Comment

Comment on Rebalancing the price to represent the value...

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

So if you have $1001 in annual revenue, you have to pay $680? So if your business has a running cost of %50, you need to go into the red by $180 to continue running your business?

Someone over in marketing is an idiot.

source

Sort:hotnew top

carbrewr84@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
When I was working as an engineer I used both autocad and revit, autodesk has been a piece of shit company for a long, long time. Their greed knows no limits and unfortunately they have convinced their markets that the cost of working with them is just "the cost of doing business".

I'd love to see the day they crash and burn as a company, but I have a feeling that's just a far fetched dream.

source
- KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  You could replace Autodeak with Adobe in your post and it’d be exactly the same. These companies are pieces of shit.
  
  source
- overzeetop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I mean you could always switch to Bentley. AFAICT, they’re actually more Byzantine in their licensing structure, though. They bought a small analysis program company I used and their support was so terrible I gave up and learned a whole new FEM program rather than continue.
  
  source
stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
They know that they are still cheaper than any of the other commercial packages. SolidWorks’ yearly maintenance (plus you have a higher upfront cost when you acquire it) is multiple times the F360 subscription per seat.

They aren’t interested in dealing with low value business, the only reason they even have a free version is to get potential future customers used to the software so they demand their employers buy it over their competitors. Same reason why Dassault Systemes gives SolidWorks to students for free.

source
- BastingChemina@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah, unfortunately even with the increase they are still the cheapest CAD software for commercial use.
  
  source
themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Nobody making $1000 in revenue is buying it, but yes that’s what they’re saying. However, that’d be a business expense and you’d get to deduct taxes for it. Still not amazing but yeah.

source
- KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  You’d not really be getting that much back from a deduction. You’d need over 68% of your revenue to be taxed before it would even start to matter at lower revenue amounts.
  
  source
overzeetop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I agree it’s a silly breakpoint, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and I’m sure they feel that a 70/30 split is completely reasonable. Besides, a Fusion license is practically coins-in-the-couch compared to their architectural licensing fees. I’m sure they feel like they’re doing us a favor by pricing Fusion so low.

source
- KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  It’s just so weird to go from “free for personal and low Commercial use”, up to “we want 68% of your revenue.”
  
  They could easily have made it a sliding scale, or gone with profit instead of revenue.
  
  source
  - CyanFen@lemmy.one [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The thing is that pretty much nobody is making over 1k and less than 10-20k a year with fusion.
    
    source