Response to Jeff’s Blog post on Reverse Compatibility
Before you read this article, go over to Jeff’s Blog and read his post on Reverse Compatibility. I’ll wait here patiently until you finish. It’s short and uses small words so it shouldn’t take too long.
Ok. I’m posting my comment here, because, along with “never eat anything bigger than your head”, my mother always taught me that the “response should never be longer than the question”. I don’t have that gift of brevity and simplicity that Jeff has, so I can get as long winded as I need to get here on my own blog.
Jeff claims to have a reliable source for this reverse compatibility claim. I think the anonymous source is leaking a severe understatement. I think this will turn out to be the first wave in ever more tantalizing leaks about groud breaking stuff that SW is planning. Let me tell you this: They are toying with you. Once you know what is really happening, you will look back and see this leak as disingenuous rather than simply interesting.
Let me guess what the next leak is going to be… can’t play the performance card again, users are still crying wolf over the 2009 supposed performance increases. Maybe it will be something to do with making your FeatureManager more manageable. Or maybe the ability to treat any imported geometry as native. Or maybe rebuild speed for parts. Or maybe external references without external references. Or maybe more controllable sketch relations. Or maybe better control over feature order. Or maybe you could just take one of my recent posts on history-modeling and pick a topic from one of those.
Do I have some sort of inside information? No. I’ve been officially excommunicated because a SW VP came on my blog and shat all over himself, and they had to have someone to hang. Eric Droukas, a former SolidWorks employee proclaimed on Twitter
What happened to SolidWorks? http://dezignstuff.com/blog… Unfortunately, this is an example of how not to communicate with users
So the 45 people who commented, the nearly 300 people who voted and me aren’t the only ones who think the VP was way out of line. But I’m the one who got hung for it. Looks like we are dealing with frail egos. Previous and more secure SolidWorks administrations dealt with criticism in a much more productive manner that was beneficial for both sides. Excommunication doesn’t really affect me much, but I can tell you it doesn’t improve my opinion of SW leadership at all. The new regime in Concord has driven out some good talent, and they don’t have the charisma or engineering interest of either Hirschtick or McEleney.
Anyway, just pointing out that I don’t have any inside information. I can read, though, which is sometimes better than inside information. Remember I posted (and then JB the CAD Terrorist copied it on comp.cad.solidworks) that a Wikipedia entry on Catia V6 points out that the V6 kernel is based on direct editing? In an article soon to be published by Desktop Engineering, one of my points is that the whole version compatibility issue is one that is if anything actually underhyped by the Synchronous Technology marketing blitz.
The term “reverse compatibility” is one that was delicately crafted by history-based modeling people, and is intended to make the idea of compatibility between versions seem absurd. Compatibility is compatibility. “Reverse” compatibility is nonsense. It would be better to just call it “non-compatibility”.
SolidWorks has spent a lot of effort trying to convince people that because of the annual file structure changes and new features added to the software, version compatibility in SolidWorks is impossible. This is BS. With all of the tricks they employ to read file formats from other major CAD players, they can certainly do something in the version compatibility area if they wanted to. This is a breakdown of the will, not of possibility. The marketing ratchet keeps people pushing forward.
For an eye opener, if you have some time to kill, read a transcript of the Dassault Systemmes conference calls. More than 60% of DS revenue is from subscription. They are going to drive that treadmill as fast as they can through a sheer profit driven application of technology. Here is a quote from one of the transcripts. Grabowski pointed this one out to me in this article.
Driving these results were strong growth in subscription revenue, which was up about 20% in constant currencies. Unit growth was more subdued at 2% on lower and new license activities in Americas …
Anyway. How does version compatibility relate to this? Well, I think DSSW sees a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is indeed another train. Right now Synchronous Technology is getting beat up by users. If you go to the eng-tips Solid Edge forum, you see that there is a good deal of skepticism about ST. Some people have drunk the kool-aid, but users aren’t really buying it. I think it will take some time to get widespread acceptance partially because users have a lot invested in learning history-modeling, and partially because the ST and similar are still what I consider to be in pretty primitive states. SolidWorks 95 did not knock Pro/E out of the ring, but 2001 and later did. Direct editing is going to have to mature a lot to knock history-modeling out of the ring, but the potential is there.
So, SolidWorks is considering version compatibility, which it has previously scoffed at as impossible? No doubt. It is because they are going to be forced to compete in a new direction – direct editing. Catia V6 kernel makes this possible. Synchronous Technology and Spaceclaim make this necessary.
I was simply repeating what I heard earlier today on Twitter. Don’t go shooting the messenger!
I can’t say that I disagree with you, Matt. Backwards compatibility would lessen the need for maintenance. IMO, the only thing maintenance is good for, albeit over priced, is new versions. That’s assuming, of course, that the new version has improvements that will help me in my job.
As for your being excommunicated, that’s just flat out wrong. Again, it’s just my opinion, but if you’re going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk and not have someone else do it for you.
****
No, Jeff, not shooting your or anyone else. Just trying to piece together some of the crumbs that are left along the way.
Don’t get the part about walk the walk.
…Anyway, it turns out that the “leak” didn’t come from someone anonymous at all. The comments are publicly available on twitter, dated today. I won’t give the name here, but if you are interested, you can find and verify it for yourself easily enough.
I wasn’t referring to you with the “walk the walk” part. I meant that someone stepped in sh!t, but made you walk in it. I could draw you a picture if you’d like…
****
Ok, thanks, I understand. Watch out, you might get on “the list” along with me and Ben if you agree with either of us too frequently.
Ben’s on the list? Hmmm.
I still use MS Office 2000. Why? Because the recent versions of the software have had such increasingly diminished returns (in terms of substantial feature addition/improvement) that there’s ultimately no reason to upgrade. If they haven’t already, SolidWorks will soon also face this same problem. Maturing software tends to offer increasingly diminished return per new version without some revolutionaries working within the developing company.
I’ve not seen much evidence of such revolutionaries since..what?…maybe since eDrawings was released? Competition can be a real bear, since that’s where the revolutionaries of the future tend to reside when you don’t have any of them on your team.
Backward compatibility now an irrelevant issue with other CAD software, diminished return on each new SolidWorks release…all this bodes darkly for SolidWorks. One release per year, subscription with forced inclusion of tech support is the only option available…this all makes the competition more and more shiny. Pulling out of this nose-dive will require much more than mere rumor. Is it too soon to bring back the buzz-word “innovation”?
A few more angles to consider maybe:
–The term “reverse-compatibility” is somewhat new to me. Isn’t this the same as “backwards compatibility”. Backwards compatibility is a term that has been around the larger computing industry for a very long time.
–If ST does enable backwards compatibility, then it poses a similar threat to SE subscription revenues. Granted, SW has more to lose because of presently larger market share…
–Somewhat ironically, I’m not sure backwards compatibility is truly a major threat to subscription revenue. Already, a significant number of users don’t upgrade on a regular basis, citing training costs and claiming new versions are not ready to use. This prevents someone like me from using the latest version (which has always been most productive for me). Backwards compatibility would tend to lubricate the upgrade path for users like me, which should offset some of the losses of user who don’t upgrade. I’m not sure it would be a wash though. It might still cost, but not as much as lost sales because someone else can do it.
Are there significant numbers of users who would stop subscription service altogether if others would always be able to save at their version? How many versions have not given enough productivity enhancement to justify cost? I haven’t seen one yet, but I can think of several casual users for whom it might not be worth it. But then, I don’t see how a seat of SW is justified for them in the first place.
There have been other capabilities that SW has given excuses for not having, right up until they actually did it. Multibodies comes to mind. There were all kinds of reasons given why SW didn’t allow multibody parts. When it was actually done, they said it took so long because they wanted to get it right. All marketing spin.
–Backwards compatibility isn’t nearly as dangerous as cross-compatibility. If another system can work with any other systems files with no apparent loss of function, then other SW and others are in trouble. A company with years of work locked up in one file format needs to be able to migrate that data to a new system. If a new system makes that painless, there’s less reason to stay on the old system. If ST really is going to take off, being able to work with other systems’ files as if native will only make the migration easier. This is the last straw that may devalue file format changes as a (perceived?) subscription gravy train. It might be time for SW and probably others to finally do backwards compatibility of feature history.
–What would backwards compatibility look like? Well, I doubt they’ll add the ability to any existing version of SW. Some future version (2010?) will have the tools in place to deal with features it doesn’t understand. Probably some method of dummy-fying the model, and/or some kind of direct editing. Or, it could be a compatibility mode in the newer version, similar to what office had, where newer features are disabled. I think I favor this way, but I’m not certain.
–At any rate, I think backwards compatibility would be a sales-loss stop-gap until something competitive to ST can be implemented. That is, if ST actually gains traction in the CAD market. Backwards compatibility might also be a way of devaluing ST in order to slow or prevent it from gaining momentum.
One more:
–Hypothetically, it may be that not enough users wanted backwards compatibility to be a significant sales issue in the past. But now that SEwST can claim backwards compatibility, it may have become a necessary feature that the sales force can check off when being compared to SE.
Backwards or Reverse Compatibility (being able to save back to an older version) would only help to increase revenue. Users would no longer be held back by clients who refuse to upgrade.
Now, having Forward Compatibility (being able to read future versions) could be disastrous for revenue. Theoretically ST should be able to read future versions of itself, so users will not need to upgrade. The only reason ST wouldn’t be able to read future versions of itself is if SE (the company) creates that situation.
Hi to everyone,
I agree with Matt, nobody designer needs to save in earlier versions or open future.
We need a ST solution (for mold designers or for who use items made from other CAD systems), because our direct modeling is not competitive, a rendering unification from OpenGL, RealView, PhotoView 360 and PhotoWorks is a confusion, a better large assemblies management because the speedpak is only available for users with certified cards, while it should be available to everyone because I have paid my CAD like everyone else.
I remember that Inventor uses Direct 3D, cutting out speculation among video cards are supported or not supported, then a feature that a user owns or has not, even if paid 7000 Euro for SolidWorks Premium.
Having said that, apart from the resolution of many bugs, SolidWorks must implement according to the demands of customers, sorry, but the top ten that I saw in SolidWorld 2008 made me smile.
Regards,
Alessandro
Matt, I really loved the fact that you and I use the same tense for Sh!t, Shat. That just makes me laugh…
I’ve always thought that subscription service was part of doing business in our world. I know in the old days when we used Unigraphics, we actually called Unigraphics with problems and how to questions. Now I call our VAR or e-mail our VAR, either way, I see this as costs that my company has to fork out for. It just of doing business. I don’t think that subscription service will take a hit when it comes to “reverse-compatibility but I do think that SW will get more business.
I beleive that SW shouldn’t spend their (our) time and money because this will lead to more problems down the line and we all agree that the software should (damn used the word should, sorry) have less problems. The more complex the code, the more potential problems can occur.
Keep up the good work…
Steve
The issue of “reverse compatability” and whether or not to renew subscription wouldn’t be an issue if CAD vendors would truly take a good look at making the job of defining and changing geometry more efficient and robust with each version. If they did that, people would be bending over backwards to upgrade. Hanging on new features that don’t touch this core area are pretty much worthless for most, and thus the distaste…
Ken
I don’t have any reliable sources per se. I (and a room full of customers) where just told that backward compatibility was being looked at, thought it may not be what some expect: http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=112
One version of reverse compatibility would certainly help with the adoption of a new SW version. If it is too buggy, you can save in the last version and go back to work. Otherwise all work in the new version is at risk.
I really wrote this article to suggest that the solution SolidWorks has in mind for reverse/backward compatibility may be coming from the Direct Editing camp. Nobody seems to have caught that or maybe no one cares. I think it’s a big deal. It’s an important difference if it turns out to be the case. I didn’t really want to prod that subscription sore spot any more than it needed to be prodded.
As far as “reverse” or “backward”, same thing to me, but I guess you all are right, I do usually hear it called “backward”. Still, same deal. It’s not compatibility at all.
Matt, sometimes the brain doesn’t work as fast as I’d like. I caught the fact that you’re thinking of Direct Modeling when you wrote about Reverse-Compatibilty, I just didn’t put it words. I hosted several people from SW a few months back and it turned out that two of the three were software developers. In the conversations of the first day (more closer to the beginning of the day) the subject of ST came up. I guess the copy of UG NX6 caught their eye. They wanted to know what I thought of ST and did I think it was going to be a good solution/tool for the future of CAD. At the time I didn’t think of ‘Reverse’ at all but now that you have jogged my mind, maybe this is the direction they might be going.
Steve
I provided my link just to show the mindset of backwards compatibility, not really to adddress the direct modelling point itself. I am skeptical of ST, but I’ve not seen it in action. One thing I’m skeptical of is that it seems to preclude configurations. If with a history-free model, I’m still going to want to use configurations, both at the assembly and the part level. Can you address this?