We Suck Less

[rant warning]

wesuckless

The phrase “We suck less” was famously uttered by a former CAD company CEO from the main stage at a famous international user convention.

What would you think of a company whose slogan was “We suck less”? Maybe you’d think they didn’t take themselves too seriously or that they were at least the only honest ones of the bunch. When you look at the CAD market today, you can choose between many different players with different strengths and weaknesses, SolidWorks, AutoCAD, Catia, Pro/ENGINEER, Solid Edge, NX, Think3, Rhino, Solid Thinking, CoCreate, Spaceclaim, Alibre, MoI, Shark, and plenty of others. When you listen to users of each package, it is clear there is no one undisputed “best” product.  All users have good and bad stories about each product.

Why is that? Why do all of these companies, their policies, and their products suck to some extent, when seen  from the customer/user point of view? Well, of course nothing is perfect. I’m so tired of hearing that. Maybe it’s true, but then again, maybe it isn’t. I haven’t seen everything, and I don’t trust the judgment of those who say that’s the way it is. They seem terribly defeated. The one cliche I know is true is that you can’t please everybody all the time, or even everybody at the same time.

I use SolidWorks. It is no secret that I think there are, along with a lot of great functionality, also several things about the product that suck. You can’t please everyone all the time, and I’m no exception. I’ve looked around, and other CAD companies and products and policies suck at least as bad as SolidWorks.

Big corporations are demanding that society hold them to different standards than the ones that we hold one another to in our every day lives. They want us to believe that it’s ok for corporations to treat customers in ways we wouldn’t treat friends.

This double standard, where corporations are held to a different moral or ethical standard than individuals is EXACTLY what has landed us in this current economic dark age. Corrupt corporate ethics. No matter what you do, if it is in the name of corporate greed, its ok, because that’s actually very humanitarian. Any individual knows that it doesn’t make sense to make loans to people who can’t afford to make the payments. Any individual knows that betting on those loans, its pretty predictable that someone is going to lose. Any individual knows that you shouldn’t reward people for spectacular failure. You could go to the welfare or unemployment line, and ask every person in that line, and they all know the right answer to those questions, but somehow, large groups of the “best and brightest” didn’t see it? Bull shit, they saw it, but they also saw the $$ in their eyes and that they could get out before the roof caved in.

Here’s my measure: if you treat customers any differently than you would treat your own mother, you’re part of the problem. The bottom line is that you don’t have to lie in order to run a good business. You only have to resort to deception if you don’t have anything of value to offer. For example, Mr. Madoff, who will become the poster child for sleaze businessmen. But there are many companies who don’t make off with billions. The size of the crime hardly matters, it’s the callousness that it takes to step over the line that matters.

The financial, automotive and organized labor industries right now are getting a very painful object lesson in the fruits of corporate greed. A lot of people are paying for the unfettered avarice of a few. The CAD industry is so closely tied to the automotive industry that you might hope the CAD people are seeing the writing on the wall. Corporate ethics need to more closely resemble the best of personal ethics. You can’t just get ethical immunity by flashing your corporate ID badge. When industry is corrupt, and the best choice you have is “We suck less“, you have a situation that is not sustainable, and will eventually collapse.

So does your CAD product/company/policy suck? Well, so does mine from time to time. I tend to think the one I use sucks less than the others. Let’s hope that the CAD industry can cut out the infection. Let the “do unto your customers as you would have them do to you” rule be the one they live by.

19 Replies to “We Suck Less”

  1. This has indeed been a good discussion. I’ll just add here my own predicament.

    I’ve mainly been a SW guy, only because I’ve worked for companies that could afford it. Now, that I’m starting to branch off and do a bit more things on my own, I’m having to make decisions based off what I can afford, and what is helping me get the job done.

    Hence, I purchased HyperShot. It is a great rendering tool, and I COULD AFFORD it. I’m still able to have access to SW for modeling and model prep, but if the day comes that I don’t any longer, I will seriously consider picking up SpaceClaim for model prep. I’m also getting ready to upgrade to the latest Photoshop/Premiere suites, since those tools are much more versatile and useful in the type of work I do.

    And even after all these purchases, it would STILL be more affordable than SolidWorks.

    I still think SolidWorks offers the best “one-stop-shop” for 3D needs you may have, but for me, personally, it’s just still out of reach, and wtih the type of work I’m doing, I’m finding there are tools out there that seem to excel in the areas I find myself working more on.

    Heaven forbid… I just learned about and will seriously take a look into… Autodesk Showcase…

  2. Interesting dialog. I agree with Neil here. In fact, this reminds me of something I mentioned a while back of you being a bit like a poet, Matt—not in the English-class sense of the word, but deeper. I see the relationship between speaking truth and poetry in lots of examples, and certainly don’t primarily think of verse and meter. Poets will often be more loyal to ideas than people, and this gets them in trouble with relationships where people don’t understand that (and take offense).

    The first sign of a doom for a “sinking ship” is the shunning or elimination of those who speak truth for truth’s sake (and not malice or appeasement). I guess this is a prime reason I’ve lost a great deal of my zeal for SolidWorks over the last three years. This cannot possibly bode well in the medium or long term, and this is no economic climate to start alienating customers.

    SolidWorks is right to be concerned about AutoDesk—look at all the software companies they’re buying up and adding to their arsenal in the last few years. But they’d better stop these cheap attempts at copying and start going back to what put them on the map—clean, simple modeling meeting the direct needs of their users.

  3. Really I think they are out of line to tell you or anyone what to think and say, and after all you live in the US where you have enshrined your rights and freedoms..
    Either they believe they are much better and important than they are or they are too insecure to hear contrary views.
    500,000+ users experience and live with the out of the box poor quality daily and may struggle with some of the present functionality but no one can talk about it…hmmm
    Consider this too. Today through the miracles of the internet I can search for reviews of just about any product anywhere or at least find someone who has used or bought the product and has an opinion about it.
    Its out there to read – person A loved the camera but the wriststrap is not well made and broke after 2 weeks, – person B is happy with the mpg of their new car but annoyed because this is the 4th time they took it back to the dealer to get the handbrake light fixed..
    Why do CAD companies think they are above consumer comment and feedback?
    They get away with far too much as it is and assume they can stiffle unflattering comment as it suits.. should I mention wikipedia grooming here?..
    As I said before you can find lots of CAD feature lists but very few down home appraisals. There is something basically wrong with that.
    I think what you have to say is just what other people would and do say.
    AFAIK you are not out to destroy sales and careers.
    Why is that implicit in someone passing views on a product?
    Why shouldnt you write about the limitations or faults as well as the pleasing bits just as you would anything else in your possession?
    As far as positive reviews go consider David Pogue – even I know the NY Times away in a far corner of the world.
    The guy is always cheerful to a fault in the conduct of his reviews but he tells you whats great without favour and what isnt without cowering.
    Is he out to push or beat up on Sony or Canon? no he’s just telling it like it is in the same way a prospective buyer would find for themselves.
    In your case not only do you give your views and feedback but you provide a valuable service to the users and indirectly to SW through your publishing your ‘fill the holes’ book writing and this blog.
    Frankly I think its time some people at SW pulled their heads in if they cant find the decency to move on.

  4. I appreciate some things have been done and some progress has been made however I dont think that necessarily reflects a willingness to do as users want.I think you would agree with me there is a great reluctance or a grudging backhandedness about the scraps that are tossed down..
    Really if I am objective I dont think much of what has been asked for has ever arrived or in the form that was desired.
    I know there are still quite a few items on my wish list that have been there for the 7 years I have used SW and I would doubt they are going to happen in another 7 years.
    I can live independantly of the stupidity of the situation and I gather there is a degree of intractible arrogance in the system but if it strays into bullying people because they seem to be an enemy opposition I am not sure that is very healthy or mature.
    If ever you have trouble with these people trying to prevent you speaking your mind let the community know.
    I am sure you have many supporters out here in the SW wilderness
    I have no doubt there are some very tech smart people at SW and I would to give some credit to the management of the company that has seen it grow worldwide but really there is much to change about SW and much of it has been identified for some time.
    Keep up the good work Matt and it may comfort you to know I have been waiting for copies of the Bible and Complex Surfacing to arrive this week so at least you will be able to eat this week and maybe keep the car salesman from the door

    1. Neil,
      Right, I agree that if users get what we want, it’s usually just a happy coincidence. There are two kinds of people at SW, as I see it: tech people who care about the product and understand what users are asking for, and the kind of people to whom this whole thing is just a game of checkers where customers are the spectators, and the players are SW Corp and Inventor. The game’s not even about CAD, it’s just a posturing game.

      I know SolidWorks has this philosophy that customers don’t know what they want, or if they do, it wouldn’t be good for them anyway. It’s not as bad as the biblical situation where they give a snake instead of meat, but if we ask for bread, they give us an astronaut meal bar. They think it’s better. At a press event once, they quoted Henry Ford by saying “If I gave the customers what they asked for, I would have made a faster horse”, saying of course that people have no imagination.

      About the bullying bit, SW has definitely suggested I play a different tune. They keep trying to cast me as an enemy. I really don’t get it. I guess I’m supposed to start with the “everything is just the best!!” bit that you hear in most of the other blogs. That’s not me. I’m just gonna go on being me, and they can have ulcers for all I care about if I said there was a bug here or there. They fail to see all the positive stuff. Look at all of the surfacing challenges on this blog that show what great work anybody can do in SW. If that isn’t positive, I don’t know what is. You don’t see modeling examples that nice anywhere, not even the SW site itself. Look at the Surfacing book which (I’m a bit biased) I think shows really nice stuff, and it was all done in SolidWorks. Sure, there are bumps along the road, but I did all of that in SW. How is that not positive? And the fact that SW is so big, but they want to bully one independent contractor is just like you said, really immature.

  5. @Sonicson

    @Neil

    Of course “we suck less” and “lower your expectations” are said tongue in cheek. SolidWorks actually has listened to a few things, but they will probably deny it if asked, and they certainly aren’t about to announce these things. Development cycle is getting longer, as some customers have asked for. We wanted them to focus on quality, but I think it has happened because of the bloat of the software. We asked for options in the interface after 2008 and we got them in 2009. We asked for a “wish list”, and we got the “Brainstorm” thing, which was great. Too bad it hasn’t returned to a public area. We asked for publicly available bug list, and we got that. We asked for SW World presentations to become available to all, and we got that.

    On the other hand, SolidWorks has taken up bullying tactics because of my independent voice. This is bothersome, but life goes on.

    I have been looking for other CAD programs. You would need to get a couple of programs to do everything SW does. If you need stuff like weldments and sheet metal along with surfacing and plastics, other programs just don’t combine that.

    For me personally, with the books and other stuff, SolidWorks is a great source of income. There is so much functionality that is so poorly documented, that people need to turn to third party books and websites for information. Whether SolidWorks wants to believe it or not, we need one another.

    Plus, the surfacing stuff in SolidWorks is just starting to crack into the mainstream. I’d like to feel like I had a part in helping that happen, and I’d like to think I’ll benefit from it to some extent with the book and with consulting. Surfacing going mainstream is going to be a nightmare for SolidWorks, mainly because it isn’t ready for mainstream. Surfacing is a series of nightmares, each one starting before the previous one ends. Sure they have done a lot of great stuff, but in standard form, they haven’t solved the simple problems before tackling bigger problems. The Boundary feature is a miraculous thing sometimes, but you can’t rely on the Trim feature at all.

    I don’t think the criticism falls on deaf ears. There are individuals at SW would would do the right thing, even by guys like us. But on the other hand, the fixes we need never get done. Curves as absorbed features (can’t be reused or even selected)? Bah, that one has been in there for maybe 10 years. There are no complaints getting it classified as a big bad bug, but zero results.

  6. To me, if SW wants us, the users to inform them of the bugs we have encountered and then turn a deaf ear to them, maybe we should stop doing beta testing altogether. It is evident they don’t listen to what we’re telling them. Best advice is to explore other software possibilities. Let the money do the talking.

  7. @matt
    No I dont think you or anyone should lower their expectations.
    This standard is not good enough and it hasnt been for years.
    Unfortunately and disgracefully the SW management incumbents arent swayed by complaints or subscription hunger strikes.
    I’m tempted to pile in a whole list of what sucks about SW here but I dont want to wind up myself and other folks too much.
    What I find interesting though is how much the general repute of SW has faded among long term users over the last few releases.
    Now even Matt has come around to posting a ‘we suck less’ piece..
    If I was someone important in the company I would be concerned at this decay but of course we arent dealing with the company of olde.
    I think its time for a few changes at the top.
    If my name was Obama I would expect and get a few resignations on my desk on Friday..but seeing as Im only a lowly customer I might have to wait for bankrupcy protection – hopefully not my own 😉
    IMHO removal of the source of the rot is the quickest fix..
    And with that vent over on to something more productive and enjoyable.. 😀

  8. Solidworks, the company sucks plenty. Solidworks the program sucks less. I have reported several bugs in the past, not one of these has been fixed. Does every bug report get ignored? Have any of your bugs been fixed?

    I have dropped off subscription with 2007. I think that is the only vote of no confidence that will get counted. I will use that money for something more productive or enjoyable.

    1. Rick,

      I stopped sending in bugs cuz they don’t get fixed. Even bugs found in beta, a good percentage of them don’t get fixed. Some do, I have had a few bugs fixed, but I’ve got several bugs that have been in there for years. It’s like the old Gin Blossoms song: “if you don’t expect too much from me, you might not feel let down”. Just lower your expectations. That’s the quickest fix.

  9. Mark, I’m in exactly the same position as you to make a better decision in the CAD market. I’ve (somewhat blindly) bought all the “upgrades” with subscription renewals every year since v2001. That changes this year. I want to try v2010 first, before committing the cash. Since I’m the top-level source for files, I could design them in v1997 if I wished. Compatibility with new versions, therefore, isn’t something I need.

    In my case, I’m looking at some other areas in which to spend the money I don’t spend on the subscription fee. Maybe I’ll finally purchase the full-blown version of Photoshop instead of limping along with the Elements version. Or a new rendering/modeling program such as modo 401. I’d have money left over.

    The facts here are that v2007 accomplishes the organic surfacing I need much more efficiently (less crashes, forgotten trim face directions, etc.) than both v2008 and v2009. What a shame! And I paid ~$3,000 for this why? I definitely feel “taken” on that–and it’s my own fault. Caveat emptor.

  10. Hmm i just read a “whats new” for IV2010. OMG.. you should see the new sheet metal features alone. Why is it that lately, with every “new” release of SW there are less and less actual new things that are USEABLE? Its like as if they keep us hanging on with _just_ enough licks of the ice cream to think we’ll get a decent mouthful but we never do.

    I’m sick of web noodles. I want ice cream. 🙁

  11. Comforting to hear I’m not the only one that is frustrated with CAD software and it corporate rules.

    In my opinion the user is “maturing”. As a novice user, I didn’t realize that Solidworks just can’t do certain things. Thanks to blogs like this and sharing thoughts with other users I have come to find out that solidworks is quite limited for organic design and concepting.

    Sure we all make it work to some degree, but anyone that has ever seen or used the freeform abilities of Rhino will agree that SolidWorks organic modeling can’t even come close. Especially when it comes to being user friendly and fast.

    I personally believe that the whole subscription fee is ridiculous. The functionality added last year wasn’t that great for me personally and I still had to pay top dollar for it.

    Unless someone can really show me value for my subscription money they are no longer getting it from me.

    -I submit models as parasolid or iges for manufacturing, no need to be current for that.
    -I usually don’t see new features worth the subscription.
    -After reviewing/using programs like spaceclaim and Rhino I realize there is more to this world than SolidWorks. A lot more.
    -Both these programs allow direct editing at a fraction of the SolidWorks cost.

    Chances are very good that my subscription money this year will go to some really new functionality like a seat of Rhino for $995.- and a seat of Spaceclaim for $999.-

    SolidWorks 2009 for parametric modeling needs.
    Spaceclaim for direct editing of engineering models
    Rhino for creation of organic surface models.

    That is value in my opinion, and unless shared by users, we will never find out about these options.

  12. Well interesting rant..
    I wonder what brought that on at this time particularly?
    There are a lot of things that suck in the world..
    Is this a good place to list all the things that suck about SW?
    Perhaps not, its a small space, and besides they are the same things that have been nominated for many suck awards in the past..which in itself sucks…
    As to the US economy well its kind of interesting cos I remember posting to comp.cad.solidworks back well before..better not mention it.. that the US should cut wages 20% so people at least had jobs instead of shipping them to China.
    Today there is the prospect of 20% unemployment.
    When it blows it sucks somewhere else a little later.
    A point which is lost on those enjoying the blow and never considering the final destination of the suck IMHO.

  13. Bravo. I couldn’t say it better myself. I would think that competition in the cad market would naturally minimize this kind of abuse toward the users. Although when companies gain an edge by playing dirty, what choice do we have?

  14. I agree with most of your observations and comments. We’re just reaping what we sow! As mom would say, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

    Maybe one day, Solidworks will see the error of their way and get back on the right path.

  15. Solidworks sucks. I use it with good results. It works well for simple machined parts. As shapes get more organic and complex it begins to suck. I can still manage to get the shape, I might have to try three different methods. Solidworks will probably crash once or twice.

    I just created a good fidelity native Solidworks mannequin. Solidworks lofts worked ok for arms and legs. The torso and butt were a bit more troublesome. Hands refused to loft but worked with a sweep and a loft. The head and face was difficult. I tried lofts in three different directions and was plagued by artifacts. Surfaces were a bit more manageable than solids. I perservered with a solid loft using radial sections for the face with many finely tuned guide curves. The assembly works great, a simple skeleton, with suitable mates lets me pose him nicely. I can tell that my native mannequin contains evil corporate intent, the file is 30MB. The shapes are defined by surfaces defined by approximately 100 simple splines. These could be represented by 60KB of information. My mannequin is thus 99% corporate evil and bugs. He looks friendly.

  16. Not to put down all the other posts you’ve made, but this one is by far the best post you’ve ever made.

    Now if a few executives from different CAD companies comment and attempt to explain themselves, it’ll be perfect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.