Am I the only one who, upon starting out on their own is outraged at the price for a seat of AutoCAD?! The AIA needs to step in and negotiate with Autodesk on our behalf - what other profession has to pay $4000 for a computer program (not to mention the incessant upgrades for $600 + a pop)!!!
For anyone not aware, you can buy used copies from EBAY - something not likely to go away anytime soon as decided in a recent court decision:
so ... did you every worry about the price of a seat when you worked from somebody else?
this is not the AIA's problem ... even if AIA did what you suggest, then all the folks out there who don't join AIA would then complain about how damn unfair is for the members to get that lower price and how the AIA should give them that "free" benefit too.
the price of autocad is irrelevant, compared to the cost of labor -- the purchase price of software can be amortized over several years (5 I think) and you can finance the acquisition through a bank.
if you can't afford the tools of the trade, you can't afford to be self-employed.
unfortunately there isnt one set program for the industry
so mosy places cant just get rid of AutoCAD and use something else without having to then train their employees and all future employees to make sure everyone is as efficient as they would be on AutoCAD
i'm not saying AutoCAD is perfect, but its very well known and most people are pretty efficient with it now, that switching programs would cost the company too much time and money to make it worth it for them
seriously though, the price isnt that out of control that the whole architecture community needs to switch
its a personal decision to be made firm by firm
i would think the cost to train everyone on new software, and continue training anyone who doesnt know how to use it in the future might offset the price of AutoCAD
good luck getting anyone over the age of 30-35 to learn a new program, no matter how similar it is to what they have been using for years
(not saying its not possible, and i dont mean to slight anyone here over that age, i am 29 myself, but in my experience at my firm now, getting people to just adjust to new company layer standards is impossible, so the outcry to change to something besides AutoCAD will be insane. We are looking to switch to revit i think, and you can already see the people who will be difficult with it)
I think you are unresonable comparing something like Airbus Jumbo Jet (Catia) to pretty much Cesna in terms of technology - Autocad. It's 2D drafting program with primitive workflow for making 3d forms. It's not BIM and it is very proprietary. From this standpoint it's heavily overpriced. If you said Revit, I would say you are right on the mark because Revit cost the same (or littel bit more; I think prices has gone up) but does much more.
Secondly, you other remark is in right.
Guys do not use AutoCad for you practise. In fact do not use Windows machines only for your work. Even Rhino 3D is being converted to the MAC OS X. TurboCad is an amazing nifty software, for as little as 50 bucks (try that with photo editing software) Alas it works differently than Autocad (shortcuts) but its very intuitive and very inexpensive. I know habits are hard to shake off but than you have IntelliCad or Bricsys which is a clone of Autocad except it does much better job with 3D design and forms. It also costs much much less. Again, look out there; there is revolution going on both in terms of BIM and traditional softwares.
And please do not mention AIA - Asyncronious Intellignce for Autodesk, who serves everyone's interests except its allegiance to profession, and architects who pay heavy dues to this inept and corrupt organization. In my opinion, they should close down beacuse, among other things, it turned professional registration process into mockery and servitude to lousy bureaucrats in Washinton DC - NCARB, ARE etc. It does not protect profession but courts private interests including pervacating and very dubious agendas of Washington political lobies.
I was simply calling out the fact that other professions do pay as much, if not more, than we do for CAD software and thusly saying we pay more than anybody else is complete horseshit.
Or if you still love Autodesk logo & commands so much & you still do not have enough money, get a pirated copy. You can always legalize drawing files via other programs.
i totally disagree when it comes to any of the IntelliCADs http://www.intellicad.org/members/index.php they are clones of autocad and you would not know you were not using autocad and many are low cost to free
there is something else happening here like monopolization or intimidation, pressure of some sort.
here is the free offerings of Progecad so you can see just how 'Autocad' it is and how there would be no retraining and huge cost savings by turning off the flow of money to the beast
i never said it wasnt easy to switch over
or that it wouldnt be worthwhile to
from my experience working, you meet a lot of resistence when you attempt to change the day to day working
several times, when company standards as simple as layer management have been adjusted, it has been met with resistence
a lot of people think their way is the best way to do things, and will just not do them
we have been trying to implement company wide drafting standards for the entire 3+ years i have been working, and it still happens all the time where someone will say, oh well this is a better way to do it
many refuse to bother learning how to properly use AutoCAD
they know their way to fudge around it that they have been doing for 10+ years
dont turn what i said into a bash against IntelliCAD or that i think we all need to continue paying AutoDesk all these licensing fees
I honestly could care less what program you prefer, i was simply sharing my experience
and i dont think i am that far off from the truth, considering the vast majority of firms still use AutoCAD
i understand what you mean if it is any software other than intellicad or rhinoceros that it would be hard to make the switch.
standards are things nobody follows any more i feel like and every team does things their own way so to speak. there is always that 1 person who cleans up other peoples messes.
I hear what you are saying. hahah 10 years fuddling around in autocad, classic.
yes the vast majority still do because it is what they know and has worked for them
but when autocad started messing with the format and making things incompatible that made allot of people think twice(now 2009's look). then trueconvert came out now it's called trueview, bloat ware. all so that the open design alliance could not say they were 'authentic truedwg' i wonder where that case is in court now....
the amount of $ needed to get people trained (even if its half a day's training, you switch any program and you will need to show people how to use it), the amount of productivity lost due to the learning curve (no matter how short), and just dealing with the changiing of everyone's systems and all that, i think doesnt persuade a company to make a switch like that just to save a few bucks on software that they can probably write off anyway (especially in a medium to large firm)
i dont know any of these other free programs or easier ones to use, so i cant comment on their usability, though i do believe it is essentially the same if not easier than AutoCAD
but realistically, paying for AutoCAD licenses arent really the problem
and in today's workplace, finding a free drafting program really isnt something needed
the change will come (and i think is starting now) with programs like revit and the like
its a completely more efficient way to work, so that will justify the expense to change
(again i am not promoting revit over anything else, i know nothing beyond the name)
autodesk is a business
they can charge whatever they want
if there aren't enough willing customers
they will have to lower their price
or go out of business
if it's really a problem
other competitors will come around
create a comparable product at a lower price
steal business that way
-econ101
Autodesk is a business, there is absolutely zero incentive for them to lower their price in any way for CAD.
Add this to the fact that the AIA is a union in name only and has no actual bargaining power whatsoever....and Autodesk has absolutely no reason to lower their prices.
The AIA can't and doesn't negotiate anything from a position of power, and Autodesk is doing just fine - and apparently charging an acceptable fee for their product - or they wouldn't be growing in leaps and bounds, swallowing up the competition left and right.
Read a book on basic economics and it will all become clear.
The word that some seem to be looking for is monopoly:
AutoCAD has such a dominant position in the market that most feel obligated to use it, especially when we are collaborating with numerous consultants, associated architects etc. That gives Autodesk a power that goes beyond econ 101 supply and demand and enables them to push the market into the upgrade cycle that had me buying V 2009 before '08 is half over. And to make it worse, having been a bit short when Autodesk stopped supporting ACAD 2000 a couple of years ago, I had to pay almost full retail for the new version now that I need it.
That said, a simple solution seems to be to use LT for most workstations, since few people use ACAD for 3d anyway.
The AIA's embrace of BIM is actually a bit alarming to me -- while the idea idea of integrated project delivery is sound, the seminars etc. often feel like software sales hype now that the industry has realized that there is very little reason to buy new CAD software just for drawing and visualization. (As noted above, a good Rhino (or insert your favorite here) operator can draw just about anything) With the seeming complicity of AIA, Autodesk has been very successful at making IDP = BIM = Revit, setting us up for an even worse monopoly situation when contractors start demanding that the BIM models be in Revit.
Of course being (well) over 30 I still prefer a Pentel and a fax machine for building information!
My gf's father is a design engineer for Bell Helicopter... He showed me CATIA this weekend, and all the associated software that he uses (he also teaches CATIA).
When he was explaining how the CATIA system works, he added up all the different modules and came up with the dollar value of the licenses on the laptop we were looking at - I forget the exact figure but it was just a little above $750,000.
Again: $750,000.
Autodesk is pretty inexpensive in comparison, I'd say.
This thread shows for the bazillionth time that most people - people in OUR profession! - still don't understand what the AIA is and does. But back to topic.
Going from spruce's comment about monopolies: It seems to me back in the early 90s the General Services Administration started requiring all work for them to be submitted in AutoCad files. And I feel like recently they started demanding all work in BIM - Revit maybe? If a huge player in the construction field like the GSA demands something, the desires of architects become pretty close to irrelevant.
LB ... actually, I believe this is what the GSA now requires:
For all major projects (prospectus-level) receiving design funding in Fiscal Year 2007 and beyond, GSA requires spatial program BIMs be the minimum requirements for submission to the Office of the Chief Architect for Final Concept approvals by the PBS Commissioner. All GSA projects are encouraged to deploy mature 3D-4D-BIM technologies–spatial program validation and beyond–at strategic project phases in support of specific project challenges.
While Revit is not singled out by name in GSA announcements on this subject, AutoDesk clearly is trying to position itself as the platform of choice with respect to this requirement.
Apples and Oranges. And CATIA does not cost that much. In fact with Gehry Technolgy module specificaly built for the BIM and Construction Administration phase together with main CATIA module= $15,000
So I do not know what other proprietary modules your father's system has but speak what you know. CATIA basic or SolidWorks an offshoot of CATIA are far less expensive than your father's BELL Copter setup; and CATIA and AUTOCAD, again apples and oranges. It never ceases to amaze me : architects (in US) are the most retrograde professionals from all professional folk. They put up the strongest resistance to innovations, technology and changes in general; always stuck up in old oafish ways of practise & the last to accept and implement changing standards, generaly speaking.
Like I said, ziv, he is a certified teacher, and recently just passed his 18th exam. He is loaded with software. He is not in architecture or construction, so as you might say, 'apples and oranges.' He is aerospace engineering, though he has also worked in the auto industry.
As far as your contention that my comparison is 'apples and oranges,' I fail to see how. We were talking about architects complaining about the price of software, meanwhile other design professions use software that is often ten or twenty times the price of the most popular architecture software.
Anyway, as employees we don't pay for the software. Even when we contract our work, we use the company's license. If you're a solo architect (or head of a small firm), I can see how paying for a few licenses of any software can get expensive....
since the invention of the PC in the early 80's, it's never really been about the "best" software -- it's been about the software that offers the best combination of price, power, utility, reliability and accessibility -- especially accessibility. none of those dimensions stands on its own.
the vast majority of software users are neither propeller-heads nor techno-geeks. most are not remotely interested in "what's under the hood" -- they just want to turn it on and use it with as little fuss and bother as possible. since most users cannot really fathom the true nature of software, they tend to adopt what seems to be "most popular" -- much like they choose which fiction to read.
most software users hate change and resist upgrades, absent a compelling reason to upgrade. there's a tremendous, inherent dislike of the need to change work processes because the software vendor "improved" the software or another "better" piece of software showed up in the marketplace.
people are willing to pay high prices for software that seems to work in their world -- that says nothing much about the quality of the underlying software. case in point - the stuff Bill Gates pumps out.
To chose something that is so expensive when something so much more affordable and in many cases more capable is available seems like bad business practice and in the end the employee could make more take home wage if not for the poor decisions of upper management and IT in many cases.
Efficiency in one area of the things we do passes on to everything we do in a way. while WASTE is a great open source decentralized peer to peer that is encrypted it is not a good business practice even if it is not evident immediately or hidden to/from production staff.
I completely endorse your point of view and could not agree more. Architects especially those at the top at HOK or SOM do nothing but attend to irrelevant commitee agendas that only promote 'liquified' or 'apetizing' dicussions, no solutions or actions about promoting better urban conditions, talents, protection of environment, competition, efficiency and yes more profitable, competitive bussinesses (yes just the way AutoDesk is) In fact profitablity has not been on agenda in any of this supposingly 'big' firms hardly at smaller. I have simple answer to this and this is why the author of this posting complains: architectural labor is disrespected in the field and the society (US) in general. When company does not have money it does not pay employees or pays them less than, for example, what new york janitors earn. Liability is way too high for the miniscule share of profits per project. This is why AIA is culpable in a long run and circumstancial way. Had AIA done its job Rabbet would not probably complain here.
Anti
i am not arguing that there arent better programs
i am saying that for a large firm to change to a different drafting program isnt really cost effective considering all the other factors that go into it
now switching to some sort of BIM software, that is a significant upgrade i understand
so that makes the cost worthwhile
but to just find a cheaper drafting program, there really isnt enough incentive
I have actually seen a company struggle and fail partly because of a BIM switch. A boycott would be a good idea, but i don't think the goal is to make Autodesk Change, they are too big and entrenched for that. AIA on the other hand can with the actions of professional architects.
Aug 6, 08 1:09 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Petition AIA to negotiate w/ Autodesk
Am I the only one who, upon starting out on their own is outraged at the price for a seat of AutoCAD?! The AIA needs to step in and negotiate with Autodesk on our behalf - what other profession has to pay $4000 for a computer program (not to mention the incessant upgrades for $600 + a pop)!!!
For anyone not aware, you can buy used copies from EBAY - something not likely to go away anytime soon as decided in a recent court decision:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html
CATIA (engineering)
approx $50,000 per seat
XSTEEL (structural engineering software for steel framing)
approx $30,000 per seat
Stop whining, go Vectorworks, dataCAD, Rhino, or ArchiCAD if you want cheaper.
just buy used copies if the price is such an issue
arent modeling and rendering programs pretty expensive too?
if the AIA steps in and does that, they would be endorsing AutoCAD
why should they do that?
i dont run my own firm or anything, but cant you write off most of the price of AutoCAD anyway?
so ... did you every worry about the price of a seat when you worked from somebody else?
this is not the AIA's problem ... even if AIA did what you suggest, then all the folks out there who don't join AIA would then complain about how damn unfair is for the members to get that lower price and how the AIA should give them that "free" benefit too.
the price of autocad is irrelevant, compared to the cost of labor -- the purchase price of software can be amortized over several years (5 I think) and you can finance the acquisition through a bank.
if you can't afford the tools of the trade, you can't afford to be self-employed.
get over it.
autocad- u input 10 instructions and autocad perform 1 task.
houdini/rhino- u input 1 instruction and they perform no. xxx task accord with ur instruction.
therefore, i think autocad should be free.
dude if you haven't droped autocad a few years ago for IntelliCAD ( a complete and FREE Open Source clone) i feel for your business
AIA is to married to autodesk thou i do agree with that you can't go to a AIA convention that isn't taken over by autodesk in some way (SIC)
Rhinoceros 140$ replaces the need for Illustrator, Indesign, Autocad & 3dmax
you can't go wrong with Rhino. just add render
we are practically feeding a dum program, it grow so big that it can bought other smart program like maya...
the bad getting rid of the good.
unfortunately there isnt one set program for the industry
so mosy places cant just get rid of AutoCAD and use something else without having to then train their employees and all future employees to make sure everyone is as efficient as they would be on AutoCAD
i'm not saying AutoCAD is perfect, but its very well known and most people are pretty efficient with it now, that switching programs would cost the company too much time and money to make it worth it for them
seriously though, the price isnt that out of control that the whole architecture community needs to switch
its a personal decision to be made firm by firm
i would think the cost to train everyone on new software, and continue training anyone who doesnt know how to use it in the future might offset the price of AutoCAD
good luck getting anyone over the age of 30-35 to learn a new program, no matter how similar it is to what they have been using for years
(not saying its not possible, and i dont mean to slight anyone here over that age, i am 29 myself, but in my experience at my firm now, getting people to just adjust to new company layer standards is impossible, so the outcry to change to something besides AutoCAD will be insane. We are looking to switch to revit i think, and you can already see the people who will be difficult with it)
Apurimac
I think you are unresonable comparing something like Airbus Jumbo Jet (Catia) to pretty much Cesna in terms of technology - Autocad. It's 2D drafting program with primitive workflow for making 3d forms. It's not BIM and it is very proprietary. From this standpoint it's heavily overpriced. If you said Revit, I would say you are right on the mark because Revit cost the same (or littel bit more; I think prices has gone up) but does much more.
Secondly, you other remark is in right.
Guys do not use AutoCad for you practise. In fact do not use Windows machines only for your work. Even Rhino 3D is being converted to the MAC OS X. TurboCad is an amazing nifty software, for as little as 50 bucks (try that with photo editing software) Alas it works differently than Autocad (shortcuts) but its very intuitive and very inexpensive. I know habits are hard to shake off but than you have IntelliCad or Bricsys which is a clone of Autocad except it does much better job with 3D design and forms. It also costs much much less. Again, look out there; there is revolution going on both in terms of BIM and traditional softwares.
And please do not mention AIA - Asyncronious Intellignce for Autodesk, who serves everyone's interests except its allegiance to profession, and architects who pay heavy dues to this inept and corrupt organization. In my opinion, they should close down beacuse, among other things, it turned professional registration process into mockery and servitude to lousy bureaucrats in Washinton DC - NCARB, ARE etc. It does not protect profession but courts private interests including pervacating and very dubious agendas of Washington political lobies.
https://estore.bricsys.com/new-default.jsp?site=5
ziv,
I was simply calling out the fact that other professions do pay as much, if not more, than we do for CAD software and thusly saying we pay more than anybody else is complete horseshit.
Or if you still love Autodesk logo & commands so much & you still do not have enough money, get a pirated copy. You can always legalize drawing files via other programs.
marmkid
i totally disagree when it comes to any of the IntelliCADs http://www.intellicad.org/members/index.php they are clones of autocad and you would not know you were not using autocad and many are low cost to free
there is something else happening here like monopolization or intimidation, pressure of some sort.
http://www.softsea.com/review/ProgeCAD-LT-2006.html
http://www.download3k.com/Install-progeCAD-Smart-free-DWG-CAD.html
here is the free offerings of Progecad so you can see just how 'Autocad' it is and how there would be no retraining and huge cost savings by turning off the flow of money to the beast
i never said it wasnt easy to switch over
or that it wouldnt be worthwhile to
from my experience working, you meet a lot of resistence when you attempt to change the day to day working
several times, when company standards as simple as layer management have been adjusted, it has been met with resistence
a lot of people think their way is the best way to do things, and will just not do them
we have been trying to implement company wide drafting standards for the entire 3+ years i have been working, and it still happens all the time where someone will say, oh well this is a better way to do it
many refuse to bother learning how to properly use AutoCAD
they know their way to fudge around it that they have been doing for 10+ years
dont turn what i said into a bash against IntelliCAD or that i think we all need to continue paying AutoDesk all these licensing fees
I honestly could care less what program you prefer, i was simply sharing my experience
and i dont think i am that far off from the truth, considering the vast majority of firms still use AutoCAD
i understand what you mean if it is any software other than intellicad or rhinoceros that it would be hard to make the switch.
standards are things nobody follows any more i feel like and every team does things their own way so to speak. there is always that 1 person who cleans up other peoples messes.
I hear what you are saying. hahah 10 years fuddling around in autocad, classic.
yes the vast majority still do because it is what they know and has worked for them
but when autocad started messing with the format and making things incompatible that made allot of people think twice(now 2009's look). then trueconvert came out now it's called trueview, bloat ware. all so that the open design alliance could not say they were 'authentic truedwg' i wonder where that case is in court now....
Autodesk Vs. Open Design Alliance ^
the amount of $ needed to get people trained (even if its half a day's training, you switch any program and you will need to show people how to use it), the amount of productivity lost due to the learning curve (no matter how short), and just dealing with the changiing of everyone's systems and all that, i think doesnt persuade a company to make a switch like that just to save a few bucks on software that they can probably write off anyway (especially in a medium to large firm)
i dont know any of these other free programs or easier ones to use, so i cant comment on their usability, though i do believe it is essentially the same if not easier than AutoCAD
but realistically, paying for AutoCAD licenses arent really the problem
and in today's workplace, finding a free drafting program really isnt something needed
the change will come (and i think is starting now) with programs like revit and the like
its a completely more efficient way to work, so that will justify the expense to change
(again i am not promoting revit over anything else, i know nothing beyond the name)
ya revit has been out for so long and like maya it had a better following before autodesk bought them.
they might be pushing it really hard, in fact too hard i feel, and it is not the be all end all solution.
yeah i doubt the be all end all solution to architectural documentation is out there right now
there potentially will be technological advances in the future
you never know
autodesk is a business
they can charge whatever they want
if there aren't enough willing customers
they will have to lower their price
or go out of business
if it's really a problem
other competitors will come around
create a comparable product at a lower price
steal business that way
-econ101
In addition to all the other reasons mentioned as to why this wouldn't be a good idea, what bargaining chip would AIA have to bring to the table here?
the only way AutoDesk would go for it would be if the AIA guaranteed a certain number of licenses were being used
the AIA cant do that
ya they can't even host a free drinks party lately, something is up
Autodesk is a business, there is absolutely zero incentive for them to lower their price in any way for CAD.
Add this to the fact that the AIA is a union in name only and has no actual bargaining power whatsoever....and Autodesk has absolutely no reason to lower their prices.
The AIA can't and doesn't negotiate anything from a position of power, and Autodesk is doing just fine - and apparently charging an acceptable fee for their product - or they wouldn't be growing in leaps and bounds, swallowing up the competition left and right.
Read a book on basic economics and it will all become clear.
The word that some seem to be looking for is monopoly:
AutoCAD has such a dominant position in the market that most feel obligated to use it, especially when we are collaborating with numerous consultants, associated architects etc. That gives Autodesk a power that goes beyond econ 101 supply and demand and enables them to push the market into the upgrade cycle that had me buying V 2009 before '08 is half over. And to make it worse, having been a bit short when Autodesk stopped supporting ACAD 2000 a couple of years ago, I had to pay almost full retail for the new version now that I need it.
That said, a simple solution seems to be to use LT for most workstations, since few people use ACAD for 3d anyway.
The AIA's embrace of BIM is actually a bit alarming to me -- while the idea idea of integrated project delivery is sound, the seminars etc. often feel like software sales hype now that the industry has realized that there is very little reason to buy new CAD software just for drawing and visualization. (As noted above, a good Rhino (or insert your favorite here) operator can draw just about anything) With the seeming complicity of AIA, Autodesk has been very successful at making IDP = BIM = Revit, setting us up for an even worse monopoly situation when contractors start demanding that the BIM models be in Revit.
Of course being (well) over 30 I still prefer a Pentel and a fax machine for building information!
Most of the architects I knew at home used r14. They wouldn't upgrade for anything.
My gf's father is a design engineer for Bell Helicopter... He showed me CATIA this weekend, and all the associated software that he uses (he also teaches CATIA).
When he was explaining how the CATIA system works, he added up all the different modules and came up with the dollar value of the licenses on the laptop we were looking at - I forget the exact figure but it was just a little above $750,000.
Again: $750,000.
Autodesk is pretty inexpensive in comparison, I'd say.
This thread shows for the bazillionth time that most people - people in OUR profession! - still don't understand what the AIA is and does. But back to topic.
Going from spruce's comment about monopolies: It seems to me back in the early 90s the General Services Administration started requiring all work for them to be submitted in AutoCad files. And I feel like recently they started demanding all work in BIM - Revit maybe? If a huge player in the construction field like the GSA demands something, the desires of architects become pretty close to irrelevant.
LB ... actually, I believe this is what the GSA now requires:
For all major projects (prospectus-level) receiving design funding in Fiscal Year 2007 and beyond, GSA requires spatial program BIMs be the minimum requirements for submission to the Office of the Chief Architect for Final Concept approvals by the PBS Commissioner. All GSA projects are encouraged to deploy mature 3D-4D-BIM technologies–spatial program validation and beyond–at strategic project phases in support of specific project challenges.
While Revit is not singled out by name in GSA announcements on this subject, AutoDesk clearly is trying to position itself as the platform of choice with respect to this requirement.
More information about GSA's requirements can be found here: GSA 3D-4D Building Information Modeling
slantsix
Apples and Oranges. And CATIA does not cost that much. In fact with Gehry Technolgy module specificaly built for the BIM and Construction Administration phase together with main CATIA module= $15,000
So I do not know what other proprietary modules your father's system has but speak what you know. CATIA basic or SolidWorks an offshoot of CATIA are far less expensive than your father's BELL Copter setup; and CATIA and AUTOCAD, again apples and oranges. It never ceases to amaze me : architects (in US) are the most retrograde professionals from all professional folk. They put up the strongest resistance to innovations, technology and changes in general; always stuck up in old oafish ways of practise & the last to accept and implement changing standards, generaly speaking.
No wonder AIA looks the way it looks!
GSA, government sanctioned autodesk ?
not sure why we need to insult all American architects
but point taken zivotinja
Like I said, ziv, he is a certified teacher, and recently just passed his 18th exam. He is loaded with software. He is not in architecture or construction, so as you might say, 'apples and oranges.' He is aerospace engineering, though he has also worked in the auto industry.
As far as your contention that my comparison is 'apples and oranges,' I fail to see how. We were talking about architects complaining about the price of software, meanwhile other design professions use software that is often ten or twenty times the price of the most popular architecture software.
Anyway, as employees we don't pay for the software. Even when we contract our work, we use the company's license. If you're a solo architect (or head of a small firm), I can see how paying for a few licenses of any software can get expensive....
still a lot of the price from licenses can be written off
it really is just the price of doing business
should we also complain about how much printer ink costs?
I have to laugh at threads like this
since the invention of the PC in the early 80's, it's never really been about the "best" software -- it's been about the software that offers the best combination of price, power, utility, reliability and accessibility -- especially accessibility. none of those dimensions stands on its own.
the vast majority of software users are neither propeller-heads nor techno-geeks. most are not remotely interested in "what's under the hood" -- they just want to turn it on and use it with as little fuss and bother as possible. since most users cannot really fathom the true nature of software, they tend to adopt what seems to be "most popular" -- much like they choose which fiction to read.
most software users hate change and resist upgrades, absent a compelling reason to upgrade. there's a tremendous, inherent dislike of the need to change work processes because the software vendor "improved" the software or another "better" piece of software showed up in the marketplace.
people are willing to pay high prices for software that seems to work in their world -- that says nothing much about the quality of the underlying software. case in point - the stuff Bill Gates pumps out.
To chose something that is so expensive when something so much more affordable and in many cases more capable is available seems like bad business practice and in the end the employee could make more take home wage if not for the poor decisions of upper management and IT in many cases.
Efficiency in one area of the things we do passes on to everything we do in a way. while WASTE is a great open source decentralized peer to peer that is encrypted it is not a good business practice even if it is not evident immediately or hidden to/from production staff.
Antisthenes :
I completely endorse your point of view and could not agree more. Architects especially those at the top at HOK or SOM do nothing but attend to irrelevant commitee agendas that only promote 'liquified' or 'apetizing' dicussions, no solutions or actions about promoting better urban conditions, talents, protection of environment, competition, efficiency and yes more profitable, competitive bussinesses (yes just the way AutoDesk is) In fact profitablity has not been on agenda in any of this supposingly 'big' firms hardly at smaller. I have simple answer to this and this is why the author of this posting complains: architectural labor is disrespected in the field and the society (US) in general. When company does not have money it does not pay employees or pays them less than, for example, what new york janitors earn. Liability is way too high for the miniscule share of profits per project. This is why AIA is culpable in a long run and circumstancial way. Had AIA done its job Rabbet would not probably complain here.
Cheers
You mean you have to pay for Autocad??
Far out...
you mean they would rather pay for a complicitory bloatware tool that cripples drafters in the long run rather than pay them more.. get out of here!
lets not go crazy here, AutoCAD isnt a hinderance and it doesnt cripple drafters
there are more efficient tools being developed, yes, but lets keep this all realistic
Autocad costs money? Torrent sites shame on you for not charging
get used to using anything other than autocad and you quickly realize how cumbersome and antiquated it is. thus the reason people are still using 14
come on architects!
just boycott! why rely on some lazy institute to do the talk!
Anti
i am not arguing that there arent better programs
i am saying that for a large firm to change to a different drafting program isnt really cost effective considering all the other factors that go into it
now switching to some sort of BIM software, that is a significant upgrade i understand
so that makes the cost worthwhile
but to just find a cheaper drafting program, there really isnt enough incentive
There is the option of going back to real drafting. Some mylars and tech pens can't cost $4k.
I have actually seen a company struggle and fail partly because of a BIM switch. A boycott would be a good idea, but i don't think the goal is to make Autodesk Change, they are too big and entrenched for that. AIA on the other hand can with the actions of professional architects.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.