
2. CA is the sole arbiter as to what those circumstances are.
3. Users never owned the software, they only had a license to use exclusively a copy of the software, and only on one computer at a time, (one for each license held.)
4. CA has made everyone who is a current user, or investigates becoming a future user that the rules have changed and there will be no NEW permanent licenses after Jan 10, 2023
5. Existing current SSA users will still, and continue to have, permanent licenses unless their SSA lapses.  In that case they will not be able to renew the SSA on a permanent license.
6. Any perceived value to the license holder has been removed for most cases, (pretty much in line with other competitors.)  
7. Any further discussion is beating a dead horse because CA isn't going to budge on this issue.  Their mind is made up.
8. Dead horse beaters are welcome to continue posting, but there isn't much point in the rest of us reading those posts any more.  I think we all now know what everyone thinks.

[lbuttery]

1. In some circumstances to be determined by CA a licence can be transferred to another party.

 

Doug:

 

just a clarification

CA has stated "officially" that the transfers they would approve in the future would only be "inter-company" transfers

 

of course, CA can do others at their discretion - but that is their stated policy as of now

 

Lew

[DRAWZILLA]

11 hours ago, lbuttery said:

SELL - TRANSFER

 

what the h*** is the difference

 

I asked if I could SELL/TRANSFER my license to another user and they said NO !!!

I did ask for a transfer form and what the transfer fee would be

 

I then stated that since I was retired I might as well put Chief in the GARBAGE

and I was told that was my choice

 

CA has twice posted on this forum that it can't be done anymore

except in VERY limited cases

 

so anyone who has a problem with my postings needs to get over it

 

Lew

Lew, I have known you for many years, you were the orginal post leader and you helped many people over those years. I imagine you made lots of money using chief and that's a good thing. we are both getting old and in the scheme of things, is it worth it to you to fight this losing battle with all the headaches and higher blood pressure anyone can get. To me, it's just not worth it. there are more important things in life like family and friends. whatever happens here, you win!!!  A few bucks are just that. be grateful we are still doing it. I'll do this until I am in the ground and be happy about it.

[Kbird1]

1 hour ago, Doug_N said:

• Any perceived value to the license holder has been removed for most cases, (pretty much in line with other competitors.)  
• Any further discussion is beating a dead horse because CA isn't going to budge on this issue.  Their mind is made up.

 

Sad, but true but it doesn't make it right in everyone's eyes..... really how much would it of hurt Chief going forward to let people like Charlie, Lew and several others I am now aware of, Transfer their Licenses before a known deadline ( eg before X15 release) and gain years of SSA Monies from the new Client and continued goodwill and recommendations for Chief from happy (ex)Clients, the likelihood now is they will get neither. 

 

Unfortunately Life must go on and that's what they are counting on.... here comes the next headline .....

 

M.

[lbuttery]

Perry:

 

just and old habit to counter inaccuracies  

 

I stated what CA told me on the change of policy

and then the accusations, misrepresentations and general BS started

 

I spent 16 years on this forum reading every post and trying to assist when I could

 

If CA had been paying referral fees for new customers that I assisted and encouraged

I would have made a tidy sum from them

 

I should have bailed from Chief, CA, and Chieftalk when X9 was released

and CA stated no more hardware keys

 

at the time I thought I might still have a use for Chief on my family history projects

I've never touched X10,11,12,13,14 yet I continued paying SSA - just in case

 

that was a very stupid decision ...

 

I will miss the good people on this forum

 

Lew 

[TeaTime]

36 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

I stated what CA told me on the change of policy

and then the accusations, misrepresentations and general BS started

The problem Lew is that you keep raising the alarms over this issue and, evidently, some people are tired of seeing it. But the point you seem unwilling to address in your repeated statements is that the policy hasn't changed, just some of the language around it. It's always been CA's discretion if--and if so, how--they allow transfers. It has never been clearly stated anywhere that License Transfers are explicitly allowed.

Tightening up on how a policy is enforced is not a change in the policy itself. When local police start putting an emphasis on puling over speeders, they haven't suddenly changed traffic laws without telling you - and try arguing "well it wasn't a problem before!!" to the judge.

[richoffan]

Careful Tea, seems stating truth to fact can get you a down vote!

[Chrisb222]

1 hour ago, TeaTime said:

Tightening up on how a policy is enforced is not a change in the policy itself. When local police start putting an emphasis on puling over speeders, they haven't suddenly changed traffic laws without telling you - and try arguing "well it wasn't a problem before!!" to the judge.

 

EXCELLENT ANALOGY! Although I'm sure someone won't agree, and hit me with a reddie. 

[lbuttery]

the policy hasn't changed, just some of the language around it

 

but the language has changed - in another thread Mick posted the older EULA

 

and if the speed law said you CAN speed and we will usually approve it ???

 

so once again I post to correct mis-information...

 

TRANSFERRING YOUR SOFTWARE: You may permanently transfer your license to another person or
entity only upon written approval by Chief Architect, Inc., and according to the following terms and
conditions:
(a)You must fill out, sign, and return to Chief Architect, Inc. the Certificate of Transfer of Ownership prior to
any transfer of the Software. This is available through the Chief Architect, Inc. Customer Service Department.
Call Chief Architect, Inc.'s Customer Service Department prior to any transfer in order to receive this
document;
(b)The transferor or transferee must pay to Chief Architect, Inc. a license transfer fee for each license
transferred to complete the process of transfer of ownership. Note: Support and Software Assurance is nontransferrable;
(c)You may permanently transfer a current, valid and eligible license for the Software, for which full price was
paid. If you received a discount or rebate on the Software, you must pay to Chief Architect, Inc. the difference
in price between your discounted price and the full price of the Software for each license transferred. You must
deliver the Software to the transferee in its entirety and must not retain any copy of the Software on any
computer or storage media, including backup or archival copies;
(d)You may transfer an Additional License and still retain other licenses of the Software only by paying to
Chief Architect, Inc. the difference in price between the full retail price of the Software and the net price paid
(including discounts and rebates) for each Additional License transferred;
(e)If you own multiple licenses and you wish to transfer a license, the license to be transferred shall be the
license for which you received the largest discount or rebate;
(f)Your License will automatically terminate upon any transfer of the Software;
(g)If the Software being transferred is an Upgrade, you must cease using all prior versions of the Software,
Documentation, and Graphical Files as well. You must uninstall all versions of the software and you may not
use or retain any copy of any prior version of the Software;
(h)You may not transfer any earlier versions of Software which have been upgraded;
(i)You may not transfer a license of the Software that was purchased under the Chief Architect National
Accounts program;
(j)You may not transfer a license of the Software within the first 90 days of purchase.
(k)You may not transfer a Not For Resale (NFR) license of the Software. You also may not transfer a
Presentation license, a Student license, or an Academic license of the Software;
(l)The recipient of the transfer shall agree to all the terms of this License Agreement as a condition of the transfer

 

Lew

[SHCanada2]

49 minutes ago, Chrisb222 said:

EXCELLENT ANALOGY!

analogies are like statistics I can always find one that goes my way.

 

I will agree with Lew on this one. If a company for years permits transfers, that is a defacto policy by CA, and now they are changing it. Contractually they always had the right to not allow it, but in their own internal policies I would find it hard to believe they did not have a policy/email/directive/internal memo etc which permitted it

 

here's another analogy, for years you left your house, drove down the street and drove around the City. Then one day the city decides to close off your street and your car can never leave the street. 

 

and if you do not think this happend, there was a guy in coloardo? something similar happened to his shop. I think he then went postal with a self made armoured vehicle.

 

Or the electric company can go put poles on their right of way on your property, or the gas guy can ....

 

sorry, I'm never a fan of analogies, unless it is an analogy of a company or person's own behaviour/actions

 

 

 

 

[TeaTime]

5 minutes ago, lbuttery said:

in another thread Mick posted the older EULA

Yes, and@richoffanposted the X3 and X14 EULAs too.

"You may permanently transfer your license to another person or entity only upon written approval by Chief Architect, Inc. and according to the following terms and conditions:" 

vs

"This software is licensed to you, and only you. You may not sell, give, donate, rent, transfer, or share this license with any other person or entity. In some cases, certain licenses may be permanently transferred to another individual, but only under the terms and conditions of the then current Chief Architect License Transfer Request Form, and only if the requested license transfer is approved by Chief Architect, Inc."

 

EULAs are written in legal terms and are almost intentionally confusing, we all know this. The latter is a much lengthier, much more clear version of the first.

The single sentence in the X3 EULA was followed by NINE conditions. This implies to me that the intent was "while you can, there are hoops to jump through."

The update is obviously to clarify what was intended to be communicated, and those nine conditions were removed and replaced with a more explicit paragraph.

 

"You can do x but only if y" is the same as "You can't do x, except when y", just communicated differently. You can't just read the first sentence and stop there.

 

[TeaTime]

43 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

If a company for years permits transfers, that is a defacto policy by CA, and now they are changing it.

True, it's like if a child's parents had a "no soda" rule but regularly said "Well you're not supposed to, but okay", then seemingly out of the blue they said "No, you know the rules." it would feel very unfair. But it is technically the rule and its theirs to enforce. Just like its their pricing structure, or licensing process, or...

[SHCanada2]

9 minutes ago, TeaTime said:

True, it's like if a child's parents had a "no soda" rule but regularly said "Well you're not supposed to, but okay", then seemingly out of the blue they said "No, you know the rules."

 

I would disagree this is the same, CA permitted for years, there was not a no transfer rule. it was their discretion. this makes it defacto policy, not against a rule, because there was no rule prohibiting it

 

 

 

[TeaTime]

2 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

there was not a no transfer rule.

 

You're right, it wasn't a "no cookie policy" it was "You can help yourself to the cookies only if you do the dishes and take out the garbage"

Now it's "You may not help yourself to the cookies. However if the dishes are done and the garbage gets taken out, you may have cookies."

[Kbird1]

3 hours ago, SHCanada2 said:

I will agree with Lew on this one. If a company for years permits transfers, that is a defacto policy by CA, and now they are changing it. Contractually they always had the right to not allow it, but in their own internal policies I would find it hard to believe they did not have a policy/email/directive/internal memo etc which permitted it

 

My thinking too...so thanks, better put than by me I think....

 

M.

[John_Charles]

16 hours ago, Chrisb222 said:

 

EXCELLENT ANALOGY! Although I'm sure someone won't agree, and hit me with a reddie. 

 

And sure enough.... there really are some juvenile people in this world....

[HumbleChief]

I think these couple of threads regarding Chief's change in licensing policy and pricing have pretty much run their course but one factor that may be have been overlooked is the fact that this forum responses represent a very, very small number of users. Indicative of a general sentiment perhaps, but not representative of every user's feeling on the matter. No matter the future or what you choose your future to be with Chief Architect I'd like to wish everyone the best and I think in a couple years time the new normal re: Chief will have shaken itself out and we will be back to making a living designing homes and discussing new and interesting issues here on the forum.

[Archnot-Boltz]

On 12/13/2022 at 5:36 PM, lbuttery said:

severely restrict all transfers, i.e. to only within the same company etc.....

 

This is what CA has posted on this forum and what I was told when I called in

 

If anyone doubts this - then call CA yourself 

 

Prove me wrong

as I would love to be able to sell/transfer my license for $2,500 approx.

 

Lew

 

 

Hey Lew, maybe try selling your company for $1.00 to the person interested in your license. I don't understand why Chief wouldn't want to keep your license with the annual $599.00 SSA fee in the revenue stream. I just don't see folks renting Chief for $199.00 per month with no ownership path as being a sustainable business model. Give em hell Harry! And have a happy retirement to boot.-BB

[lbuttery]

Brad:

 

I haven't found a buyer as I called CA first so I understood what the new SSA rules were

so I could advise any buyers

 

so at this point any current Chief user that has a large business and might want another seat

is left with doing the subscription plan

 

and I now can throw Chief in the garbage as it has zero value

 

I wish you well also ...

 

Lew

 

[KevinWaldron]

At an age that I want purchase software that offers subscriptions only.

 

There will always be another mouse trap somewhere down the road. Where there is a need it will be filled. Look at Autocad how many other look alike are now available or at least able to access the same Dwg/Dxf files. Then there is Adobe how many other software's can now read and write PDF files or other software offerings.

 

Personally think this is a poor decision on managements part by divorcing current users from perpetual license and I have owned software rights as far back as X-3 and own a number of software seats. Cad after all is cad and once you can draw in one program others become fairly easy to adapt to ones only needs. (I often cringe at how you guys do small objects and fixtures in 3D modeling in Chief as I personally find this crude compared to other offerings, so limited with the tools available and the need to trick or fool the software.) Take companies like McNeel who have Rhinoceros totally different attitude about license and capability for 3D but it is not the ideal nuts and bolts residential homebuilding software and there addon to help architectural design. But other software will arise.

 

Chalking this choice of Chief programs and company as poor judgement decision on my part, earliest possible time I'll totally jump ship. (Already work with a number of other CAD/Cam software's.)      

[Rich_Winsor]

12 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

...but one factor that may be have been overlooked is the fact that this forum responses represent a very, very small number of users.

You know Larry I was always of this opinion also

but I have to admit that I was astounded, nay dare

I say flabbergasted, to see that a topic that has 

been on the board for 17 days has had 14,600

views. To put that in perspective the instructional

thread for the Q&A forum which has been at the

top of this forum for going on 9 years now has only

been viewed 8,100 times. 

 

14,600 views divided by 17 days =  858.8 views per day

8,100 divided by 3285 (365 x 9) days =  2.5 views per day

 

[HumbleChief]

6 hours ago, Rich_Winsor said:

You know Larry I was always of this opinion also

but I have to admit that I was astounded, nay dare

I say flabbergasted, to see that a topic that has 

been on the board for 17 days has had 14,600

views. To put that in perspective the instructional

thread for the Q&A forum which has been at the

top of this forum for going on 9 years now has only

been viewed 8,100 times. 

 

14,600 views divided by 17 days =  858.8 views per day

8,100 divided by 3285 (365 x 9) days =  2.5 views per day

 

That is indeed pretty astounding, good catch.

[Doug_N]

It seems changing the terms of use and making the program a subscription program has affected everyone and nearly everyone who was part of the forum had something to say about it.  a glitch or an educational video may only affect a few of us, and then only fewer say anything about it.  I know I don't read every post, maybe net even half of them and I am a pretty active member on this forum.  But I certainly had a lot to say about this license change.  Larry that was an astounding analysis though.  Perhaps you missed your calling and should have been a forensic accountant!  Your post casts a very interesting light on what turns our cranks!  Well done.

[HumbleChief]

10 minutes ago, Doug_N said:

 Larry that was an astounding analysis though.  Perhaps you missed your calling and should have been a forensic accountant!  Your post casts a very interesting light on what turns our cranks!  Well done.

I think the analysis credit goes to Rich...