Dezignstuff SolidWorks Blog

Hello Matt-

My reseller, GoEngineer provides excellent service.

SolidWorks continues to release their software without testing it throughly. Their business plan to depend upon free Beta testing by untrained and unpaid Users is insulting to the professionals that use the software to make a living and take care of their families. I don’t understand how they can justify this program; they expect us to pay them for the software and debug it for free.

Im tired of Service Packs and yearly upgrades.

Devon T. Sowell
http://www.3-ddesignsolutions.com

It seems fair to charge a subscription fee, and I keep my company’s five licenses up to date partly for possible translator changes, and to take advantage of updates to a key third party die design add-on. What would be completely fair though, is for SW to mail rebate checks to users who lose data and time due to buggy releases.

Bruce Fisher

To say that their business plan to depend upon free Beta testing by untrained and unpaid Users implies that they intend to use the results of our testing and fix the software. I don’t see any indication of this. There business plan seems to be to keep turning out glitz in order to stay ahead on Inventor. As a user since 98 I started looking around the net for new software shortly after installing 2008 about a month ago. My VAR is a good one and I have asked them to contact me as soon as they decide to offer another brand.

Frank

Wow, strong-arm tactics from my beloved SolidWorks. Here’s why I think this stinks. I’ve used SolidWorks since 1997 and I never call my VAR for support. So to me, it makes no difference whether they offer good service or not–it’s not service I make use of. Couple that with the fact that I skipped v2008 entirely (I’ve NEVER skipped a whole release before). What did I get for my pricey subscription service? NOTHING. Am I a happy camper? No. Even with this silly policy, I’d have barely been ahead.

I think support and version releases should be totally separate entities. I’d pay nothing for support, and optionally pay for releases when needed.

How about another option for the 2nd question – My reseller is great, but the buggy service packs suck. My VAR, 3D Vision, has always been responsive to my companies’ needs. We don’t call them often, maybe ten times a year, but they have always responded with accurate information, usually within hours.

****

Bill,

Good point, I should have added that option. It’s great to hear that people have good experiences with resellers.

Actually, you needed a fifth choice, Matt. My reseller is great, but I find little value in the service packs other than to fix bugs when they pop up (and in the process introducing new bugs).

Wow…I’m kind of in shock at this new policy…

The company I work for has a policy to stay on subscription unless the tool is not used. We use SolidWorks daily and are happy with it so this really won’t effect us too much.

This isn’t good. Especially for independents and small businesses.

How does the current pre2009 policy work? Does the $500 accrue for every year your subscription lapses?

Ricky

yeah, baaad feelings about this move. We stay on, but anytime there a fee change, my bank, ebay, solidworks, it feels like the company is taxing or saying it’s my fault. just personal feeling.

If I sit back and look at this from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense. There’s a percentage that stay within the 120 days. Those after are being targeted. Perhaps more are slipping into that area and they’re aiming at retention. I think there are other ways of going about that. I don’t feel like working at a company if they dock my pay for not helping pay for coffee. I stay with the company because I get free coffee… ya know what I mean, I stay with the company because of what they offer.

SolidWorks offers a great product. Create a culture and a draw around the product, not a fee structure. addtionally, fee structures should always be designed to be reduces (or perception of being reduced) not increased. Add value, don’t take it away.

I’m done.

****
Josh,

This is one place you don’t have to apologize for having an opinion or speaking your mind.

I think from the SW point of view this makes sense. I’d be willing to bet that the initiative for this came from resellers rather than from SW. Resellers have a cash cow in maintenance, and there is absolutely no incentive for resellers to provide anything of value at all. I think they have a tendency to resort to strong arm tactics when money doesn’t fall out of the sky on them. God forbid they should provide any value.

I agree with you that this move is going to generate ill will with customers, even customers who aren’t late with payments because it makes SW and resellers look desperate or frightened.

I’ll keep using SW as long as it is the best tool around for my job, but with an attitude like SW corp has shown lately they don’t have to expect I will do anything back for them (skip my beta test entries / bug fixes, they all take more than a year to fix anyway). I’m really starting to doubt if the bug-swapping(service)packs are still worth the money…

I side a bit on the notion that VARs can be pretty worthless. On a personal level, they are awesome, AWESOME people. And yes, they do get you out of a bind every once in awhile. But when it comes to you needing help, and needing it NOW, they are spread too thin among their client base to really be effective at addressing your needs when you need them to. Some are better than others, but most of the time, we were able to resolve our issues and find workarounds before the VAR could ever find time to get back to us. Other issues simply never get resolved.

Hey guys
Let’s address the two issues raised here individually. First, the issue of the late fees.
There is a very small handful of customers who let their subscription support lapse, but continue to take advantage of the benefits of paid support for weeks, months, or even years before renewing their service. These late fees have existed since SolidWorks was founded in 1995 as a way to recoup some of the money that we lose by providing ongoing support to these customers while the vast majority of customers continue to pay for support on schedule. Again, these late fees are nothing new—they’ve existed since the subscription support program began, and have historically been applied only to those very few customers who opt to stay on a specific version of software for an extended period of time. If you take a look at the document Matt posted, you’ll notice that it’s not discussing a new policy, but that the late fee is simply increasing by $350 for people who go past a new time threshold. Like Matt has said himself, this only affects people who have been using subscription support but have not paid for it for more than 120 days/3 months.

As to the second issue regarding the increase in the fees themselves, there are a few reasons why the new tier and price was added. There are major improvements in the product itself that warrant ongoing investment in both core functionality (performance and quality) as well as new functions. These new functions require more support in order to make our customers as productive as possible. And, all of the revenue generated from these subscription program fees is 100% dedicated to improving and enhancing the software’s functionality so that our customers can be more productive and efficient. It costs SolidWorks money to continue to provide subscription-level support to people who aren’t paying for it. There’s also the fact that things just cost more over time. And again, this late fee increase doesn’t affect the overwhelming majority of our customers—only those who continue to take advantage of support past that 120-day/3 month period.
Does that make sense to everyone?

If not, let me know.

Rich Welch – VP Customer Services SolidWorks

We have subscription service, and will maintain it because we are basically forced. We looked at that cost as part of the decision to use SolidWorks in the first place. That being said, SolidWorks releases software way too often. I just read a post on the forum to the effect of “hurry up and submit bugs because time is running out”. This is in reference to PhotoView 360. They want to release it with 2009 and it’s not even done. Instead of finish it, they are going to rush to release it. No wonder we need maintenance.

I think we should buy a release (2008 for example) at full cost and it should include (at no extra cost) all the SP’s for that major version. If we decide to buy 2009, we buy it at an upgrade price. Support should be included…support, not training. If you want training, you pay for it. If I want to use SolidWorks 2008 for the next five years, so what? I’ll pay a penalty when I get the less discounted price of an upgrade from 2008-2013.

It’s all about money, and I understand that. What I don’t understand is why they think it’s ok to try to make you think you’re getting value from a bunch of crap. Be honest and raise the price of the software and forget about all the bull.

The best support there is for SolidWorks is the forum, and it’s free and self supporting. The one thing I’d pay for is free.

Anyway, it’s all been said before. Rich, has anybody ever discussed an honest solution to this? You mention that it cost’s money for SolidWorks to provide subscription support to customer who aren’t paying. Why does SolidWorks provide support to customer who aren’t paying? Don’t. Are we supposed to fund that? Maybe I misunderstood you?

Paul McGarr

****
Great comment, Paul!!

I guess I see both sides of the story here – the VARs I know provide a good level of support to their customers and need the revenue to maintain pretty sizable organizations. I see that users need to feel like they are getting value..

But isn’t it simply the case that we’re talking about support contracts. The key there is contract. You’re obliged to pay for the support as part of that contract and as with most things, you should pay on time.

If you don’t, then you get penalized – that’s standard practice for many commercial organizations. Is the cost fair? I don’t know – it seems heavy – it should be a question of the various parties being able to apply interest to what you owe and over what period. It shouldn’t be used as a deterrent.

But ultimately, there’s a choice here.

You can sign that contract when its up for renewal and maintain your support – and do so on time, as you’re contractually required and morally obliged to.

if you don’t, you pay more.

Or you stick with what you’ve got, slip off subs and go it alone.

Not as easy decision

Some vendors do things differently. Some cut you off when you stop subs altogether, some don’t charge at all for support, just charge you for each major release upgrade. There are options.

****

Sorry, I used the word “contract”. There is no contract. You pay year to year.

Al, do you pay SW maintenance? No, you don’t. Do you use SW to make a living? No, you don’t.

Interesting comment.

100% of these fees go to SolidWorks.
Resellers make $0 on late fees…

Geeze Matt you were right us SWx users sure do love a good ol’ brew-ha-ha look at all the comments. Big bad corp putting the squeeze on the little guys so what’s new. My company will have to stay on the maintenace train, do to backwards compatibility issues with our clients. Yes the policy stinks. I do not utilize my VAR har har very much. There are some really awesome SWx users there and they do try to do things like webinars and rollout sessions to justify the V and the A in VAR. But most or all the issues I encounter with SWx are self inflicted or can be answered via the KB or the forums. Some one commented above that there should be a two tiered anual support fee one for updates and one for phone support.

DanO

HI,
What I was looking at was what the excerpt says is included in the subscription fees. What I got out of it was that most of the benefits SW/DS listed are related to the fact that they provide buggy software and rely on the customer to feel good about paying additional fees while the SPs gradually make it less so. What exactly is “Complimentary Solidworks 2009 updates”? aren’t those service packs? How can they be complimentary if we are paying for them thru subcription and late fees? Shouldn’t SW/DS provide their software to us as bug free as possible and not expect us to pay additional fees so that we feel comfortable about using it? Everything increases but I really think if SW gets additional money from people just trying to keep their version from crashing that’s a pretty sad commentary on the current state of DS’s programmers. Do they even have an incentive to release it as a more complete less problematic program if their VARs and Corporate itself are wanting their hands in the grab bag?

Tim

btitus — August 19, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

100% of these fees go to SolidWorks.
Resellers make $0 on late fees…

This is NOT true.
Rich Welch – SW

Al, I needed my VAR today because I tried installing SolidWorks 2009 at home under my HUL and it doesn’t allow it. It’s the first time in a while I needed anything. Bottom line is that i’m not able to install 2009 under my HUL so I have to wait until it’s officially released. That stops me from getting to know 2009 prior to release, and it also stops me from working with PhotoView 360 to help them catch the bugs that are about to be hard coded in to a shipping product. This is the kind of thing I think people WANT to do under a HUL, rather than in a production environment. What can a VAR do about this? Nothing. What will solidworks do about this? Nothing. What am I paying for? Nothing.

Last time I needed my VAR was because pack and go stopped working all of the sudden. I was given an error message that was pretty specific. VAR was unable to fix the problem even after contacting SolidWorks. I lived without pack and go until it was magically fixed with a SP. What did I pay for?

Both of these are issues that should be free anyway. I’m not asking my VAR how to create a line, or how to perform an extrude. I’m asking how to fix something that doesn’t work.

I hope it’s ok that I posted twice Matt. I’m going to need to stop reading this or I’ll be here all night.

Paul

Rich, I guess I’m a bit confused on a few things about what you said.

First, look at all the negative comments at Matt’s blog (and forums) on this policy. Near-100% negative feedback from customers is normally a sign that something’s amiss.

Second, you mentioned this isn’t a new policy. Yeah, sort of–but the staggered punishment seems new. In fact, I recall a while back a client let subscription services lapse for multiple releases, and the $500 reinstatement fee was waived with a sort of wink and nod. In other words, the policy really didn’t seem to be heavily enforced, and was perhaps at the discretion of the VARs (maybe it still is). This tiered punishment has a whiff of half-nelson to it and sounds as if it’s a policy that means to be enforced.

Third, there’s something I’m missing in your statement, “It costs SolidWorks money to continue to provide subscription-level support to people who aren’t paying for it.” Who is getting subscription-level support and not paying for it? My understanding is that nobody gets support (tech and SPs) who doesn’t pay. Is someone getting away with something here?

Something about this policy doesn’t seem to add up when users seem fairly consistent both here and at other forums requesting that VAR fees be reduced, not increased. And the reason is that it’s tough to find what Value is Added by these Resellers–particularly among those who do not make calls to their VAR for support issues. To me, the new punishment policy seems a bit out of touch with user sentiment.

All,

We can keep at this all day/night/week/month/year and get nowhere. If you would like a conference call to discuss the issues, as I stated before, I would more than happy to set that up. Can some please take the initiative to see who might wish to join? If not, this communication is non productive.

Rich

****

Maybe you could outline what would be the purpose of a call? What would you say on a telephone that you won’t say here? Everything you say on the call will wind up here anyway.

Rich, hi. thanks for some clarification. “they’ve existed since the subscription support program began.” ok, that’s fine. wait, no it’s not.

I’m not angry or ranting, so just picture my comments with a pleasant smile on my face like we’re having beers together.

I always come back to the Adobe model on this. Adobe, the industry standard in visual communication programs. I buy Acrobat or Photoshop, no subscriptions. Next year I can upgrade to the new version for half the price or wait a couple years. no fees. If I want support I can purchase one time support or a package. simple, effective, somehow they still make money, but what do I know. They’ve just totally dominated their market. granted, it’s a larger market.

I guess this seems to be turning more to the necessity of subscription service. Paul’s right, the forums are the best support, but paul, they are part of the subscription service. I was with a VAR, I appreciated helping the people that paid for SS. Some should have paid more than others, some I should have paid.

I imagine pricing and fees won’t change very quickly in the CAD world. But I don’t think the current model is going to work forever.

Some of it’s perception too. any change in price will cause concern, but it good to see this discussion happening and I hope it’s not ignored.

One solution: user/company pays $5000/license, upgrade for $2500/license, no maintenance fee, no subscription service as we know it. Pay per support if you want to, no penalty for not wanting suppport. Forums with valid serial. More viral than ever.

Solidsmack, (don’t know your real name)

As stated on the forum registration page…

“Full Discussion Forum access requires a login to the Customer Portal (Customers only).
An active Subscription Service contract is not required for access. ”

So, the best support, unarguably, is free.

Rich, this isn’t a petition to get solidwoeks to drop the subscription service. It’s a blog. The purpose is to give people a place to speak. If we can continue this here for months and get nowhere, that’s because of SolidWorks lack of concern about what their customers think. I don’t really think anyone here expects Solidworks to change. Why would a conference call be any better than a written discussion?

Is it me, or are we getting defensive?

Paul

The problem that I find with this communication is that I feel there is much more that can be discussed live and answered in greater detail with specific questions than can be accomplished and/or interpreted by writing a stream of thoughts in any format whether it be in blogs, emails, etc.

If you find my comments condesending that was not my intent but there are many questions, ideas, comments, and suggestions in this blog with a wide range of issues and comparison to other business models and accusations of wrong doing by SW along with remarks about software quality the lack of support from VARs to better support from forums such as this one that I find it overwhelming to have a rational conversation in a few paragraphs to discuss all of these issues.

Therefore if you do not want to participate in an open conversation than there is not much more I can offer in this forum.

My offer still stands.

Best Regards,
Rich

****
Rich,

Quite honestly, I think you are paid VP salary to have better judgment than you have shown here. I’m not clear what there is to gain from talking to you. It is you who needs to do the listening, and I think customers have spoken.

Matt

Let me ask the questions that address the root of the problem and this whole circular and defensive rant: Why do SW customers avoid renewing their subs? Possible answers; A product that does not perform as it should, as a tool? A product that resorts to providing fluff and glitz instead of meaningful improvements? Too many SPs that are intended to fix problems that shouldn’t be there to start with, and then create even more problems? Software developers who pay lip service to addressing customer’s needs and desires? … I could go on, and on, and on.

The only valid answer to all of this is one that has plagued
engineering development from its beginning: Should I take the time to do it right the first time, or should I listen to the MBAs in finance? Answer: The customer deserves a tool that works, right out of the box. That is what he is paying for. It is a no-brainer to understand that if SW provides that product, they will undoubtedly retain their marketing edge, and then some. Even if upgrades are offered only every two years.

I really hope Richardp is still following this … I would like to see his response.

Nothing like a good train wreck, eh?
I have to say that I didn’t even know that SWx levied late fees if you didn’t pay the subscription on time. That’s somewhat incredible to begin with. Aren’t you already getting penalized if you don’t subscribe for a few years and then decide you want to upgrade to the latest version by paying subs fees for previous years skipped? I agree with solidsmack, that the Adobe pricing model is much more civilized and I’m not quite sure how MCAD software is any different from graphic arts sw. Okay, I can understand that it’s more complex, but don’t we pay for that already?

I remember the day when the company I was working for decided to skip a release of Pro/E back in 2002. I couldn’t argue with the decision (after I found out how much it cost) and considered how much the users needed the service (not much at all). We did “upgrade” a couple years later, to SWx.

When I first read this post, my initial thought was that SWx has gotten to the point where PTC was in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s where they assumed people had so much invested in their software that they wouldn’t start looking at other options when the cost of the tool started to out-weigh the benefits. Guess what, Pro/E was wrong and I’m pretty sure nothing has changed in the marketplace that prevents someone else from eating SWx lunch if they come out with a “better” product (cheaper at least).

I have a better idea than a late fee. How about SWx pays US to debug their software? How about they get my subscription check after they release SP4.1 or 5.1 (why is there always a .1 after the “last” release?)? That would be roughly 6-8 months after initial “production” release, right?

And why can’t they refuse service if you don’t pay? Not sure I get that part either.

I understand the value of purchasing a subscription for phone/email support. But — I don’t own any other software for which service packs (bug fixes) and full access to online forums, knowledgebases, and tutorials aren’t included in the initial purchase price.

I strongly and respectfully suggest that Richard Welch and others at SolidWorks Corp. including possibly Jeff Ray sit down and have a long meeting amongst themselves and seriously consider these comments. It’s true that most of us get more support from the discussion forum than from our VAR’s. Think of the other software programs we all use. I don’t have to install Outlook or Excel every 3 months due to a service pack. I have zero loss of productivity with these other programs. All my productivity is lost with SolidWorks-related problems. SolidWorks “uses” its users in many ways. How hard do they laugh when we all share a recently-learned tip, only to be slapped with an outrageously high subscription service bill for ZERO service. We never get such a bill from Microsoft. Richard & Jeff, please read our lips: you are losing SolidWorks users due to your company’s greed. Just like we change insurance companies when we have a bad experience, the same thing is happening here. All it takes is for a few disgruntled users to pass the word, and it spreads like a cancer. Also, where is the “romance” from our VAR? Oh, yes, they bought us a pizza once. Our company pays almost $30,000 per year in subscription services! Does anyone hear me? That’s a lot of money for those of us who are not executives and golfers. We should be having lobster dinners once a quarter, not just for the power users, but for all the little CAD drafters in the company. I am very disappointed in the SolidWorks greed. How about sending one “little guy” from each VAR to SWW each year? You have to romance us again, because we all have a bad taste in our mouth. Pro/E is looking better all the time. Please understand that only 10%(?) of the user community reads this blog. For every negative comment, please multiply that by 10, and understand that one person is representing hundreds or thousands of others who won’t say a word. SolidWorks, it’s time to start respecting, not using, your users. Thank you.

forum.solidworks.com will take you directly to the forum, and does not require a subscription service. If you want good technical support, I suggest heading there. This free technical support is sponsored by users who choose to make their time available to help other users. We appreciate SW Corp for running the software and providing the bandwidth.

I think the vast majority of users will find that they will get most of their technical questions solved there, much quicker and with better results than a VAR.

What does the forum have that the VAR does not?
- almost 24 hour support
- a wide variety of experts with the multitude of features in SW
- very quick answers. My VAR always calls me immediately when I send in a tech. help request. But the answer is almost always “Ok, I understand the problem, let me get back to you.” Then a little while later I eventually get the answer.

What do VAR’s provide that is included in the subscription service? They include their tech support, which I have stated is better supported by online forums. Is there another benefit they provide? Hopefully a VAR can reply to this, but I’m not sure of any. They provide a sales team for SolidWorks. That is no benefit to any user, but has an obvious purpose for SW. They also provide training, but that is an additional cost above the subscription service. What else do they provide for that subscription service? They don’t come to my office to install Service Packs, I do that on my own…

I know I personally would be more satisfied with knowing more “subscription service” money going towards enhancing the software. I’m sure my company will continue with the subscription service, thus “late fees” are irrelevant for us. Assuming that we are happy with the subscription service as a whole would be a misunderstanding. It is simply another “fee”.

Guys,

I agree as well. I honestly think the upgrade + subscription model is absolutely dead, mostly based upon a combination of community support options as well as constantly changing OS technology.

I’m not advocating that SW discontinue their service pack work, as options, features, bugfixes, etc. are added that we have found worthwhile. However, I don’t think it makes sense for SW to charge upgrade fees in addition to subscription fees, as it’s ONLY HURTING THEM in the long run to have to provide support for older versions of software.

There should either be a base price for each version that includes service until the release is discontinued, or a time-based subscription fee that gets you the latest version of the software as long as you keep subscribing. If you stop subscribing, you stop getting updates, but you can keep using the product.

Subscription fees make a LOT more sense if the company is providing a lot of support to its users, but there should be an option for that, so users that just want access to FAQ and community forums just pay a lower price.

We’d be interested in getting a few more licenses to help train people who haven’t been exposed to the software yet but it ends up being prohibitively expensive, mainly due to the ‘forced support’ pricing in addition to the cost of new licenses.

Hats off to CharlesCulp and others who devote so much time sharing their expertise with their fellow travelers on the SW forums.

I do appreciate the user forum service provided by SolidWorks, even to me, a non-subscriber — but, again, when I’ve paid more than, say $200, for a piece of software, I really do expect it.

Were it not for links from blogs, google, etc., I would have no way of knowing the forums are freely available, as the SW customer portal page marks the forums with “Active subscription service contract required for full access”, and provides no link to them.

I agree with the comments in general. Whilst Solidworks is a great product we have issues with every SP 0.0 release and certain upgrades could be missed.

I certainly would like the opportunity to miss a few upgrades and then pick up a later release with no penalty.

In terms of our VAR I generally find I know more than they do so have given up calling them for technical support. Most of the time they just try and sell me training as the answer to the problem which isn’t helpful when I’ve used the software for seven years. I normally post on the Solidworks forum and get excellent support from other users. Again I agree that the VAR seems to be there for Solidworks to sell software and training but I see little value as a user and all events they organize are just sales talks.

One area I really miss good technical support is with the Simulation packages, Cosmos and Floworks. There the VAR is always lost and just pass the question on to someone in Soldiworks central and then pass it back. For the simulation packages it would be helpful to have a more centralized support who know the packages in depth and can answer the questions immediately. At the end of the day I am paying extra support for this so why not a better service, the VAR is never going to be able to support this level of detail.

For the level of support cost I would like the VAR to visit with every new major release (2008,2009..) and install the software and ensure things are working smoothly.

Hi Matt… Hello Solidworks,

Wow Solidworks you guys are awesome, I think your new “penalty marketing technique (PMT)” is brilliant.

First thing in the morning I’m going to phone all my clients who haven’t placed an order for design work in the last two weeks. I’m going to explain, in really small words so they can sympathise with my position, that if they don’t hire me for another job in the next two weeks they will have to pay a really big penalty next time they want me to work for them for free in exchange for money.

I mean frankly it’s only fair to my other clients who in the mean time have been investing in the development of my skills so that I do even better work for them in the future.

I do understand that quality of life is what really counts, and so despite all those malingering clients who can’t be bothered to keep hiring me, I’ve still managed to develop my new designWork SpeedPak! [Sound of cheers and whooping!]. (Legalese Disclaimer: developing faster designWork does not in any way admit that I was a bit sluggish before). SO… great news to all my clients is that due to this year’s speed and skills upgrade to me – they will be rich, and happy, with amazing careers and lots of spare time to boot! [More cheering]

Actually this is genius. From now on all my clients will have to pay me an annual retainer to upgrade my skills, so that I can continue to make them even more successful. Out of the goodness of my own heart (Wow I really am such a great guy), I’m going to rectify any mistakes I make in my designWork for free so long as they pay this subscription. [Legaleasy disclaimer: using the word 'mistake' does not suggest that there anything is wrong with my designWork, in actual fact this just shows I care and am better than my competition. If anyone's product explodes or fails them in a really stressful situation as a result of my designWork, bad luck.]

In fact, yes, all the people who have not paid me to standby ready in case they needed me have actually cost me a lot of money! SO I think I’m going to sue them. Yeah customers who don’t pay me all the time, they are bad people, I don’t like them.

Thank you so much Solidworks for the ideas, I think is going to transform my business model.

Cheers

Andy Red

Does anyone else get the feeling that SolidWorks needs to have it’s bubble pricked a bit?

Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan, I just feel that lately they are starting to take themselves a bit too seriously, and their customers not seriously enough.

A serious point I didn’t make above is how reliant we all are on Solidworks. They are not selling carpets, we can’t run our businesses without this software. This gives Solidworks a lot of power over us and a lot of responsibility not to abuse this power.

It’s not very encouraging when the VP of Customer Service is a bit dismissive of some really raw and heartfelt feedback. What’s so difficult to understand about what’s been written here that you need to discuss it in a “conference call”?

Let me translate for you… your punitive upgrade policy:
1. Is REALLY unpopular with the people who pay your wages.
2. Doesn’t actually stand up to argument.
3. Is damaging your brand.

Saying that people not upgrading costs you money is a non-argument. I can draw you a diagram that shows if I don’t pay support, I don’t benefit. If I wait four years to “jump back onto support” then that is four years that I don’t receive the extra benefits from upgrades that you make a song and dance about telling us are such major productivity enhancements. Trying to suggest that we are somehow responsible for paying your development costs is ridiculous. Should we pay Ford a subscription because they need to design better cars? Your product development is your risk and your business. If you do a good enough job designing your software then people will want to buy it. Hello… that’s how the rest of the world works by the way.

Or in even simpler terms: back off Solidworks.

Andy Red

Hi everyone,

You probably already know this, but the reinstatment fees have been canceled. This is a letter from the SolidWorks executive team:

*************************************************

This note is to clear up any confusion over SolidWorks Subscription policy changes that, if they had been implemented, would have affected a very small percentage of SolidWorks users. It is also to assure you that subscription prices are absolutely not increasing. The subscription price has been constant since our inception and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

We understand that you need to focus on designing better products and improving your business performance, not worrying about software tools or subscription terms.

You may have heard of plans to increase a fee for late subscription payments (and late payments only). Based on valuable input from customers and resellers over the past few weeks, we have decided not to implement these changes. Instead, we are carefully weighing this input and reviewing our overall subscription policies. We have two imperatives in this review: 1) to remain easy for you to do business with and 2) to ensure you receive the best value for your investment. This means that you will continue to gain value from our subscription offerings, and non-subscription customers can rejoin our community any time at an affordable price.

Nothing is more important to us than our relationship with you. We’re pleased that your overall satisfaction with our support services and value added-resellers continues to increase and has never been higher, according to our annual independent satisfaction survey of nearly 10,000 customers conducted in July. Although the ratings are good they need to be better, and we will continue to provide better performance, value, and quality throughout our entire product suite and services.

*************************************************

I am not sure if this point has already been brought up but I would just like express my point of view regarding SW subscriptions. I will admit that I have used my resellers technical support and have had several issues resolved. For that I am I am thankful that I purchased the subscription. However, the problem that I have with that subscription is it allowed me the upgrade from 2008 to 2009, which may I add, ‘08 worked perfectly for me once some of the bugs were worked out.
Please allow me to quote from the movie Tommy Boy featuring Chris Farley and David Spade. It pretty much sums up my issues with SolidWorks subscriptions.
Why would someone put a guarantee on a box? Hmm, very interesting.

Go on! I’m listening.

Here’s the way I see it, Richard Welch. A guy puts a fancy guarantee on the box ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

- Yeah, makes a man feel good.

- Of course it does. Why shouldn’t it? You figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come down and leave a quarter, am I right, Richard?

What’s your point?

The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy. Well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. Next thing you know there’s money missing off the dresser and your daughter is knocked up. I’ve seen it a hundred times.

But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?

‘Cause they know all they sold you was a guaranteed piece of sh%t. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it “guaranteed”, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customers’ sake, for your daughter’s sake you might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

Okay, I’ll buy from you.

Now that I have you laughing let me explain how all of that is relevant to my point. I received Solid Works 2009 in December or January (I can’t be completely confident of the month). In march we moved my system from a 32 bit to a 64 bit to give me more horse power as some of my files have become quite large. I am having several issues with 2009 because of this transition. My point, they move me from 2008 to 2009 because I paid the $1900 subscription fee, but do not support me in the upgraded software. Basically they could put out an inadequate version from year to year which would force you to get the subscription. My view I have paid for the ‘09 upgrade with my subscription, I should be entitled to the support for that version without being forced to purchase the subscription. I feel this is truly a scam. Nothing at all against my reseller as they have helped me tremendously. The problem I have is with SolidWorks itself.