Local simulation feature to be removed from all Autodesk Fusion 360 versions(knowledge.autodesk.com)
knowledge.autodesk.com
Local simulation feature to be removed from all Autodesk Fusion 360 versions
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/fusion-360/learn-explore/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Updates-to-the-Fusion-360-Simulation-Extension.html
290 comments
Small, yes.
When I worked for a .gov we’d have issues like this from time to time, and it was always amusing to see the face of the douche VP of whatever realizing how screwed he was when our attorneys would school them on the various contract provisions they had agreed to without reading.
They’d lay out the basic approach of how they would approach the fraud litigation, and let them know that the “retainage” terms means that the all current receivables would be held in escrow until the matter was resolved.
When I worked for a .gov we’d have issues like this from time to time, and it was always amusing to see the face of the douche VP of whatever realizing how screwed he was when our attorneys would school them on the various contract provisions they had agreed to without reading.
They’d lay out the basic approach of how they would approach the fraud litigation, and let them know that the “retainage” terms means that the all current receivables would be held in escrow until the matter was resolved.
Contracting officers who really know FARS and DFARS rules and regulations are worth their weight in gold subject to an audited BMI index
I think even as a business you would be in the right.
Selling you a license and then removing functionality from it after you sold it to them.
With a fat EULA attached. Insert obligatory
definition of product applies to current billing period only, Autodesk reserves the right to add or remove functionality without notice
definition of product applies to current billing period only, Autodesk reserves the right to add or remove functionality without notice
If I have bought a fusion 360 license yesterday for 3 years, they would have to deliver the features for 3 years.
But I think they will remove all of it for everyone with 1 month notice.
But I think they will remove all of it for everyone with 1 month notice.
You sure? For a cloud-hosted app like Fusion/360 I would expect that you're only entitled to 3 years of access to PRODUCT_NAME/CURRENT_BUILD, without an option to rollback to older versions (eg. at time of purchase) on request, and almost certainly without reference to specific functionality. Unless they specifically inform you that older release are available, your contract with them absolutely would allow for removal of features.
Unless its an explicit mention of the exact feature in the contract (usually things like a fixed % annual price increase), its considered a change in terms of the contract that you can choose to continue with the changed terms or exit.
I would see that as obvious fraud of the company.
Would never hold in court to remove core functionality after you sold it.
How many people bought call of duty to play online? The servers get shut down like 8 years after release. Are the 59 million buyers getting refunds?
58.9 million bought it with the expectation that although the license was perpetual they would enjoy the content over a few months and discard it for the next game.
It's meaningful to discuss what portion of the value was lost in the revision. For almost all users the answer is zero it's just something in their virtual library they will never install again.
Arguably a user who had lost a substantial portion of his expected use might be owed a refund while someone who last played it 7 years ago is not but the matter is too meager to be worthwhile.
It's meaningful to discuss what portion of the value was lost in the revision. For almost all users the answer is zero it's just something in their virtual library they will never install again.
Arguably a user who had lost a substantial portion of his expected use might be owed a refund while someone who last played it 7 years ago is not but the matter is too meager to be worthwhile.
Depending on how the product was advertised, Australian ACCC may take issues with the change. They intervened in much smaller issues and it's trivial to report things to them. So if someone is Aussie-based and affected... fill out a form.
The perils of SaaS strike again. It used to be that you bought a license, and then the software was yours to use eternally thereafter with zero external dependencies.
When will the users learn that SaaS means the software can change at any time out of your control, up to and including not functioning at all, and you will not be able to do anything about it?
Or will their minds continue to be "clouded" by the corporate propaganda?
I think the question of why people will willingly "build on a shaky foundation" is appropriate, especially given the type of software this is.
When will the users learn that SaaS means the software can change at any time out of your control, up to and including not functioning at all, and you will not be able to do anything about it?
Or will their minds continue to be "clouded" by the corporate propaganda?
I think the question of why people will willingly "build on a shaky foundation" is appropriate, especially given the type of software this is.
This isn't even a SaaS. This is a desktop program with some bullshit inconvenient "save to the cloud" feature that would be better off missing (I have Nextcloud if I really need this, thanks Adobe), and various functionality crippling like removing the local simulation just to force people to rent cloud machines from them.
Fuck Autodesk.
Fuck Autodesk.
That's right, it's SaaS slowly creeping its way in.
It's SaaS without the actual aaS. It's not like autodesk's server workload is beneficial to the end user.
There are still many good old "offline" CAD programs, some of them points out permanent license as their selling point (Alibre Design, BricsCAD, VariCAD...). When it comes to simulation, there are also many others. I usually use FreeCAD to run simple FEM analysis (it has more possibilities than Solidworks SimulationXpress)
Many Fusion users have switched to alternative CAD programs in last year or two. Many of them started using Alibre products, which have quite good pricing (Atom is great choice for hobby users/small workshops). Too bad it's Windows only (like almost all CAD programs). But I think FreeCAD also increased their user-base, which will hopefully help them grow (like Blender). It's really great software, but still missing some features needed for (more) professional work.
It's hard for companies to move to another CAD software, but some companies are really pushing their users away :D
Many Fusion users have switched to alternative CAD programs in last year or two. Many of them started using Alibre products, which have quite good pricing (Atom is great choice for hobby users/small workshops). Too bad it's Windows only (like almost all CAD programs). But I think FreeCAD also increased their user-base, which will hopefully help them grow (like Blender). It's really great software, but still missing some features needed for (more) professional work.
It's hard for companies to move to another CAD software, but some companies are really pushing their users away :D
Yes indeed, we had connected all our invoicing to a company handling sending bills and receiving money. The support was getting worse and worse but it would cost too much to rewrite the code that interfaced with their special API's. One day they had a new API that was even worse to use and announced EOL for the old API in a couple of months. Suddenly the cost calculation was completely different and we could finaly change to a better company with better support. Turns out the new one was much easier to interface with and it was even cheaper than the old one. We really needed that push to change!
Anyone who is selling APIs needs to realize this will almost certainly happen when you turn off the old one - those people haven't upgraded to your latest for a reason, and if upgrading is hard enough they'll re-evaluate the whole deal.
I'm not sure BricsCAD or VeriCAD are really competing with Fusion and I wouldn't describe FreeCAD as "good" unfortunately.
The main competition is SOLIDWORKS. There's also Pro/E (or Creo or whatever) and NX. I haven't come across Alibre before though - that looks interesting.
The main competition is SOLIDWORKS. There's also Pro/E (or Creo or whatever) and NX. I haven't come across Alibre before though - that looks interesting.
Solidworks too
What's the other option for users if there isn't a comparable alternative? I think most users dislike paying for a membership over buying the product outright, but that doesn't mean it can be changed
This is a fairly core feature they're removing from a product they already sold.
I also liked that they don't make any attempt at claiming this is for any reason other than more money. No "oh our new models are too powerful to run locally" or "oh for security reasons" or whatever. Which would be pretty transparent bullshit but I think a lot of companies would try anyways. This literally admits that the cloud functionality is identical, just paid per use.
Imo if you bought the product in this state, fine, but if you bought it before they probably ought to have to grandfather you in forever.
I also liked that they don't make any attempt at claiming this is for any reason other than more money. No "oh our new models are too powerful to run locally" or "oh for security reasons" or whatever. Which would be pretty transparent bullshit but I think a lot of companies would try anyways. This literally admits that the cloud functionality is identical, just paid per use.
Imo if you bought the product in this state, fine, but if you bought it before they probably ought to have to grandfather you in forever.
It is not fine.
- Corporations do this for recurring revenue, but also because software IP is easier to protect in the cloud where no-one can decompile the code,
- But it’s a hell for customers.
- Corporations do this for recurring revenue, but also because software IP is easier to protect in the cloud where no-one can decompile the code,
- But it’s a hell for customers.
[deleted]
What happens when Autodesk Cloud is hacked and your model is stolen.
Who would put something of so much value as the original model in the cloud?
Will AutoDesk reimburse you when cloud is hacked and your design stolen?
Who would put something of so much value as the original model in the cloud?
Will AutoDesk reimburse you when cloud is hacked and your design stolen?
I already thought this was outrageous just on principle, but
holy cow this point you just raised pushes it over the top. This point alone should end all conversations dead without even a hint of a maybe or calculation.
"I will go back to pencils and drafting boards before I put my entire companies primary assets on anyone else's server." * 1m companies.
Imagine if github owned git and removed the local repo other than the current checked out hash?
"I will go back to pencils and drafting boards before I put my entire companies primary assets on anyone else's server." * 1m companies.
Imagine if github owned git and removed the local repo other than the current checked out hash?
And is now token-based. According to this[0], tokens are $3 a pop. A "basic study" simulation costs 3 tokens ($9) and an "advanced study" simulation costs 6 tokens ($18). Imagine how quickly you could rack up charges as you iterate on a design.
0. https://www.autodesk.com/benefits/flex?term=500&tab=flex
0. https://www.autodesk.com/benefits/flex?term=500&tab=flex
Mind you, a token is $3/piece. You can only buy them in packs of 500 and higher, and they expire in a year’s time. Something that I’ve noticed is that you used to be able to buy 100 tokens, but they removed that option some time ago, too.
> You can only buy them in packs of 500 and higher, and they expire in a year’s time
This is like a bad carnival game
This is like a bad carnival game
Tell me Autodesk has a monopoly without telling me Autodesk has a monopoly.
That's the thing, they don't!
There's a lot of options in this space. Ansys, Dassault SOLIDWORKS (though they're trying to push the cloud model, lmao), Siemens. Smaller devs like zw3d which plug into dedicated sim packages (it's not like f360's is that comprehensive).
Why don't people move? It's not like a super free market, but there's a bunch of options in the space.
There's a lot of options in this space. Ansys, Dassault SOLIDWORKS (though they're trying to push the cloud model, lmao), Siemens. Smaller devs like zw3d which plug into dedicated sim packages (it's not like f360's is that comprehensive).
Why don't people move? It's not like a super free market, but there's a bunch of options in the space.
Because you could get Fusion360 for $500 per year but the equivalent in Solidworks cost $5K base+$5k for CAM+$5K for modeling+$5K for ...
Solidworks is the monopoly and it was only the insertion of Fusion360 that broke it. Solidworks is so entrenched that they still haven't reduced their prices even though Fusion360 is absolutely killing them at the low end.
> Why don't people move? It's not like a super free market, but there's a bunch of options in the space.
I'd love to hear about them and throw some money at them. Before Fusion360, I knew of basically nothing at the low end.
Solidworks is the monopoly and it was only the insertion of Fusion360 that broke it. Solidworks is so entrenched that they still haven't reduced their prices even though Fusion360 is absolutely killing them at the low end.
> Why don't people move? It's not like a super free market, but there's a bunch of options in the space.
I'd love to hear about them and throw some money at them. Before Fusion360, I knew of basically nothing at the low end.
SolidWorks sorta offered a competing product at the low end but realized they could extort more money so they stopped doing that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32432998
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32432998
Solidworks isn’t that widely used outside of academia and small businesses though, Catia is Dassault’s pro product and Siemens has NX and another tool whose name escapes me.
You're thinking about Solid Edge.
> Siemens has NX and another tool whose name escapes me.
This is also kinda funny in a non-funny way. Why? Because Solidworks is basically a household name at this point (and has been for a few years).
Solid Edge? Much less so, even though it exists way longer and...
drumroll
Siemens licenses their Parasolid kernel to Dassault for Solidworks.
Siemens is so shitty at marketing their (IMHO) superior product that basically nobody knows it :(
> Siemens has NX and another tool whose name escapes me.
This is also kinda funny in a non-funny way. Why? Because Solidworks is basically a household name at this point (and has been for a few years).
Solid Edge? Much less so, even though it exists way longer and...
drumroll
Siemens licenses their Parasolid kernel to Dassault for Solidworks.
Siemens is so shitty at marketing their (IMHO) superior product that basically nobody knows it :(
It’s worth noting that Siemens licenses the CGM kernel from Dassault for some of their products too though. At least they used to when I worked there…
I think they don’t need to market them - but that’s because they’re aimed at a different market segment. The licensing costs for these tools individually are very high, but big companies buy them as a package along with things like TeamCenter. Inertia is very strong so if a company uses a tool, they’re unlikely to migrate unless they’re forced to for some reason.
I think they don’t need to market them - but that’s because they’re aimed at a different market segment. The licensing costs for these tools individually are very high, but big companies buy them as a package along with things like TeamCenter. Inertia is very strong so if a company uses a tool, they’re unlikely to migrate unless they’re forced to for some reason.
> Why don't people move?
Because learning new software and workflow is extremely expensive for an architect. As software engineers who learn for a living we sometimes take our learning muscle for granted.
Autodesk is simply trying to find what that “cost” is for their user and keep the total price slightly below that.
Because learning new software and workflow is extremely expensive for an architect. As software engineers who learn for a living we sometimes take our learning muscle for granted.
Autodesk is simply trying to find what that “cost” is for their user and keep the total price slightly below that.
The cost to learn a new software is trivial. The cost to redesign all library components in the new software is huge.
It is very analogous to programming if you consider it like rewriting a program designed in Java into C++. Depending on the complexity of the program, you will become proficient in C++ long before you finish the code transition.
I use Siemens NX to design. It would take thousands of hours to recreate all the partfiles we use into a different CAD software. Some of the big guys write programs to make a transition easier (from Ideas to NX), but they are not perfect. They may work for some simple parts, but for more complex things... forget about it.
It is very analogous to programming if you consider it like rewriting a program designed in Java into C++. Depending on the complexity of the program, you will become proficient in C++ long before you finish the code transition.
I use Siemens NX to design. It would take thousands of hours to recreate all the partfiles we use into a different CAD software. Some of the big guys write programs to make a transition easier (from Ideas to NX), but they are not perfect. They may work for some simple parts, but for more complex things... forget about it.
Do those other commercial options offer free usage at the hobbyist level of usage? That's my main reason for picking Fusion 360 over anything else at this point. There are FOSS alternatives, but they're harder to use.
And now that I've learned it, I'm more likely to pick it over other things in the future. If I got a job with any of this stuff, I'd be leaning towards it as the tool for that, too.
And now that I've learned it, I'm more likely to pick it over other things in the future. If I got a job with any of this stuff, I'd be leaning towards it as the tool for that, too.
Both Siemens Solid Edge and Dassault Solidworks are available in "community editions", which are fully-featured and may be used for non-commercial purposes.
https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/solutions/users/hobbyists-a...
https://www.solidworks.com/support/community-download
https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/solutions/users/hobbyists-a...
https://www.solidworks.com/support/community-download
SOLIDWORKS Community is for students only; Solid Edge Community is missing most of it's features.
Ansys (which includes Spaceclaim) does, completely free for student and hobbyist use. Even offers a class with Cornell on edx on how to use the simulation software.
Siemens are also trying to push the cloud model, StarCCM already supports it, and I’m sure it won’t be long until other products in their suite do too.
They don't, and this is very cheap as far as software like this goes.
It speaks to financial desperation more than cynical profit grubbing. They need to juice sales and fully recognize the income to remain solvent.
I just sent in a request for a refund of the balance on my one-year subscription that I just purchased a month ago. Unfortunately it is over the 30-days in their purchase refund policy by just one day. Hopefully they honor it, and then I am purchasing Rhino, and I will use my free FEA options (Calculix, openFoam, Lisa 8.0 (I bought this for less than $100USD. Demo is free for 1000 nodes perpetually), and believe it or not, Mathematica has some cool ways of FEM/FEA techniques. This is such a creepy way of making money by pissing your customer off. I am getting sick of Autodesk. I once sold Autodesk products (Inventor, Mechanical) in the NYC Tri-state area for six months. My only real true sales job. I was told I was too technical, and to upsell the client!
EDIT: I know nTopology is expensive, but has anyone tried it or have experience with it? I am willing to spend money on products that are truly productive and innovative.
EDIT: I know nTopology is expensive, but has anyone tried it or have experience with it? I am willing to spend money on products that are truly productive and innovative.
There's SideFX Houdini. It's a VFX software mainly but it's also like an amazingly powerful CG/simulations OS and tools-collection. It can be tried out for free (the full software with only some fairly reasonable limits in my opinion) With a bit of hacker elbow-grease it can be made to read and write things in wildly different formats fairly easily. It can be hard to learn initially! but I would certainly recommend it!
I was using Houdini when it was called Prisms on an SGI Irix machine. It is for 3D graphics and effects, not CAD or FEM/FEA. Autodesk Fusion is for creating 3D geometry and testing your design with an FEA analysis. Houdini uses a physics engine for graphics, not engineering results or stress analysis. Autodesk have now made the FEA simulation portion fee and cloud-based, when it was free before if you ran it locally on your computer. I have Houdini installed for fun, but I also use Blender (since 2000). Two different uses entirely between Houdini and Autodesk Fusion 360.
I’m actually wanting to build my own nTop adjacent tool because I’ve been wanting a programmatic style design tool that uses a similar internal rep (signed distance function), but with a programming sort of Ux to build up shapes on top.
Autodesk, what I liked, is it supported Lisp. Once upon a time, and even then no macros, so it's like...now it's C++...
I talked to some Autodesk guys on a ferry, it's all about like getting the building designed correctly the first time to code. Fixing stuff is expensive. It actually makes sense from that perspective there would only be one company encompassing the problem. But why tighten the internet leash? Internet access is a leash.
I talked to some Autodesk guys on a ferry, it's all about like getting the building designed correctly the first time to code. Fixing stuff is expensive. It actually makes sense from that perspective there would only be one company encompassing the problem. But why tighten the internet leash? Internet access is a leash.
I really do hope this finally pushes the open source community to create a viable and enjoyable to use 3D CAD modelling software. I work with code a lot but I was never really able to get into OpenSCAD, and FreeCAD crashes too often for my liking in addition to having a (in my opinion) unintuitive UI/workflow. I've moved on to Solidworks (student edition as I am a student) for now but am still keeping an eye out for alternatives.
No. A free software CAD/CAM package has been desired for a long time, and no one has ever written something that competes with commercial packages except in token form.
To create a quality 3D CAD/CAM program takes more than just competence and interest in having a free product. It takes a small core of very talented people with expertise and experience in building complex software, surrounded by a legion of supporters. Kind of like the Linux kernel project.
It's a niche software product that requires significant technical expertise in programming, mathematics, and in UI design. It's nitpicking to debug.
The closest anyone has built is Blender, but that's still a far cry from being Fusion 360 or Solidworks.
GNU has had a CAD program on their wish list for as long as I can remember... going back to 1990 or before.
Unfortunately, the removal of local simulation is more of the same from Autodesk.
To create a quality 3D CAD/CAM program takes more than just competence and interest in having a free product. It takes a small core of very talented people with expertise and experience in building complex software, surrounded by a legion of supporters. Kind of like the Linux kernel project.
It's a niche software product that requires significant technical expertise in programming, mathematics, and in UI design. It's nitpicking to debug.
The closest anyone has built is Blender, but that's still a far cry from being Fusion 360 or Solidworks.
GNU has had a CAD program on their wish list for as long as I can remember... going back to 1990 or before.
Unfortunately, the removal of local simulation is more of the same from Autodesk.
The way that big FOSS apps succeed is either by...
1. Catering to the needs of developers, such that the user community is also the development community.
2. Bootstrapping off of hobbyist users and crowdfunding to keep developers on board.
The second option is how Blender happened. It started out as an in-house tool at NeoGeo[0], then got sold as a proprietary shareware app by NaN Software, which went bankrupt. The fact that it was shareware meant they had a large hobbyist fanbase - it was very cheap compared to professional tools. So people were willing to crowdfund it; they were able to buy the software copyright off of NaN's creditors; and that enthusiasm continued for multiple decades until it became the massive behemoth that it is today.
For us to get a FOSS CAD app we need hobbyist buy-in. That's arguably a far smaller audience than hobbyist CG artists. And even then we have to compete with the free tiers on modern subscription apps. Blender's only competition back in the day was pirating Maya; but FreeCAD and friends have to compete with the cut-down hobbyist license on Fusion 360.
[0] No, not that one
1. Catering to the needs of developers, such that the user community is also the development community.
2. Bootstrapping off of hobbyist users and crowdfunding to keep developers on board.
The second option is how Blender happened. It started out as an in-house tool at NeoGeo[0], then got sold as a proprietary shareware app by NaN Software, which went bankrupt. The fact that it was shareware meant they had a large hobbyist fanbase - it was very cheap compared to professional tools. So people were willing to crowdfund it; they were able to buy the software copyright off of NaN's creditors; and that enthusiasm continued for multiple decades until it became the massive behemoth that it is today.
For us to get a FOSS CAD app we need hobbyist buy-in. That's arguably a far smaller audience than hobbyist CG artists. And even then we have to compete with the free tiers on modern subscription apps. Blender's only competition back in the day was pirating Maya; but FreeCAD and friends have to compete with the cut-down hobbyist license on Fusion 360.
[0] No, not that one
The 3D-printing crowd might be something though, it's getting very popular lately. They are often into open source and creating things so if you get them annoyed enough, there might be a competing product in the works :-)
Thanks for the footnote =D
Sadly, most a acceptable large consumer open source software related to a domain vertical has been basically the result of a commercial closed source company open sourcing effort before going under. Like open/libre office, blender, among others that escape me now.
The problem with Open source is that although developers are willing to share their time and skills for free, most other professionals just won't do it.
The problem with Open source is that although developers are willing to share their time and skills for free, most other professionals just won't do it.
Say funding is a given, how do you attract the talent?
Pay them better than anyone else can.
The biggest thing holding the open source CAD movement back is the available geometric kernels, the core they processes the geometric operations. The most “advanced” open source kernel is OpenCascade, and is used by FreeCAD, however it’s nowhere near as capable as the commercial kernels, harder to work with, dated and buggy.
We desperately need a modern open source geometric kernel, but that would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of man hours to build. The “best” and most popular kernel, Parasolid, is 40 years old and had constant improvemen.
FreeCAD/OpenCascade is the best we have, and will have, without significant financial investment to fund development.
We desperately need a modern open source geometric kernel, but that would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of man hours to build. The “best” and most popular kernel, Parasolid, is 40 years old and had constant improvemen.
FreeCAD/OpenCascade is the best we have, and will have, without significant financial investment to fund development.
Maybe. But at a hobbyist level, is the problem really the kernel?
The problem is that OpenSCAD is easy to get started and the code-first approach is unbelievably useful - but too simplistic/limited. Meanwhile, FreeCAD is too complex, and often buggy.
There's also CADQuery, which is surprisingly good already. Don't get me wrong, the GUI (CQ-Editor) is unusably buggy. But the Jupyter notebook integration works amazingly well. If I were that project, I would work on a hot-reload, cross platform, standalone viewer only (in the same way people use OpenSCAD often). I would also pay for that, safe in the knowledge that the code produced can't be locked in so easily.
Is it a FreeCAD replacement? For better or worse, no. But it has let me avoid FreeCAD/Fusion360, while finally being free of OpenSCAD shortcomings.
The problem is that OpenSCAD is easy to get started and the code-first approach is unbelievably useful - but too simplistic/limited. Meanwhile, FreeCAD is too complex, and often buggy.
There's also CADQuery, which is surprisingly good already. Don't get me wrong, the GUI (CQ-Editor) is unusably buggy. But the Jupyter notebook integration works amazingly well. If I were that project, I would work on a hot-reload, cross platform, standalone viewer only (in the same way people use OpenSCAD often). I would also pay for that, safe in the knowledge that the code produced can't be locked in so easily.
Is it a FreeCAD replacement? For better or worse, no. But it has let me avoid FreeCAD/Fusion360, while finally being free of OpenSCAD shortcomings.
> Don't get me wrong, the GUI (CQ-Editor) is unusably buggy. But the Jupyter notebook integration works amazingly well. If I were that project, I would work on a hot-reload, cross platform, standalone viewer only (in the same way people use OpenSCAD often).
Couldn't you equivalently use any STL/STEP/AMF viewer?
Seems a good choice to me that the GUI is a separate/subordinate project. I suppose it is somewhat necessary to have it at all, easier to gain popularity if you can show screenshots and have a single app 'quickstart'.
Couldn't you equivalently use any STL/STEP/AMF viewer?
Seems a good choice to me that the GUI is a separate/subordinate project. I suppose it is somewhat necessary to have it at all, easier to gain popularity if you can show screenshots and have a single app 'quickstart'.
> Couldn't you equivalently use any STL/STEP/AMF viewer?
I'm not sure. A quick feedback loop is important. With OpenSCAD and CadQuery, you write code that defines the geometry. You then want to see what the geometry looks like, and possibly debug it. For this, you generally want to be able to give certain parts a different color, or opacity, wireframe, etc.
STL is out; it has to tessellate geometry turning it into triangles. AFAIK, it only supports one object. This means a sensible wireframe is out, and so are multiple parts. AMF has similar drawbacks. STEP files might work.
Generally, my understanding is many people write OpenSCAD code in their editor of choice, and then simply save the file. When you open an existing file in OpenSCAD GUI, it monitors it for changes, and refreshes. So this is great.
That said, I misspoke a bit. CQ-Editor is definitely somewhat close to OpenSCAD. It still has a - in my view - unnecessary code editor. But the last standalone release is over a year ago, and I found it to be extremely buggy on macOS. It crashes quite often. Meanwhile, Jupyer-CadQuery [0] works great.
> Seems a good choice to me that the GUI is a separate/subordinate project. I suppose it is somewhat necessary to have it at all, easier to gain popularity if you can show screenshots and have a single app 'quickstart'.
Generally, I think this is true. My personal opinion is I can be productive with something that has a minimal set of features but is rock-solid; over something that has gobs of features but is buggy. That was my main issue with FreeCAD. Ease of installation is another big one. For all it's issues, OpenSCAD gets both of these things right.
[0] https://github.com/bernhard-42/jupyter-cadquery/
I'm not sure. A quick feedback loop is important. With OpenSCAD and CadQuery, you write code that defines the geometry. You then want to see what the geometry looks like, and possibly debug it. For this, you generally want to be able to give certain parts a different color, or opacity, wireframe, etc.
STL is out; it has to tessellate geometry turning it into triangles. AFAIK, it only supports one object. This means a sensible wireframe is out, and so are multiple parts. AMF has similar drawbacks. STEP files might work.
Generally, my understanding is many people write OpenSCAD code in their editor of choice, and then simply save the file. When you open an existing file in OpenSCAD GUI, it monitors it for changes, and refreshes. So this is great.
That said, I misspoke a bit. CQ-Editor is definitely somewhat close to OpenSCAD. It still has a - in my view - unnecessary code editor. But the last standalone release is over a year ago, and I found it to be extremely buggy on macOS. It crashes quite often. Meanwhile, Jupyer-CadQuery [0] works great.
> Seems a good choice to me that the GUI is a separate/subordinate project. I suppose it is somewhat necessary to have it at all, easier to gain popularity if you can show screenshots and have a single app 'quickstart'.
Generally, I think this is true. My personal opinion is I can be productive with something that has a minimal set of features but is rock-solid; over something that has gobs of features but is buggy. That was my main issue with FreeCAD. Ease of installation is another big one. For all it's issues, OpenSCAD gets both of these things right.
[0] https://github.com/bernhard-42/jupyter-cadquery/
I'm not as familiar with the formats as you are, all I meant was - with the assumption that the CQ viewer is doing the same, with {stdFormat} as intermediary - surely any other viewer could be used.
Just as long as it 'hot reloads', and then you can configure editor/IDE to compile the {stdFormat} file on save.
No need for the viewer to be first-party (to the language). (If assumption valid.)
Just as long as it 'hot reloads', and then you can configure editor/IDE to compile the {stdFormat} file on save.
No need for the viewer to be first-party (to the language). (If assumption valid.)
This a 3D modeling program I’m enjoying: https://solvespace.com
I wonder why brl-cad never seems to get any attention in these sorts of threads. It's open source mature CAD that has seen some serious use over its lifetime.
brl-cad doesn't use the same paradigm as Fusion360, Inventor, Solidworks, etc. brl-cad uses Constructive Solid Geometry, similar to OpenSCAD, where you declare geometric shapes with certain dimensions to exist, and boolean them together into the final shape.
Most popular engineering CAD programs are parametric -- you lay out shapes in2D or 3D, and then specify their dimensions and relationships. Parametric modelling makes it much easier to create highly-interdependent geometry, and also to understand or explore the degrees of freedom your design does and does not have.
Also, modelling in brl-cad means typing into a command prompt [1], which makes it much more difficult to figure out what you can, or should, do with it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C0fZ2iofgs
Most popular engineering CAD programs are parametric -- you lay out shapes in2D or 3D, and then specify their dimensions and relationships. Parametric modelling makes it much easier to create highly-interdependent geometry, and also to understand or explore the degrees of freedom your design does and does not have.
Also, modelling in brl-cad means typing into a command prompt [1], which makes it much more difficult to figure out what you can, or should, do with it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C0fZ2iofgs
>I really do hope this finally pushes the open source community to create a viable and enjoyable to use 3D CAD modelling software.
What incentive do people have to invest years of their life to do this and then not get a dime back? There is a reason why most commercial software is better than their free, open-source counterparts.
What incentive do people have to invest years of their life to do this and then not get a dime back? There is a reason why most commercial software is better than their free, open-source counterparts.
Don't get too attached to Solidworks. It seems to be moving in the same cloud-based direction.
OpenSCAD was awesome, but crawled to a halt with any complexity as it was single-threaded. I wish I had the skill set to parallelize AST processing to contribute.
It's not just a question of performance. OpenSCAD doesn't even begin to approach a tiny fraction of Fusion 360's feature set (even if you only look at the free "hobbyist" edition).
Which ones are you contributing to?
I've been trying to understand the codebase of Solvespace in order to add a feature (combining both windows into one) but I haven't had much time.
> I haven't had much time
There lies one of the reasons it's not just a matter of "push[ing] the open source community"
There lies one of the reasons it's not just a matter of "push[ing] the open source community"
It's astounding how much disrespect people will tolerate from proprietary software. If someone tried to disable my bike to force me to use their overpriced charter service, I'd call the police... we've somehow convinced ourselves this behavior is fine if it involves a computer. It is good to avoid doing business with people who act in this way. You deserve better.
I fell for Fusion 360's siren call years ago... by the time I realized their intentions, I'd made many, many designs in it. Fortunately, I came to my senses and abandoned the account, instead donating the price of 360's license to FreeCAD instead. CAD is a foundational technology. We can't leave it in the hands of some greedy VPs. If you must do business with a vendor of proprietary software, at least choose a company who will see your investment as a mutually beneficial partnership. Autodesk really seems to view your investment as a convenient leverage point to screw you when you're good and vulnerable.
I fell for Fusion 360's siren call years ago... by the time I realized their intentions, I'd made many, many designs in it. Fortunately, I came to my senses and abandoned the account, instead donating the price of 360's license to FreeCAD instead. CAD is a foundational technology. We can't leave it in the hands of some greedy VPs. If you must do business with a vendor of proprietary software, at least choose a company who will see your investment as a mutually beneficial partnership. Autodesk really seems to view your investment as a convenient leverage point to screw you when you're good and vulnerable.
This is one of the areas where piracy is good and moral, as a low-cost vigilante solution to harass corporations who have grown safe and fat. Piracy is a fresh slap on the backside to wake those kind of people up.
And this is why all this "muh cloud" bullshit is a nightmare world where you, the client, have 0 leverage or rights or any kind of weight. Aside from the astonishingly dumb UX choice of "You always need a reliable network to do anything" off course.
And this is why all this "muh cloud" bullshit is a nightmare world where you, the client, have 0 leverage or rights or any kind of weight. Aside from the astonishingly dumb UX choice of "You always need a reliable network to do anything" off course.
This is with one month of notice?
I don't use AutoCAD, so I'm a nobody here, but these sound like pretty important and often-used features to cut (er, transfer to pay-per-use) without _any justification_ whatsoever.
Seems like a great move to finally strangle that golden goose that's been kicking around all these years.
I don't use AutoCAD, so I'm a nobody here, but these sound like pretty important and often-used features to cut (er, transfer to pay-per-use) without _any justification_ whatsoever.
Seems like a great move to finally strangle that golden goose that's been kicking around all these years.
particularly given this:
8<---------------------------------------------------------
If I am in the middle of a project at the time of this update, can I delay the Fusion 360 update to solve the remaining tasks on my local machine? You can temporarily pause the update by enabling Offline Mode prior to September 6, 2022. This enables you to delay the update, only until you are prompted to reconnect to the Fusion 360 servers (up to 2 weeks after switching offline). You can find more details on how to enable Fusion 360 Offline Mode here: How to work in offline mode in Fusion 360.
It is recommended to not rely solely on the limited time you are provided by using the offline mode to complete your project. In the event where you require more time after being prompted to log back in, you can explore the cloud solve options, which utilize the same solvers as the local solvers had previously.
8<---------------------------------------------------------
If I am in the middle of a project at the time of this update, can I delay the Fusion 360 update to solve the remaining tasks on my local machine? You can temporarily pause the update by enabling Offline Mode prior to September 6, 2022. This enables you to delay the update, only until you are prompted to reconnect to the Fusion 360 servers (up to 2 weeks after switching offline). You can find more details on how to enable Fusion 360 Offline Mode here: How to work in offline mode in Fusion 360.
It is recommended to not rely solely on the limited time you are provided by using the offline mode to complete your project. In the event where you require more time after being prompted to log back in, you can explore the cloud solve options, which utilize the same solvers as the local solvers had previously.
Exactly, it's common in programs like solidworks to not upgrade for a year or more, until the project is done, then upgrade between projects. Autodesk just ensured that no legit engineering groups will choose fusion for any project of consequence - they can't be trusted.
Yeah golden goose for AutoCAD, eats all the jewelry in the house.
These guys have like super rosy estimates of what kind of bill you can present people with, like David Heinemeier Hanssen, figures "hey $20 a month no big deal" but it's like no $20 is a huge deal. They have an image of America where everybody earns $140000 a year and gets raises no problem, and doesn't get fucked out of practically all of it by the tumor industries--housing, medicine, and education. After the mortgage is paid, after the raise is negotiated, after the college degree turns out does not provide that six-figure paycheck, and after the doctor commits malpractice in a disgusting minute way to get recurring revenue from you, tells you a really sleazy lie to get you on the hook--after all that extortion, people really don't have $20 for a software license left at the end of the month.
.
Especially because those tumor industries price discriminate, as we all know tumors tend to squeeze. So it's the realtor trying to fuck you and refusing to show you nice houses you can afford, plus asking 6% commission on a house which of course means he's playing for the other team pumping up the price, telling you to show up with signed checks and shit, and of course blocking development to keep the inventory expensive, they have plenty of time for that. Then the bank extorting you whoops we can't process your mortgage relief act whoops your rate came in 1% higher--banks which can't even compute interest rates correctly, even in Stanford it's so embarrassing, and they just fetishistically want the highest interest rate they can get, so they give you like "incentives" shit, like give you money when you sign the demonic contracts.
.
Which are common in all these tumor industries, they're full of debt full of contracts, full of people staring you down--people on whose faces is imprinting the savage betrayal and harm they secretly do to those who can't pay[1]--and figure out exactly how many thousands they can get out of you. Plus they align with your boss--your boss offers you a ride home, now he knows where you live and can talk to the landlord, make sure you never benefit from a raise. Bosses pay for insurance, and the privacy is just not there, the costs bleed out so if you've had illness you're a liability, also because you can be out of work longer and in a justified way. Plus it's a super important factor, the insurance, because it binds you to the job in depressions so he can be more exploitative--bosses love depressions, get people to fucking work and never even think of asking for a raise--and insurance for employees is more than the wage itself in many cases. Then the final and most tumescent industry, education, actually demands you answer all kinds of intimate questions to figure out how much it can extract from "you" meaning the student's parents, for the benefit of the son, who is the one who actually gets fucked if there's delinquency on payment.
Tumor industries. You can't just jack up your price way above inflation forever--AutoCAD and I would say SaaS in general is about finished with their vendor-lock-in phase--the contracts are signed--now comes the tumor phase.
Adobe and AutoCAD are just the beginning.
[1] Ambulances 100% leave people on the side of the road dying when they get enough info on the patient to know they can get away with it (like someone who's been evicted), if he doesn't sign the digital thing getting on the hook for their $1200 taxi ride. You can see it in their face, that's how they get people to sign, by sometimes carrying out the threats they're implying with their shitty attitude. The whole game is pretending there's a choice when actually you and they both tacitly know you're fucked if you don't. They only have to do it a few times per paramedic--and there's magic spells that allow them to do it, like maybe special places that are OK for dumping the dying like they can do a special diagnosis claim you're fine turn around and leave you back at your house--but they do do it or otherwise people wouldn't cooperate like they do. They wouldn't have a legit coercive stare.
These guys have like super rosy estimates of what kind of bill you can present people with, like David Heinemeier Hanssen, figures "hey $20 a month no big deal" but it's like no $20 is a huge deal. They have an image of America where everybody earns $140000 a year and gets raises no problem, and doesn't get fucked out of practically all of it by the tumor industries--housing, medicine, and education. After the mortgage is paid, after the raise is negotiated, after the college degree turns out does not provide that six-figure paycheck, and after the doctor commits malpractice in a disgusting minute way to get recurring revenue from you, tells you a really sleazy lie to get you on the hook--after all that extortion, people really don't have $20 for a software license left at the end of the month.
.
Especially because those tumor industries price discriminate, as we all know tumors tend to squeeze. So it's the realtor trying to fuck you and refusing to show you nice houses you can afford, plus asking 6% commission on a house which of course means he's playing for the other team pumping up the price, telling you to show up with signed checks and shit, and of course blocking development to keep the inventory expensive, they have plenty of time for that. Then the bank extorting you whoops we can't process your mortgage relief act whoops your rate came in 1% higher--banks which can't even compute interest rates correctly, even in Stanford it's so embarrassing, and they just fetishistically want the highest interest rate they can get, so they give you like "incentives" shit, like give you money when you sign the demonic contracts.
.
Which are common in all these tumor industries, they're full of debt full of contracts, full of people staring you down--people on whose faces is imprinting the savage betrayal and harm they secretly do to those who can't pay[1]--and figure out exactly how many thousands they can get out of you. Plus they align with your boss--your boss offers you a ride home, now he knows where you live and can talk to the landlord, make sure you never benefit from a raise. Bosses pay for insurance, and the privacy is just not there, the costs bleed out so if you've had illness you're a liability, also because you can be out of work longer and in a justified way. Plus it's a super important factor, the insurance, because it binds you to the job in depressions so he can be more exploitative--bosses love depressions, get people to fucking work and never even think of asking for a raise--and insurance for employees is more than the wage itself in many cases. Then the final and most tumescent industry, education, actually demands you answer all kinds of intimate questions to figure out how much it can extract from "you" meaning the student's parents, for the benefit of the son, who is the one who actually gets fucked if there's delinquency on payment.
Tumor industries. You can't just jack up your price way above inflation forever--AutoCAD and I would say SaaS in general is about finished with their vendor-lock-in phase--the contracts are signed--now comes the tumor phase.
Adobe and AutoCAD are just the beginning.
[1] Ambulances 100% leave people on the side of the road dying when they get enough info on the patient to know they can get away with it (like someone who's been evicted), if he doesn't sign the digital thing getting on the hook for their $1200 taxi ride. You can see it in their face, that's how they get people to sign, by sometimes carrying out the threats they're implying with their shitty attitude. The whole game is pretending there's a choice when actually you and they both tacitly know you're fucked if you don't. They only have to do it a few times per paramedic--and there's magic spells that allow them to do it, like maybe special places that are OK for dumping the dying like they can do a special diagnosis claim you're fine turn around and leave you back at your house--but they do do it or otherwise people wouldn't cooperate like they do. They wouldn't have a legit coercive stare.
As someone who uses and relies on Fusion for work, it's frustrating how customer hostile Autodesk is. And this is on top of their subscription price increase they announced in March.
A part of me wants to reimplement the tool holders for ToolWall[1] in OpenSCAD[2] and be done with it with Autodesk forever.
[1] - https://toolwallhq.com
[2] - https://openscad.org
A part of me wants to reimplement the tool holders for ToolWall[1] in OpenSCAD[2] and be done with it with Autodesk forever.
[1] - https://toolwallhq.com
[2] - https://openscad.org
If you know folk in the industry - I'd be keen to know what work needs funding to be enough to move from Autodesk to OpenSCAD or similar
Fusion supports a wide range of use case from CAD to CAM and others. None of open source tools (FreeCad, OpenSCAD, Opencad etc.) come close to matching Fusion's features. I don't think most even support CAM which I need for CNC tool paths.
Happy to chat more if you're interested in it.
Happy to chat more if you're interested in it.
I'm keen to connect - my email is on my profile if you'd like to.
Just connected to another via this same thread.
I do wonder if there's enough engineers that started in the 00's and are now almost retired looking to work on righting some wrongs in our industry :D
Just connected to another via this same thread.
I do wonder if there's enough engineers that started in the 00's and are now almost retired looking to work on righting some wrongs in our industry :D
> engineers that started in the 00's and are now almost retired
That's a different take on age discrimination in hiring than I'm used to seeing!
That's a different take on age discrimination in hiring than I'm used to seeing!
I’ve been using OnShape, which is pretty nice.
I'm currently in an adjacent industry and used a variety of CAD packages in previous work. What you're suggesting is noble, but not really feasible. If you want specifics (and there's a lot of them), let me know and I can shoot you an email.
Heya, yeah I'm keen to understand your thoughts on this.
UX is probably one of the biggest stumbling blocks for two reasons:
Open source software historically treats users as an afterthought (or worse makes really terrible attempts at courting them like GIMP).
Different CAD suites use different terms and have radically different interfaces. There's a lot of (un)learning to do. Go fillet something in Fusion then try to do the same in FreeCAD. Not only is the interface ever so slightly different than Fusion, you have to navigate a minefield of bugs and limitations in FreeCAD. Yikes.
But by comparing Autodesk (presumably Fusion and not e.g. Buzzsaw or Maya) to OpenSCAD you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. OpenSCAD is a thin wrapper around a CAD programming language, it's an entirely different than something like SolidWorks or Fusion.
Open source software historically treats users as an afterthought (or worse makes really terrible attempts at courting them like GIMP).
Different CAD suites use different terms and have radically different interfaces. There's a lot of (un)learning to do. Go fillet something in Fusion then try to do the same in FreeCAD. Not only is the interface ever so slightly different than Fusion, you have to navigate a minefield of bugs and limitations in FreeCAD. Yikes.
But by comparing Autodesk (presumably Fusion and not e.g. Buzzsaw or Maya) to OpenSCAD you're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. OpenSCAD is a thin wrapper around a CAD programming language, it's an entirely different than something like SolidWorks or Fusion.
You must be young. In the late 90's most corporate software were utterly different from each other.
You must be inexperienced and/or naive. No firm is going force its engineers to migrate to a different package (open source or otherwise), the cost of relearning everything is simply too high. This was true in the 90s as well.
The case for hobbyists is a bit different as they're often more willing to try something like FreeCAD that's missing a bunch of features or makes them far more tedious to implement. Try dealing with parameters in FreeCAD. Or, better yet, recreate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj9Sc5PPTnU
The case for hobbyists is a bit different as they're often more willing to try something like FreeCAD that's missing a bunch of features or makes them far more tedious to implement. Try dealing with parameters in FreeCAD. Or, better yet, recreate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj9Sc5PPTnU
> someone who uses and relies on Fusion for work
To be fair, the writing has been on the wall for a very long time.
Autodesk has been completely hostile to their customers (because said customers are a captive audience and they know it) since the 90's, so what is happening here should not come as a surprise to anyone.
To be fair, the writing has been on the wall for a very long time.
Autodesk has been completely hostile to their customers (because said customers are a captive audience and they know it) since the 90's, so what is happening here should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Their cloud is extremely slow, even saving a simple object as STL to print is slow.
If you save it via the export as workaround it takes milliseconds to save.
If you save it via the default menu you are in for a 2 minute wait where their cloud is doing something and then it generates the same file.
Absurd.
If you save it via the export as workaround it takes milliseconds to save.
If you save it via the default menu you are in for a 2 minute wait where their cloud is doing something and then it generates the same file.
Absurd.
The local export is not just faster, it's functionally better: there are a few useful options you can tweak. The one option I'm using local export for is increasing detail, e.g. to get a very round object without noticeable edges around the perimeter.
As a hobbyist who used Fusion 360 for various woodworking design and CNC tasks, this doesn’t really impact me, however, it basically pushes me a lot closer to investing in other tools.
Basically, pulling features without much communication or forewarning is just not OK.
Part of me wonders about the feasibility of an open source business based around paid support and training of a complex professional tool. I know of cases this works for tools aimed at software engineers, but I’d be curious if that was really attempted with CAD
Basically, pulling features without much communication or forewarning is just not OK.
Part of me wonders about the feasibility of an open source business based around paid support and training of a complex professional tool. I know of cases this works for tools aimed at software engineers, but I’d be curious if that was really attempted with CAD
> Part of me wonders about the feasibility of an open source business based around paid support and training of a complex professional tool. I know of cases this works for tools aimed at software engineers, but I’d be curious if that was really attempted with CAD
Solidworks isn't open source, but they provide support and training. So it's possible of open source business to do the same.
Solidworks isn't open source, but they provide support and training. So it's possible of open source business to do the same.
https://myigetit.com/
They do it for the big cad programs.
They do it for the big cad programs.
How user-hostile. With all this cloud nonsense the need for effort and funding in open-source CAD is greater than ever.
I'm starting to think we need laws saying that functionality that can be done without a cloud subscription must be offered to be allowed to run locally for a reasonable one time payment. No heated seat subscriptions, no photoshop as a service. The future is bleak if this is allowed to continue.
As long as good competition can be fostered, it doesn't have to be bleak. As much as people complain about the adobe packages, it receives updates frequently and new features all the time and I think the monthly fee is reasonable considering what the old one time fees were.
I wish FreeCAD could get the sort of performance and UI overhauls Blender got.
I'm not even a CAD user and I'd contribute to some large-scale fundraiser to improve open-source CAD. Hopefully plenty of mechanical engineering shops will see the value in contributing. Expensive specialist developers are needed, but it'll be worth it.
Does FreeCAD have a foundation that allows for at least a handful of paid enployees to work on it? I think that’s the key to a successful open source desktop app, it has to have long term full time contributors. That requires buy in from industry.
Maybe FreeCAD should start charging businesses for compiled executables.
CadQuery with a GUI sounds really good right now.
Several years ago I advocated transitioning our academic robotics research lab to using Fusion 360 as our default for design. I regret that choice more and more with every decision like this. We are rarely affected by these changes on our academic license, but I hate to see students invest in a tool that may suddenly become unreasonable to continue using later.
During my PhD, the lab invested a lot of software development effort into a closed-source robotics platform that was discontinued [1]. I will try hard to avoid closed platforms in the future.
As academics, I feel we should put in our best effort to use and contribute back to open-source platforms. It's not crazy to spend the first year of your PhD adding a feature to an open-source package if it will boost your research productivity for the next 4 years. It's also easier to work around limitations when you only need to run one experiment instead of producing a robust product.
[1] Qualcomm Snapdragon Flight, a RPi-sized board with onboard stereo cameras and GPS. The hardware was unbeatable at the time.
As academics, I feel we should put in our best effort to use and contribute back to open-source platforms. It's not crazy to spend the first year of your PhD adding a feature to an open-source package if it will boost your research productivity for the next 4 years. It's also easier to work around limitations when you only need to run one experiment instead of producing a robust product.
[1] Qualcomm Snapdragon Flight, a RPi-sized board with onboard stereo cameras and GPS. The hardware was unbeatable at the time.
About a year ago we finally banned Autodesk from our department because of policies like this and the looming cloud lock. We had a good hard look at what we actually needed, and decided to pay significantly more for the whole SOLIDWORKS Shebang, as it integrates well with CST Studio. When it came to EAGLE, we decided on KiCad as it has well developed and currently fits our needs without quite needing Altium.
They... uh... know that Autodesk is used in a lot of airgapped SCIFs, right? This was always our problem with moving flight simulators to pure SAAS: if the Air Force couldn't use it we couldn't afford to make it.
You'll just have to purchase the Autodesk™℠ for Government TS Plus Premium package! At the low, low cost of $1 million per Core Processor Licensing Unit [1].
[1] https://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core...
[1] https://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core...
> This was always our problem with moving flight simulators to pure SAAS: if the Air Force couldn't use it we couldn't afford to make it.
Why not make a custom build that connects to a local server? The Air Force can probably pay whatever fee you ask if they want it enough.
Why not make a custom build that connects to a local server? The Air Force can probably pay whatever fee you ask if they want it enough.
I argued that but it kept running in to some contractual problem that was several miles above my paygrade (I think the short version was it had to meet their definition of COTS which precludes any kind of custom build).
Presumably air-gapped installs will not receive the update to disable the feature.
This could make Autodesk a no-go for companies that make designs for defense or critical infrastructure, where sharing the design with Autodesk (or any other entity) is not an option.
Companies that are not based in the US in particular will probably start looking at Solidworks, if they have not done so already.
Companies that are not based in the US in particular will probably start looking at Solidworks, if they have not done so already.
No-one in these spaces was using Fusion/360 to begin with. Aero and defense are mostly CATIA 5 and Pro/ENGINEER (Creo), with offline PDM.
Friendly reminder that CATIA[1], which was used to design the Eurofighter Typhoon, runs really well under Wine.
I'm sure that's not 100% feature-equivalent to the latest Autodesk Fusion, but at least you can run it locally without getting raked over the coals by the software company.
[1] https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=applicatio...
I'm sure that's not 100% feature-equivalent to the latest Autodesk Fusion, but at least you can run it locally without getting raked over the coals by the software company.
[1] https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=applicatio...
I did hear this week that Autodesk Construction Cloud is currently banned from military projects (was in use and is not currently permitted) because of something to do with security policies; but I didn't find out what exactly was in violation, does anyone happen to know what the issue is/was?
Nah, Fusion already has "cloud save" exclusively, so that ship has long sailed. You can't not share your designs with them, AFAIK.
Revit is such a terrible tool that there’s an entire ecosystem of AddIns that support the pathetic program. Autodesk hasn’t since made significant improvements. They probably don’t even have enough C# programmers to update the codebase.
I swear, the companies in 3d software tooling adjacent industries must almost _want_ Blender to eat their lunch.
If affected companies banded together to pay in even 10% of what they currently pay Autodesk towards working with the blender foundation, we'd see it all in FOSS within 2 years.
Coordination problems are hard though. Only time will tell how hard people will actually push back.
If affected companies banded together to pay in even 10% of what they currently pay Autodesk towards working with the blender foundation, we'd see it all in FOSS within 2 years.
Coordination problems are hard though. Only time will tell how hard people will actually push back.
CAD is fundamentally different from mesh-based 3D. You’d have to start from scratch. Plus the physics simulations are serious, not video game stuff. There’s also a minefield of patents to contend with. Nor can you forge your own path if you want people’s models to be compatible (and I mean mathematically, not just file formats).
It’s not even just patents, most of these software share solid modelling kernels. The Siemens tools mostly use ParaSolid. Dassault’s use CGM. There’s all sorts of inter licensing deals in this space.
Blender is not CAD/CAM software.
I'm aware, however there have been a couple efforts now to introduce CAD tooling into Blender.
https://github.com/hlorus/CAD_Sketcher
https://github.com/EleotleCram/blender-cad-tools
I'm not suggesting that they are ready for professional use, just that I don't think the Autodesk moat is as deep as some might assume, and that if there was a concerted community effort Blender could accomplish those tasks.
https://github.com/hlorus/CAD_Sketcher
https://github.com/EleotleCram/blender-cad-tools
I'm not suggesting that they are ready for professional use, just that I don't think the Autodesk moat is as deep as some might assume, and that if there was a concerted community effort Blender could accomplish those tasks.
[deleted]
you can explore the cloud solve options, which utilize the same solvers as the local solvers had previously.
They're not even pretending it's some kind of fancy big-computer advantage.
They're not even pretending it's some kind of fancy big-computer advantage.
Somebody there probably worked at EA previously. Here's the conversation:
"I know, we'll focus on the incredible compute power that only The Cloud can provide! We can say... 'reduce your capex by leveraging our best-in-class simulation engine. Your existing commodity hardware just got a lot more powerful.', or some such bullshit. Whaddyathink?"
"No go. We tried that with Sims 4, and it just pissed off our user base even more. This move isn't going to make friends; best we just rip the band-aid off and avoid fluffy justifications."
"I know, we'll focus on the incredible compute power that only The Cloud can provide! We can say... 'reduce your capex by leveraging our best-in-class simulation engine. Your existing commodity hardware just got a lot more powerful.', or some such bullshit. Whaddyathink?"
"No go. We tried that with Sims 4, and it just pissed off our user base even more. This move isn't going to make friends; best we just rip the band-aid off and avoid fluffy justifications."
I'll just leave this here.
https://opensource.com/alternatives/autocad
https://opensource.com/alternatives/autocad
> Open source computer-aided design software may have everything you actually need.
Quite the sales pitch.
I always pick FOSS first, but, even as a hobbyist I find myself limited by the feature set of FOSS options in this space. And I hardly even know what half of the features in Fusion 360’s menus even do.
Quite the sales pitch.
I always pick FOSS first, but, even as a hobbyist I find myself limited by the feature set of FOSS options in this space. And I hardly even know what half of the features in Fusion 360’s menus even do.
Whelp, there goes any interest I had in paying for Fusion360.
edit: In the interest of not just whining, does anyone know a competent hobbyist-grade fea/cfd solution? Doesn't have to be free[0], but I'm not going to pay for a license to pay for compute.
[0] I've tried open foam once or twice, but couldn't get a decent workflow put together (model > mesh > sim > results).
edit: In the interest of not just whining, does anyone know a competent hobbyist-grade fea/cfd solution? Doesn't have to be free[0], but I'm not going to pay for a license to pay for compute.
[0] I've tried open foam once or twice, but couldn't get a decent workflow put together (model > mesh > sim > results).
I'm late to this thread but wanted to ask in case anyone sees this and has a specific recommendation:
Is there a good free/cheap alternative to F360 for me?
I use Fusion 360 to model simple things for 3d printing. I've gotten used to it and think it's great when things work, but have been weary of their cloud and buggy "free personal use" licensing stuff since the start.
I'll check out some of the other programs mentioned in this thread -- SolveSpace, FreeCAD etc. -- but from a first glance it seems they will all take ages to get used to.
Maybe I should try become a Blender god even though IIRC that isn't really set up to do parametric modelling (I have a passing interest in game design etc. so the skill could be useful)?
Is there a good free/cheap alternative to F360 for me?
I use Fusion 360 to model simple things for 3d printing. I've gotten used to it and think it's great when things work, but have been weary of their cloud and buggy "free personal use" licensing stuff since the start.
I'll check out some of the other programs mentioned in this thread -- SolveSpace, FreeCAD etc. -- but from a first glance it seems they will all take ages to get used to.
Maybe I should try become a Blender god even though IIRC that isn't really set up to do parametric modelling (I have a passing interest in game design etc. so the skill could be useful)?
[deleted]
I've been using OnShape for the same sort of work. For now at least it's less user-hostile, but it's web based so they could still turn on you.
I'm still hopeful that Blender will become a great parametric modeler. Check out the https://www.cadsketcher.com/ add-on - it's getting to the point where I might take the leap.
I'm still hopeful that Blender will become a great parametric modeler. Check out the https://www.cadsketcher.com/ add-on - it's getting to the point where I might take the leap.
Sweet, will look into those, thanks.
I just spent a while in wonder at a node-based parametric design tool for Blender called Sverchok[1] - looks super powerful but wayyyy too much for my 3D printing toothbrush holders and phone stands haha.
CAD Sketcher looks much more like what I'm used to.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu_31Cigflc
I just spent a while in wonder at a node-based parametric design tool for Blender called Sverchok[1] - looks super powerful but wayyyy too much for my 3D printing toothbrush holders and phone stands haha.
CAD Sketcher looks much more like what I'm used to.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu_31Cigflc
Solid Edge should do what you want. Their CAM is pay-for, but iirc the 3d printing parts are part of the free offering.
Thanks, took a while to find but seems the version to go for is their Community Edition[1].
Had a look at a recent tutorial and it looks great!
[1] https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/plmapp/education/soli...
Had a look at a recent tutorial and it looks great!
[1] https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/plmapp/education/soli...
FreeCAD has local simulation. Don't like the UI? Pitch in or fund the team.
Is there anyone interested in working on an open source alternative to Fusion 360, Solidworks, etc.? A Blender for CAD/CAM?
There’s a real need for this.
There’s a real need for this.
FreeCAD[1] is the most advanced in my opinion. The next release is also supposed to solve the longstanding topological naming issue, and finally be the first 1.0 version.
[1]https://www.freecad.org/
[1]https://www.freecad.org/
FreeCAD is just a parametric modeler with export capability. There are an ecosystem of plugins to provide various CAM capabilities, and finite element modeling like the OP is about, but it's not integrated together like Fusion 360 is.
I think the current state of open-source CAD/CAM is a looong way from matching what Solidworks or Fusion 360 can do out of the box.
I think the current state of open-source CAD/CAM is a looong way from matching what Solidworks or Fusion 360 can do out of the box.
There are a few parametric CADs already: FreeCAD, etc. I seem to like how SolveSpace works, but it doesn't have CAM...
Hi there, Autodesk engineer here.
I haven't been here too long, but it's decisions like these which make me ashamed to be associated with this company. I work on a different product, but it feels incredibly odd sometimes to see these kinds of articles, because the engineers I work with are really focused on the end user experience, at least on my team. That being said, I've seen a lot of issues here.
First off, our sales force is ridiculously massive. We have 8,000 full time sales people (although they get a fancy title like, solutions expert). In comparison, the number of engineers and UX folks who work on Revit is under 200. We're completely sales-first.
Second off, the amount of mid-level managers who have no other dependents besides a manager is astounding. My boss's boss has no other dependents than my boss, and it's the same thing with my boss's boss's boss. Have absolutely no clue what value they add to the org. There's so much political infighting that makes it incredibly hard to get anything accomplished, we have certain teams that refuse to communicate with another team and they literally just go two separate paths instead of following a unified vision.
Third, our top level VP's / executive suite have never used Autodesk products before. I'm not kidding about this. I'm 100% that our new CTO, Raji Arasu, has never used any Autodesk product before, based on meetings we've had. Given her background from Intuit, this isn't a huge surprise, but could you imagine if the CTO at Tesla had never driven a Tesla before?
I'm not sure how we've gotten to this point. The CEO is literally a rocket scientist from JPL, I can't figure out why he's running the company into this direction of extreme greed. Autodesk is a complete monopoly, and many of the people inside this org are extremely comfortable with the moat that Autodesk has built. I'm not.
First off, our sales force is ridiculously massive. We have 8,000 full time sales people (although they get a fancy title like, solutions expert). In comparison, the number of engineers and UX folks who work on Revit is under 200. We're completely sales-first.
Second off, the amount of mid-level managers who have no other dependents besides a manager is astounding. My boss's boss has no other dependents than my boss, and it's the same thing with my boss's boss's boss. Have absolutely no clue what value they add to the org. There's so much political infighting that makes it incredibly hard to get anything accomplished, we have certain teams that refuse to communicate with another team and they literally just go two separate paths instead of following a unified vision.
Third, our top level VP's / executive suite have never used Autodesk products before. I'm not kidding about this. I'm 100% that our new CTO, Raji Arasu, has never used any Autodesk product before, based on meetings we've had. Given her background from Intuit, this isn't a huge surprise, but could you imagine if the CTO at Tesla had never driven a Tesla before?
I'm not sure how we've gotten to this point. The CEO is literally a rocket scientist from JPL, I can't figure out why he's running the company into this direction of extreme greed. Autodesk is a complete monopoly, and many of the people inside this org are extremely comfortable with the moat that Autodesk has built. I'm not.
Autodesk is not a software company but a marketing company. They just buy smaller competitors and repackage their stuff. If you think of them that way, that can make the organizational structure clearer.
I cannot overstate how good for humanity it would be to have good open source 3D CAD. I kind of think/hope that eventually we will move to all open source software, but it may be a very long time. I can’t imagine how many engineering projects around the globe will suffer because of this one decision. This decision is a net negative for humanity.
I see an opportunity and truly hope for an open source CAD/CAM project with similar success to what Blender has achieved on the modeling/animation/rendering side. There are a few CAD /CAM free software efforts but nothing comes close yet that I've seen, which keeps me paying the Autodesk subscription / tax.
This is ridiculous. I've done some FEA analysis models in Fusion 360 and simple models are way quicker when ran locally. Like 5 seconds vs 30 seconds.
Most galling was that they glued Eagle into fusion and killed off Eagle, the largest EDA tool.
I like their [0] anti piracy page. So disconnect from reality with their pricing.
[0] https://www.autodesk.com/genuine/autocad
[0] https://www.autodesk.com/genuine/autocad
They list POOR PERFORMANCE as a risk of non-genuine autocad software but actually, I'd say it's the opposite, usually removing all telemetry tends to improve performance.
I'd also love to see the actual data behind their claims of "Companies that install nonvalid software on their network face a 1 in 3 chance of obtaining malware.*"
Not that I'm endorsing pirating software like this in a professional setting.
I'd also love to see the actual data behind their claims of "Companies that install nonvalid software on their network face a 1 in 3 chance of obtaining malware.*"
Not that I'm endorsing pirating software like this in a professional setting.
I heard ;-) … the adobe software runs better when the cloud crap is not installed.
The genuine adobe software installs a load of cloud sync something and it crippled every pc I had.
Even ultra beefy machines with 16 threads, loads of ram and gpu power.
To think I used to tell a story about how in college I went to there were 2 primary cad packages being used, One was I think CadKey? The other was Autocad (10ish through 12ish for dos). Cadkey required a hardware dongle to run, autocad required a serial number and the floppies were normal and copied fine.
"Why don't they copy protect that? what are they stupid?"
Everyone in the world (seemingly) had a pirate copy of acad at home for free, and got real good at it, and every small shop that does any sort of drawing even art stuff like sign makers let alone landscapers, architects, urban planers, etc, alllll ended up buying tons of legit licenses because everyone they wanted to hire plus their own selves, all know acad, and no one's even heard of cadkey or whatever that other one was.
I used to tell that story as an example of enlightened self interest, deliberately enabling piracy being not only nicer but also making you far richer than fanatically trying to detect and prosecute every tiny instance of "zomg theft!".
Either Autodesk was never actually that intentionally nice company I thought they were, or it changed.
I have read a few articles from early employees and I think what it really was originally was schizophrenic. It had people with different attitudes at the same time so the company did both good and bad things at the same time, until the douchebags won as they always do and drove the nice guys out.
"Why don't they copy protect that? what are they stupid?"
Everyone in the world (seemingly) had a pirate copy of acad at home for free, and got real good at it, and every small shop that does any sort of drawing even art stuff like sign makers let alone landscapers, architects, urban planers, etc, alllll ended up buying tons of legit licenses because everyone they wanted to hire plus their own selves, all know acad, and no one's even heard of cadkey or whatever that other one was.
I used to tell that story as an example of enlightened self interest, deliberately enabling piracy being not only nicer but also making you far richer than fanatically trying to detect and prosecute every tiny instance of "zomg theft!".
Either Autodesk was never actually that intentionally nice company I thought they were, or it changed.
I have read a few articles from early employees and I think what it really was originally was schizophrenic. It had people with different attitudes at the same time so the company did both good and bad things at the same time, until the douchebags won as they always do and drove the nice guys out.
Sometimes I feel bad about being so behind the curve on hosting and data storage and running the little python notebook that could on my personal machine, but then I see stuff like this.
I took some evenings to investigate the state of entry-level CAD software for some 3D designs I need to do, and this is timely—-I have no interest in subscription offerings and find cloud-centric solutions to be too risky in general terms (especially lock in), but Fusion 360 has such a huge user base that I could not ignore it.
I will go on investigating FreeCAD, Solverspace and CAD Sketcher for Blender…
I will go on investigating FreeCAD, Solverspace and CAD Sketcher for Blender…
Autodesk are just the worst offenders. I hope Blender will thrive (even more) and CAD software will follow the lead.
Oof, that doesn't sound like a popular move! Speaking of simulations though, there is SideFX Houdini? (can probably handle CAD-type stuff a bit nowadays? and certainly lots of types of simulations!)
I do hope that SideFX (Houdini) stays independent. Things I've heard suggest that they intend to, and I also hope that they continue on their current trajectory - I think the general direction is very positive! Not perfect of course (and not opensource of course, but very open in practice) A lot of very solid dev seems to happen at SideFX, and a lot is communicated about what's happening, and their support (email contact for when things go wrong) is absolutely STELLAR too!
I do hope that SideFX (Houdini) stays independent. Things I've heard suggest that they intend to, and I also hope that they continue on their current trajectory - I think the general direction is very positive! Not perfect of course (and not opensource of course, but very open in practice) A lot of very solid dev seems to happen at SideFX, and a lot is communicated about what's happening, and their support (email contact for when things go wrong) is absolutely STELLAR too!
Crack that shit, fuck them
Man, Autodesk has been making all the wrong moves recently. What is going on over there?
Lately? Autodesk has been a user-hostile company for a long time.
They’ve milked AutoCAD and Revit long enough. Time for alternatives.
Just use Solidworks. They have the largest market share by far, you can find and hire people that have used it to design and ship actual products with it, it has a special startup pricing deal for startups that have raised less then a million, student licenses, and if you need to buy a seat outright they start at 4k, with 1.5k maintenance per year. That's for unlimited use, it's your software. 1.5k for each batch of cloud computers tokens, that's gonna add up fast...
There's a lot of grumbling in here from people that I have to assume don't understand what Fusion 360 is. This was always an uncomfortably cloud-based product. You cannot save files locally with this package. This decision isn't (or at least shouldn't be) blindsiding anybody. There are countless packages from Dassault, Autodesk, PTC, Siemens, Ansys, OpenFOAM, etc. that you can buy perpetual licenses for.
I figured this would happen sooner or later. As someone who runs mechanical FEA when necessary, I know why some companies are reluctant to use this particular CAD/simulation package.
A lot of industries have export restrictions, and non-local storage or use of export restricted hardware designs is a significant federal penalty.
Ansys and abaqus, older competitors than fusion simulation, will have local solves for this reason.
A lot of industries have export restrictions, and non-local storage or use of export restricted hardware designs is a significant federal penalty.
Ansys and abaqus, older competitors than fusion simulation, will have local solves for this reason.
I was thinking to test Fusion360 personal/home edition. But I have read something that all you do is saved in the cloud. Is this correct or can your things be save privately and locally only?
I also think that I have read something that anything you do with the free version is public available but that have to be wrong or I have mixed this up with some other software, or?
I also think that I have read something that anything you do with the free version is public available but that have to be wrong or I have mixed this up with some other software, or?
You can't save locally, it's all saved in the cloud. However you can download a copy from the cloud afterwards.
And no, it doesn't make your designs publicly available.
And no, it doesn't make your designs publicly available.
It’s funny, I commented on the update release blog where they announced this, and the comment has been “awaiting moderation” ever since.
I pay for fusion, and this really sucks. I’m happy to pay for a product I use, but I am not game to get nickel and dimed for features that used to be built in.
The software is great, but Autodesk clearly needs some new PMs.
I pay for fusion, and this really sucks. I’m happy to pay for a product I use, but I am not game to get nickel and dimed for features that used to be built in.
The software is great, but Autodesk clearly needs some new PMs.
Is this a feature we could add to openscad? Seems like a lot of people would be willing to pay someone to add it.
It’s not really. OpenSCAD is awesome but you can’t even model a true circle or export a solid that’s useful for CAM.
The people who want simulation in Fusion 360 probably didn’t pick it over openscad for that one feature. They’re very different tools.
So Autodesk fusion 360 is opting out of government and defence contracts?
I presume there's rules somewhere where parts for the F-22, or HIMARS can't be hosted on some random companies cloud.
I presume there's rules somewhere where parts for the F-22, or HIMARS can't be hosted on some random companies cloud.
What domains do I need to out in my hosts file to block their updater?
Autodesk, already renowned as one of the worst IT companies under the sun finds new and innovative ways to fuck their customers sideways, news at 10.
Wonder how many companies will be forced to drop the app because they don’t allow their designs to be uploaded to the cloud.
Was that something you could ever do with Fusion 360? Fusion 360 was my introduction to CAD and it has been very cloud-heavy since I started using it. I think they must have some other product for actual companies, competing with Solidworks.
Inventor is their direct competitor to Solidworks, which afaik can still be run offline.
You can export local f3d files (also STEP, STL, etc, but f3d contains the necessary bits for timeline, etc).
I assume AutoCAD is the closest equivalent to SolidWorks that they sell, but I'm not certain. That's the first CAD software I used- back in middle school, so mid-to-late 1980s. They added 3D support and I think it uses the same underlying code to handle 3D structures. Again, not certain- it's not a product I pay any attention to.
FWIW, I spend a bunch of time in Fusion 360 and I hadn't really done anything with simulation (it's on the bucket list, but not a priority).
I assume AutoCAD is the closest equivalent to SolidWorks that they sell, but I'm not certain. That's the first CAD software I used- back in middle school, so mid-to-late 1980s. They added 3D support and I think it uses the same underlying code to handle 3D structures. Again, not certain- it's not a product I pay any attention to.
FWIW, I spend a bunch of time in Fusion 360 and I hadn't really done anything with simulation (it's on the bucket list, but not a priority).
I feel the same way about simulations. People are mad that Fusion 360 started turning the screws on hobbyists. It is ridiculously expensive for noodling around with your 3D printer once a month. I paid rather than learning some other piece of software, and whether or not simulation is free is not something that particularly bothers me. I'm always considering jumping to something else in the back of my mind; OpenSCAD is most appealing to me, but I like the 2D sketch + extrude model.
(All the cool kids are using Onshape now, but I just can't get excited about a browser app. So I keep using Fusion 360, and honestly, I still like it, even if Autodesk is not a shining paragon of software and social excellence.)
(All the cool kids are using Onshape now, but I just can't get excited about a browser app. So I keep using Fusion 360, and honestly, I still like it, even if Autodesk is not a shining paragon of software and social excellence.)
For sketch + extrude FreeCAD really isn’t bad once you get over the slightly quirky UI.
As a hobbyist, you still don't have to pay for fusion 360. There are a few annoyances like only having 10 active files at a time, but otherwise, most features are still there for free users.
It's not quite the same niche and it costs $1K, but Rhino might do what you want, you will own it, it has a great user community and is very responsive to its users. For making things to 3D print it should be great.
Inventor is their closest solidworks equivalent. My understanding is that you can do 3D in AutoCAD but probably don't want to. The only thing I've personally seen it used for is factory layout.
[deleted]
Man, I can’t understand what they’re thinking over at Autodesk. Right now I have the student license for Fusion 360- I was (still am to be frank) thinking about becoming a paying customer at some point- occasionally they do a $100 a year sale, which is a far more reasonable price than it is normally. But when they keep pulling crap like this, it makes it real hard to commit to, especially with Onshape existing and SOLIDWORKS having not-terrible personal offerings now.
If I were pulling the strings, I’d go all in on trying to convert hobbyists and students- pricing at $100/$150 a year all year round and add a monthly tier for $15/$20. I don’t even mind locking features like simulation behind a paywall- 99% of users designing for 3D printing, 2D manufacturing like laser cutting, and basic CNC machined parts don’t need them (though I’d throw in a few free cloud credits for the value-add, and make them a bit less of a rip-off). What do I know though.
One thing I suspect- there are a lot of people using the free license to make money (which is not allowed), so I guess they’re turning the screws on.. their paying customers? Much easier to just make the software good value IMO.
If I were pulling the strings, I’d go all in on trying to convert hobbyists and students- pricing at $100/$150 a year all year round and add a monthly tier for $15/$20. I don’t even mind locking features like simulation behind a paywall- 99% of users designing for 3D printing, 2D manufacturing like laser cutting, and basic CNC machined parts don’t need them (though I’d throw in a few free cloud credits for the value-add, and make them a bit less of a rip-off). What do I know though.
One thing I suspect- there are a lot of people using the free license to make money (which is not allowed), so I guess they’re turning the screws on.. their paying customers? Much easier to just make the software good value IMO.
> One thing I suspect- there are a lot of people using the free license to make money (which is not allowed), so I guess they’re turning the screws on.. their paying customers
I don't understand. The free version doesn't have simulation anymore for a while.
I don't understand. The free version doesn't have simulation anymore for a while.
Actcad is pretty good and very reasonbly priced, and uses all the same commands as autocad
I just wish there was anything remotely close to as ergonomic as Fusion 360.
They call it Fusion 360 because you turn 360 degrees and walk away
Why couldn't Musk have bought Autodesk instead of Twitter, it's about the same price
Musk of Tesla, which will sell you a car with all the parts necessary for a feature and then charge you extra merely for the privilege of using them?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20136223
He's just as much of a greedy bastard as any other.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20136223
He's just as much of a greedy bastard as any other.
Sinking ship!
So…solidworks?
This is a new low, truly more dystopian than I imagined software could ever get.
Imagine this becoming a pattern. You have software you need for work, and the company behind it wants more money — so they pick the most popular feature and make it pay-per-use. It’s horrifying.
I hope this fails fast and hard, as a lesson to other companies. I doubt it, though. I ran IT at a big architecture firm 25 years ago, and everyone hated Autodesk then. That hasn’t changed — most architects still hate Autodesk, even if they have to or choose to get value from Autodesk products.
At that point AutoCAD still used dongles for licensing. If you upgraded a license you had to have both dongles plugged in. Some computers with multiple upgrades had multiple dongles hanging off the back, and I had to build custom dongle supports so they wouldn’t fall out and deauth a machine in the middle of someone’s work.
So yeah, even with that history, this surprises and horrifies me.
Imagine this becoming a pattern. You have software you need for work, and the company behind it wants more money — so they pick the most popular feature and make it pay-per-use. It’s horrifying.
I hope this fails fast and hard, as a lesson to other companies. I doubt it, though. I ran IT at a big architecture firm 25 years ago, and everyone hated Autodesk then. That hasn’t changed — most architects still hate Autodesk, even if they have to or choose to get value from Autodesk products.
At that point AutoCAD still used dongles for licensing. If you upgraded a license you had to have both dongles plugged in. Some computers with multiple upgrades had multiple dongles hanging off the back, and I had to build custom dongle supports so they wouldn’t fall out and deauth a machine in the middle of someone’s work.
So yeah, even with that history, this surprises and horrifies me.
This is rapidly becoming the "norm".
Why do you think basically every software product coming out these days is "SaaS"? It turns out that "SaaS" is basically equivalent to "we're rent seeking - we won't do more work, but we will rake in more revenue".
My prediction is that we're going to force the learning curve of tech on the general population (also already happening) because just like those who couldn't read were heavily abused by those who could - those who can't host their own software are being abused by those who can.
Why do you think basically every software product coming out these days is "SaaS"? It turns out that "SaaS" is basically equivalent to "we're rent seeking - we won't do more work, but we will rake in more revenue".
My prediction is that we're going to force the learning curve of tech on the general population (also already happening) because just like those who couldn't read were heavily abused by those who could - those who can't host their own software are being abused by those who can.
> those who can't host their own software are being abused by those who can
What is more abusive—choosing to sell your creation on your own terms, or forcing someone else to sell their creation to you on terms of your choosing?
Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to.
What is more abusive—choosing to sell your creation on your own terms, or forcing someone else to sell their creation to you on terms of your choosing?
Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to.
Rent-seeking is more abusive than enforcing ownership rights, by far.
Copyright is an invention; if it is being used to grossly undermine ownership rights, then we should reconsider the extent to which we privilege copyright holders, including our current approach of granting state-backed legal enforcement of their DRM schemes.
Copyright is an invention; if it is being used to grossly undermine ownership rights, then we should reconsider the extent to which we privilege copyright holders, including our current approach of granting state-backed legal enforcement of their DRM schemes.
Copyright was never meant to be perpetual, it nominally expires. The Walt Disney corporation has paid Congress to extend copyright essentially indefinitely to prevent works from falling into the public domain. Most importantly is "Steamboat Willie", the first work with Mickey Mouse in it.
As long as Congress continues to cash the checks that Walt Disney writes, copyright is an indefinite protection.
As long as Congress continues to cash the checks that Walt Disney writes, copyright is an indefinite protection.
I understood Winnie the Pooh to be the harbinger.
Edit:
Winnie 1926, later purchased by Disney
Willie 1928
Edit:
Winnie 1926, later purchased by Disney
Willie 1928
FWIW there's no talk of a copyright extension on the horizon and only a year and a half left to ram one through. The last major extension was lobbied for on the back of EU harmonization and free trade; that's been done and dusted. Few countries have supra-German copyright terms and none of them are dealmaker countries.
Furthermore, having the mouse fall out of copyright doesn't actually impact Disney's bottom line all that much, for two reasons:
1. They aren't losing much. You still can't put him on a t-shirt or sell any merch of him; that will infringe upon trademarks that will practically never expire. You are only limited to either direct reuploads of the public-domain material (which is practically worthless save for historical value) or including him as a character in another unrelated new work; and even then you will have to be very careful to only include aspects of him that were expressed in a public domain cartoon. Anything still under copyright casts a long shadow over the public domain[0].
2. The mouse isn't actually their flagship franchise anymore. Disney has since graduated to the FAANG strategy of "Can't innovate? Just buy your competition!". In this case that means buying up Marvel, Lucasfilm, and most of 20th Century FOX to gain access to more relevant - and, most importantly, newer works. Those works will not hit the public domain in any appreciable way for at least another half-century.
[0] My favorite example of this: Public Domain Sherlock Holmes is not allowed to have emotions because that's part of Still Copyrighted Sherlock Holmes.
Furthermore, having the mouse fall out of copyright doesn't actually impact Disney's bottom line all that much, for two reasons:
1. They aren't losing much. You still can't put him on a t-shirt or sell any merch of him; that will infringe upon trademarks that will practically never expire. You are only limited to either direct reuploads of the public-domain material (which is practically worthless save for historical value) or including him as a character in another unrelated new work; and even then you will have to be very careful to only include aspects of him that were expressed in a public domain cartoon. Anything still under copyright casts a long shadow over the public domain[0].
2. The mouse isn't actually their flagship franchise anymore. Disney has since graduated to the FAANG strategy of "Can't innovate? Just buy your competition!". In this case that means buying up Marvel, Lucasfilm, and most of 20th Century FOX to gain access to more relevant - and, most importantly, newer works. Those works will not hit the public domain in any appreciable way for at least another half-century.
[0] My favorite example of this: Public Domain Sherlock Holmes is not allowed to have emotions because that's part of Still Copyrighted Sherlock Holmes.
Disney has been laying the legal groundwork for protecting the mouse for years now. Notice how all the new Disney movies have that little clip of the original mickey whistling. They are laying out a pattern so they can prove in court they are still using the imagery to distinguish their brand. Copyright expires but trademark is forever, as long as you are using it.
While I'm inclined to agree with you because everything you are saying is logical it doesn't pan out when I consider the history of it. If "Steamboat Willie" is not so important, then why were such herculean efforts pulled out to extend copyright?
I've lived basically my whole adult life dealing with this. Works never entering the public domain because of this copyright extension nonsense. Even college professors seem to think copyright is eternal. I had to argue with one that no, I do not need a textbook for a 19th century work. I can just read it on project Gutenberg or anywhere I want.
I've lived basically my whole adult life dealing with this. Works never entering the public domain because of this copyright extension nonsense. Even college professors seem to think copyright is eternal. I had to argue with one that no, I do not need a textbook for a 19th century work. I can just read it on project Gutenberg or anywhere I want.
Because of the Brussels Effect.
The EU wanted a single copyright term for their single market, so they picked the member state with the longest term (Germany), made that the EU-wide standard, and then put in a reciprocal extension clause basically designed to force America to go life+70.
At the time Disney was pushing hard into the European market[0] and having uniform copyright rules between two major trading blocks would be a huge boon to them. Keeping the mouse slightly more under their thumb than it could have been otherwise was just a bonus.
[0] Even when it was losing them billions of dollars, such as with the EuroDisney debacle
The EU wanted a single copyright term for their single market, so they picked the member state with the longest term (Germany), made that the EU-wide standard, and then put in a reciprocal extension clause basically designed to force America to go life+70.
At the time Disney was pushing hard into the European market[0] and having uniform copyright rules between two major trading blocks would be a huge boon to them. Keeping the mouse slightly more under their thumb than it could have been otherwise was just a bonus.
[0] Even when it was losing them billions of dollars, such as with the EuroDisney debacle
OK, that I definitely was not aware of. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
OP wasn’t talking about copyright, but was instead complaining that companies are never publishing their software at all, and are instead hosting their software as services on the Internet.
Ownership of web applications is not governed primarily by copyright law (which is only relevant as it pertains to the front-end portion of a web app that users download to their browser), but rather by trade secret law (with regards to the server-side code) and trademark law (with regards to the domain name).
Neither trade secrets nor trademarks ever expire if the proper precautions are taken—nor have they ever. Your point regarding copyright extensions is largely irrelevant to the question of web applications.
Ownership of web applications is not governed primarily by copyright law (which is only relevant as it pertains to the front-end portion of a web app that users download to their browser), but rather by trade secret law (with regards to the server-side code) and trademark law (with regards to the domain name).
Neither trade secrets nor trademarks ever expire if the proper precautions are taken—nor have they ever. Your point regarding copyright extensions is largely irrelevant to the question of web applications.
I think the issue is the old rug pull where the terms/price change dramatically after you are hooked, and after they have bought out or undercut the competition.
i think the most important change to legislate that could fix this problem is a freedom to demand api/specs from a company for the purposes of reverse engineering an competing product. This would include the data format that a customer can expect to be able to export off the product they pay for.
E.g., any data, file, or model, etc, should be exportable and in a format that is specified well enough for a competing company to offer a migration path away.
this right will ensure that there wouldn't be any rugpulls.
E.g., any data, file, or model, etc, should be exportable and in a format that is specified well enough for a competing company to offer a migration path away.
this right will ensure that there wouldn't be any rugpulls.
That won’t be good enough. These representation models get terrifyingly complex and even genuine good faith implementations between different parties will differ, much less efforts tainted by bad actors.
One only need look at web browser engines vis a vis web standards, all out in the open, and the Herculean effort required to get to the current state of differences between browser rendering, to get a sense of the challenge.
Such specifications also need to maintain test suites with real data and code and reference code to even start a conversation about effective inter-product data interchange.
One only need look at web browser engines vis a vis web standards, all out in the open, and the Herculean effort required to get to the current state of differences between browser rendering, to get a sense of the challenge.
Such specifications also need to maintain test suites with real data and code and reference code to even start a conversation about effective inter-product data interchange.
"Thankfully, if someone creates something of value, they don’t have to sell it to you if they don’t want to."
That's fine but here the conditions were changed after one's already committed money.
That's a different ballgame altogether and it should be regulated by law - simply because it's intentional exploitation.
That's fine but here the conditions were changed after one's already committed money.
That's a different ballgame altogether and it should be regulated by law - simply because it's intentional exploitation.
Agreed, the conditions of a sale shouldn’t be altered once money has changed hands. Such things should be regulated by law—and they are, through the enforcement of contracts and fair advertising laws.
Absolutely. But loopholes like this need closing.
Edit: it just occurred to me that this Autodesk case is big enough to become a precedent. If lawmakers and regulators want reasons for updating the law then they should look here. Moreover, the many issues raised here in comments by HN's knowledgeable readership would alone provide sufficient justification for laws to be altered.
I hope those from Autodesk read these comments, it may give them room for thought.
Edit: it just occurred to me that this Autodesk case is big enough to become a precedent. If lawmakers and regulators want reasons for updating the law then they should look here. Moreover, the many issues raised here in comments by HN's knowledgeable readership would alone provide sufficient justification for laws to be altered.
I hope those from Autodesk read these comments, it may give them room for thought.
are you kidding? what if microsoft/apple started charging you every time you save a file or add a monthly fee for undo/redo? should i pay a fee every mile i mouse my mouse? rent-seeking bs needs to stop.
One difference is that Apple nor Microsoft has a natural monopoly.
There's a hassle of changing OS's, but ultimately it's a market in which the must compete.
There's a hassle of changing OS's, but ultimately it's a market in which the must compete.
This is all just one giant opportunity for a company that actually wants to cater to what customers want.
That is part wishful thinking and part misunderstanding the market. These are "industry standards" and you are thus completely locked in. Thus, when Adobe switched to their subscription model, what people wanted was a software that is 100% compatible and looks and functions identically, but without the bullshit. Surprise that does not exist because only Adobe can legally offer that.
All Adobe did was lock out small players who have found alternatives. Blender comes to mind. Even big studios have blender somewhere in their workflow. Its a marvel.
Displacing the long-time market leader would take 5-10 years and a lot of money and defensive litigation. Autodesk was the premium CAD software when I got my first job building computers in the 1980s. I think it's a little silly to call it an opportunity unless you have $10s of millions in capital to get the ball rolling.
Of course you could take an open-source approach like Blender, but that's a 20-30 year climb.
Of course you could take an open-source approach like Blender, but that's a 20-30 year climb.
This is disingenuous. If you introduce a new product and say 'here's my business model' then sure, people can take it or leave it.
If you have a well established product that dominates its market and exploit your vendor lock-in to say 'hey in 30 days I'm just going to start charging you an additional rent in exchange for nothing, by turning off a feature you may have come to depend on' then you're basically telling your existing customers 'fuck you, that's why.'
They haven't created anything of value in this case. they've destroyed value in order to extract an economic rent. It's zombie economics.
If you have a well established product that dominates its market and exploit your vendor lock-in to say 'hey in 30 days I'm just going to start charging you an additional rent in exchange for nothing, by turning off a feature you may have come to depend on' then you're basically telling your existing customers 'fuck you, that's why.'
They haven't created anything of value in this case. they've destroyed value in order to extract an economic rent. It's zombie economics.
Look - I have zero problem with a creator selling a product under their own terms.
I have a LOT of problems with having all of us enforce copyright for them (at society's expense - mind you) so that they can freaking rent you their product forever.
Basically - I think capitalism is structured to be efficient when you have to produce physical goods, and every copy incurs an unavoidable expense - which can be optimized through competition.
I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost.
Where is the end game here? What is your plan when literally every item costs you a monthly charge, and you own nothing? Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery?
I have a LOT of problems with having all of us enforce copyright for them (at society's expense - mind you) so that they can freaking rent you their product forever.
Basically - I think capitalism is structured to be efficient when you have to produce physical goods, and every copy incurs an unavoidable expense - which can be optimized through competition.
I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost.
Where is the end game here? What is your plan when literally every item costs you a monthly charge, and you own nothing? Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery?
> Explain to me how that's not just a more complex form of slavery?
What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a person is owned by another and has no or few rights).
What? This is a non sequitur. Please explain the connection to slavery (as defined as a person is owned by another and has no or few rights).
Because slavery is complicated, and historically comes in a huge variety of forms, often with completely different social expectations and rights, but a general theme:
The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you.
If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close.
Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing.
---
So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages?
What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages?
I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else.
It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).
The theme is that your labor, and the value it produces, is not captured by you. You work, but do not capture the benefits of that work in meaningful and significant ways. This is directly related to "you do not own - you rent". Because that (quite literal) rent seeking behavior is leaching additional capital from you.
If you prefer, or if "slavery" is a term you feel loaded, you can substitute "serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close.
Alternatively, you might consider this very similar to a person in a "company town" - they work all day at the company, only to be forced to buy literally every item from the only store in town - the company's store. Which, conveniently for the company, charges them roughly their month's wage for housing/food/clothing. They are working and gaining nothing.
---
So in this case, what happens when every item you need (not want) to participate in society is costing you a monthly subscription cost equivalent to your monthly wages?
What happens when internet, car, home, phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items, that capture literally all of your wages?
I'd actually say that for many lower class folks in the US right now this is already the case - they work 80 hours a week at two full time jobs, and literally all of it simply gets them to tomorrow. Nothing can be saved, there is no chance to "own" any of it. They certainly make plenty of value - it's just captured by someone else.
It's not going to stop there, though - it's going to keep eating through the ranks of our society. You will be free! (please note that your freedom is the choice to rent an Apple or a Google phone). You have choices! (please note that your choices are limited to renting a car from BMW/Ford/Tesla/etc). You will make decisions! (please note that your decisions are limited to selecting whether to rent content from Hulu or Netflix). You can vote for any one you want! (please note that they must be either Democrat or Republican).
Thanks for the explanation. I see a connection, but it seems a few steps removed conceptually and many steps removed causally. Anyhow, I don't want to argue which concepts are more closely connected. Brains work differently (*), and I'm glad you readily see this connection even if I don't.
Please allow me to offer these questions, since they better represent where my brain is at the moment... What does it mean if a person cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work? Is this necessarily bad? Does it tend to be bad? Does it depend on other things?
Your thoughts? (Can you slow down a little? It seems like you jumped to dystopian scenarios quite quickly.)
---
* Sorry, it is a vague statement, something that seems to be taken for granted. But this makes me wonder if neuroscientists have made efforts to compare how different brains do conceptual reasoning. Can concepts be visualized in an fMRI? How? Are they represented in ways that have commonalities across people? Cultures?
Please allow me to offer these questions, since they better represent where my brain is at the moment... What does it mean if a person cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work? Is this necessarily bad? Does it tend to be bad? Does it depend on other things?
Your thoughts? (Can you slow down a little? It seems like you jumped to dystopian scenarios quite quickly.)
---
* Sorry, it is a vague statement, something that seems to be taken for granted. But this makes me wonder if neuroscientists have made efforts to compare how different brains do conceptual reasoning. Can concepts be visualized in an fMRI? How? Are they represented in ways that have commonalities across people? Cultures?
I guess the question would be "who is capturing the value" of the rental.
In some interesting ways - socialism is fairly close to the idea of "a person who cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work". Except the moral justification for that system is that the "owner" who is capturing the value is "all of us". Communism is also there, but it's a little more honest that the "state" (in whatever form it might take) is the owner capturing value - and you just hope that the state is doing good things for you, and will take care of you.
In practice though, I think our society is regressing to similar outcomes that were experienced in communist/socialist countries (not good), but the owner capturing value happens to be a corporate entity. Which is functionally not all that different from "the state", it's just even more honest that it has no real obligation to society at large. They carry obligations to their employees and shareholders, but not much else. In theory - they also have obligations to the government, but that requires that the government be functional and powerful enough to enforce that obligation. I think we're seeing that control slip (and not for the first time - robber barons was the term we coined last time it happened).
---
But to your point - it's not required to be a negative (in theory - socialism is great), I just have yet to see any case where it doesn't immediately devolve into abuse (see pretty much every communist country in history). It can still work out great for individuals if they happen to be on the right end of the deal, but it rarely works out for society at large.
I'd guess how much it bothers you is probably strongly dependent on how much you value individualism.
In some interesting ways - socialism is fairly close to the idea of "a person who cannot buy and outright own the tools needed for their work". Except the moral justification for that system is that the "owner" who is capturing the value is "all of us". Communism is also there, but it's a little more honest that the "state" (in whatever form it might take) is the owner capturing value - and you just hope that the state is doing good things for you, and will take care of you.
In practice though, I think our society is regressing to similar outcomes that were experienced in communist/socialist countries (not good), but the owner capturing value happens to be a corporate entity. Which is functionally not all that different from "the state", it's just even more honest that it has no real obligation to society at large. They carry obligations to their employees and shareholders, but not much else. In theory - they also have obligations to the government, but that requires that the government be functional and powerful enough to enforce that obligation. I think we're seeing that control slip (and not for the first time - robber barons was the term we coined last time it happened).
---
But to your point - it's not required to be a negative (in theory - socialism is great), I just have yet to see any case where it doesn't immediately devolve into abuse (see pretty much every communist country in history). It can still work out great for individuals if they happen to be on the right end of the deal, but it rarely works out for society at large.
I'd guess how much it bothers you is probably strongly dependent on how much you value individualism.
>"serfdom" instead. It's also not quite apt - since it implies a tie to a specific geographic location, but it's close.
"slavery" is even less apt since it implies a tie to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action.
>phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items
Is this really something we need to worry about? You can get an Android phone for $100 with no contract. Is there a single app that you "need (not want)" that is paid, much less paid by subscription?
"slavery" is even less apt since it implies a tie to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action.
>phone (and the apps on that phone) are all rented items
Is this really something we need to worry about? You can get an Android phone for $100 with no contract. Is there a single app that you "need (not want)" that is paid, much less paid by subscription?
> "slavery" is even less apt since it implies a tie to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action.
Look - I agree that neither word is an exact fit, but I think this is a misunderstanding of slavery at large, and a view exclusively through the lens of European slavery, and slavery in the colonies (ex: islands and the US).
Historically, slavery is a really complicated thing, and almost every society had some form of forced labor, performed by low tier members of the society - the details of which vary dramatically.
Slavery (outside the narrow scope of the US history of it) is absolutely not "tied to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action".
Ex - Pre-colonial native american tribes had all sorts of forms of slavery, everything from "we're going to sacrifice you and then eat you" to "you have been captured to fill the role of the warrior you killed in battle". In the later case, they were often given duties and responsibilities markedly similar to the person they replaced, and in some cases end up formally adopted by the tribe in question.
Further - looks at places like India, where african slaves were brought over not for manual labor, but for military use (dating as far back as the 12th century). That enabled them far greater social mobility. Just take a look at cultures like the Siddi - West coast african slaves who rose to become rulers in India.
Basically - ditch the high school view of slavery - it's all the rage in the media right now because it's a wonderfully divisive topic in the US, and diverts attention from other serious political matters. But historically - it's very euro/us-centric in tone (and not even all that accurate within those cultures...).
Look - I agree that neither word is an exact fit, but I think this is a misunderstanding of slavery at large, and a view exclusively through the lens of European slavery, and slavery in the colonies (ex: islands and the US).
Historically, slavery is a really complicated thing, and almost every society had some form of forced labor, performed by low tier members of the society - the details of which vary dramatically.
Slavery (outside the narrow scope of the US history of it) is absolutely not "tied to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action".
Ex - Pre-colonial native american tribes had all sorts of forms of slavery, everything from "we're going to sacrifice you and then eat you" to "you have been captured to fill the role of the warrior you killed in battle". In the later case, they were often given duties and responsibilities markedly similar to the person they replaced, and in some cases end up formally adopted by the tribe in question.
Further - looks at places like India, where african slaves were brought over not for manual labor, but for military use (dating as far back as the 12th century). That enabled them far greater social mobility. Just take a look at cultures like the Siddi - West coast african slaves who rose to become rulers in India.
Basically - ditch the high school view of slavery - it's all the rage in the media right now because it's a wonderfully divisive topic in the US, and diverts attention from other serious political matters. But historically - it's very euro/us-centric in tone (and not even all that accurate within those cultures...).
Please let's explore this a little. How do you feel about a person that builds a house with their own hands and then rents it out for the next 50 years?
I personally am ok with that.
What if they rent it out to the same tenant for 50 years? I am ok with that but start to question the wisdom of the tenant. What if rent keeps going up even beyond a reasonable mortgage payment? It doesn't make me question the landlord more. It makes me question the tenant more.
Now if you add a wrinkle like the landlord passes a law that no more houses can be built, then my prejudice switches. Or if it is more subtle like you can't build with the same kind of materials, or reuse a concept like footings.
I oppose that kind of rent-seeking. But it's not the rent-seeking to which I object. It's the moating.
Of course, it's hard to build a new house even without moating. I see too often people who just pay rent because it's inconvenient to look for alternative housing. And building their own seems way too hard. Their own creation would never have the bells and whistles of what they are renting.
Wells Fargo is a perfect example. You get cheated and abused and swindled, but you don't leave. Microsoft was an example for a very long time. Intel has been an example. Amazon is in a big way.
"There's no other option," people cry. But of course there is. Regarding Autodesk, FreeCAD is an option. "Not even close!" some claim. MicroStation? "No way." Solidworks? "Well..."
Build your own, rent from somebody else, go homeless, or stay where you are and pay your rent. And if somebody makes it illegal to do anything but the last, revolt. But don't claim there's no other way if you just mean you want to be entitled.
* Edited for typos *
I personally am ok with that.
What if they rent it out to the same tenant for 50 years? I am ok with that but start to question the wisdom of the tenant. What if rent keeps going up even beyond a reasonable mortgage payment? It doesn't make me question the landlord more. It makes me question the tenant more.
Now if you add a wrinkle like the landlord passes a law that no more houses can be built, then my prejudice switches. Or if it is more subtle like you can't build with the same kind of materials, or reuse a concept like footings.
I oppose that kind of rent-seeking. But it's not the rent-seeking to which I object. It's the moating.
Of course, it's hard to build a new house even without moating. I see too often people who just pay rent because it's inconvenient to look for alternative housing. And building their own seems way too hard. Their own creation would never have the bells and whistles of what they are renting.
Wells Fargo is a perfect example. You get cheated and abused and swindled, but you don't leave. Microsoft was an example for a very long time. Intel has been an example. Amazon is in a big way.
"There's no other option," people cry. But of course there is. Regarding Autodesk, FreeCAD is an option. "Not even close!" some claim. MicroStation? "No way." Solidworks? "Well..."
Build your own, rent from somebody else, go homeless, or stay where you are and pay your rent. And if somebody makes it illegal to do anything but the last, revolt. But don't claim there's no other way if you just mean you want to be entitled.
* Edited for typos *
You need to add what Autodesk is doing here, features where available during the initial contract and being revised as me move along. It's like adding a rent for every flush of your toilet and also paying for the cost of water.
Ok, landlord removes toilet while raising rent. Scummy landlord? Maybe. But I still question the tenant more. Why keep renting?
Because living in tent doesn't get you a toilet and loses a lot.
So build your own house! Or pay someone to build you a house. Or join forces with 10 others and build a hostel with decent toilets, or a tent campground with a bathhouse. Move to a different building with higher rent.
Or just sit in your dump apartment, keep paying rent, and complain about the toilet. Yeah, that's the best choice.
What's that? It's a 3-bath that still has 2 working toilets and a great kitchen? It's not a total dump? It's kind of a dump but close to awesome schools? Look, is it worth the rent or not? Stay and pay, or leave. What's that? It costs money and trouble for a moving van? Sigh. It sure does.
Because living in tent doesn't get you a toilet and loses a lot.
So build your own house! Or pay someone to build you a house. Or join forces with 10 others and build a hostel with decent toilets, or a tent campground with a bathhouse. Move to a different building with higher rent.
Or just sit in your dump apartment, keep paying rent, and complain about the toilet. Yeah, that's the best choice.
What's that? It's a 3-bath that still has 2 working toilets and a great kitchen? It's not a total dump? It's kind of a dump but close to awesome schools? Look, is it worth the rent or not? Stay and pay, or leave. What's that? It costs money and trouble for a moving van? Sigh. It sure does.
The problem is there is no option when all the landlords are scummy.
Can you ask for a refund since features that you paid for have been removed?
It's illogical to request refund since the feature is still there it's just modified and since you were paying rent when it was still there and now your option is to stop renting.
I guess I'm not familiar with Autodesk. Is it always paid by subscription? There's no way to pay a one-time price?
Even if it is just subscription, what is the length of the subscription? If it's say 1 year, you could ask for a refund for the rest of the year since they've changed what they're giving you.
Even if it is just subscription, what is the length of the subscription? If it's say 1 year, you could ask for a refund for the rest of the year since they've changed what they're giving you.
The basis of your comparison is a bit weak: you’re delving into legal entity anthropomorphism.
A person, sure! A company? I don’t think it holds up. A company has no sense of morality, no career duration, no children or relatives to take care of. It has a duty to take care of shareholders. When the way it choses to do that naturally comes to oppose our ethics, we legislate.
A person, sure! A company? I don’t think it holds up. A company has no sense of morality, no career duration, no children or relatives to take care of. It has a duty to take care of shareholders. When the way it choses to do that naturally comes to oppose our ethics, we legislate.
I mostly agree.
Perhaps another analogy would put Autodesk (or any other rent-seeking company) as a mildly abusive partner, with similarly clear options: put up, find another partner, go single etc.
Doesn't mean the mildly abusive partner isn't mildly abusive.
(Clearly Autodesk is withing their rights here, I'm not suggesting otherwise).
Perhaps another analogy would put Autodesk (or any other rent-seeking company) as a mildly abusive partner, with similarly clear options: put up, find another partner, go single etc.
Doesn't mean the mildly abusive partner isn't mildly abusive.
(Clearly Autodesk is withing their rights here, I'm not suggesting otherwise).
> Where is the end game here? What is your plan when literally every item costs you a monthly charge, and you own nothing?
World Economy Fiefdom ;)
World Economy Fiefdom ;)
> I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost.
Let me offer a perhaps undesired writing suggestion. Avoid using "obviously". It tends to signal you think it is obvious, yes. We are here on a fairly decent Internet forum, and you should expect some number of people to disagree. When someone disagrees, the word "obviously" backfires: you come across as overconfident. You lost your first impression to persuade.
Let me offer a perhaps undesired writing suggestion. Avoid using "obviously". It tends to signal you think it is obvious, yes. We are here on a fairly decent Internet forum, and you should expect some number of people to disagree. When someone disagrees, the word "obviously" backfires: you come across as overconfident. You lost your first impression to persuade.
> I think "modern capitalism" where the goal has obviously become: Extract as much value for as little cost as possible is an ethical quagmire when dealing with digital goods. The clear goal is for companies to keep the right to make zero-cost copies, and force consumers to rent a copy for an on-going permanent cost.
1. Your stated goal is not obvious. Actually, it is not a particularly useful way to understand company goals. We need a better understanding of corporate goals in order to explain the variation we see.
To gloss over just one way companies vary: not all companies want to seek profit in the same way. Companies vary in terms of their time horizons. Companies having tough times often try to squeeze out more profits in the short run. More stable companies sometimes are willing to take a hit to build market share.
There are many other ways they vary too: risk profiles, market segments, and more. Another example: some companies actively seek to improve their brand even though doing so is expensive and may not pay off right away.
And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization. Some focus first on other things, believing that sufficient profits will follow.
Second, while copies may be nearly zero cost, maintenance and support are not.
1. Your stated goal is not obvious. Actually, it is not a particularly useful way to understand company goals. We need a better understanding of corporate goals in order to explain the variation we see.
To gloss over just one way companies vary: not all companies want to seek profit in the same way. Companies vary in terms of their time horizons. Companies having tough times often try to squeeze out more profits in the short run. More stable companies sometimes are willing to take a hit to build market share.
There are many other ways they vary too: risk profiles, market segments, and more. Another example: some companies actively seek to improve their brand even though doing so is expensive and may not pay off right away.
And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization. Some focus first on other things, believing that sufficient profits will follow.
Second, while copies may be nearly zero cost, maintenance and support are not.
Ah yes - Maintenance and support for that "cloud only" feature that just 1 month ago ran just fine on your own hardware, requiring no maintenance and support at all...
And look - I'm not even completely disagreeing with you (I'm certainly not downvoting folks in this thread). Particularly -
>And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization
This I agree with whole-heartedly. I strongly believe that founder personality has a large influence on companies, but my complaint is that eventually the founder dies or retires, or is ousted. But the company just keeps chugging along, and (particularly for public companies, although this still applies to private companies) the goal of the company changes from "vision of the founder" to "pay the shareholders". And if we're focused on paying shareholders... it's really, really hard to turn down "we make a widget that costs zero per unit, and we rent it for $x, and legally - no one else is allowed to make that widget".
It's just about as profitable as you can possibly be - and that profit enables you to do all sorts of things that are not "improve the company product" to keep that revenue stream. Things like "hire all the engineers who might compete with you" or "Buy all the politicians that might regulate you" or "acquire all the competition that might disrupt you" or "suppress all the uprisings that put your monopoly at risk" or "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you". And it works - because they're capturing huge amounts of value in the form of the labor their consumers are forced to expend in renting their product, which they produce for nothing.
Worse - I also agree that companies have differing goals - but they are competing, and you can't really compete with an entrenched monopoly that is legally allowed to produce widgets that cost nothing, but is legally allowed to prevent other folks from producing those same widgets for nothing (copyright/trademark/IP). From the outside it might look like this competition is happening, but by far and large, the larger companies are just buying the smaller competitor.
Even tiktok - it's getting so much flak in the media right now because our tech giants can't buy it (and it deserves it - but so do Google/Apple/Meta, they're all peddling ads and addiction - selling you as fast as they can).
So while companies might start out with different goals - our current system works very hard to force them into becoming profit centers for their owners - who will be the folks who buy them and force the founder out.
And look - I'm not even completely disagreeing with you (I'm certainly not downvoting folks in this thread). Particularly -
>And let's not forget that some founders do have goals other than pure profit maximization
This I agree with whole-heartedly. I strongly believe that founder personality has a large influence on companies, but my complaint is that eventually the founder dies or retires, or is ousted. But the company just keeps chugging along, and (particularly for public companies, although this still applies to private companies) the goal of the company changes from "vision of the founder" to "pay the shareholders". And if we're focused on paying shareholders... it's really, really hard to turn down "we make a widget that costs zero per unit, and we rent it for $x, and legally - no one else is allowed to make that widget".
It's just about as profitable as you can possibly be - and that profit enables you to do all sorts of things that are not "improve the company product" to keep that revenue stream. Things like "hire all the engineers who might compete with you" or "Buy all the politicians that might regulate you" or "acquire all the competition that might disrupt you" or "suppress all the uprisings that put your monopoly at risk" or "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you". And it works - because they're capturing huge amounts of value in the form of the labor their consumers are forced to expend in renting their product, which they produce for nothing.
Worse - I also agree that companies have differing goals - but they are competing, and you can't really compete with an entrenched monopoly that is legally allowed to produce widgets that cost nothing, but is legally allowed to prevent other folks from producing those same widgets for nothing (copyright/trademark/IP). From the outside it might look like this competition is happening, but by far and large, the larger companies are just buying the smaller competitor.
Even tiktok - it's getting so much flak in the media right now because our tech giants can't buy it (and it deserves it - but so do Google/Apple/Meta, they're all peddling ads and addiction - selling you as fast as they can).
So while companies might start out with different goals - our current system works very hard to force them into becoming profit centers for their owners - who will be the folks who buy them and force the founder out.
I agree with much of the above.
> "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you"
Wait, did I miss something?
> "murder lawyers and journalists in other countries who might expose you"
Wait, did I miss something?
Meh. 20% annual maintenance is classic for on-prem enterprise software.
This is what cracks are for. You paid them already, so I don't think you should feel guilty at all about cracking and using without the dongle.
I am reminded of the classic "if you are a pirate this is what you get, if you are a paying customer this is what you get" meme.
I am reminded of the classic "if you are a pirate this is what you get, if you are a paying customer this is what you get" meme.
Unauthorized copying, as Stallman would call it rather than the purposefully scary, deceitful p-word is one way to avoid things such as this, via blocking remote manipulation and removal of features from your licensed software and thus being able to stick with a fully functioning version without cloud fuss. But I would not consider using them for anything but learning and just exporting STLs in this case. Products in the field are well known to embed and encode identifying information to determine misuse, besides being filled with private info (example below). Some can be edited out of the files, some others may exist that aren't so obvious. I remember Solidworks embedding the MAC address somewhere in some formats. Small companies doing business get the middle finger the most, I suppose.
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-support/what-perso...
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-support/what-perso...
Cracking local software isn't gonna work in the function is in the cloud.
You'll probably still be losing more and more features as they're moved to the cloud and can't be cracked.
I was referring to the old Autodesk software which was dongled but offline-only. That won't ever lose features (but of course the marketing spin is that it won't gain any either, nevermind the fact that it was the software used to successfully create many designs...)
> "can't be cracked"
If Adobe PS is anything to go by, that's not a worry. :)
If Adobe PS is anything to go by, that's not a worry. :)
Except now you probably installed malicious code on your system.
First, the whole purpose of a crack is to remove malicious code. So you're likely coming out ahead.
Second, you shouldn't be running any proprietary binaries unsandboxed with Internet access. My standard use of Windows is to install a fresh VM, install whatever software(s) I want, kill all network access but for my local Samba server, and then do my work. Lack of updates that pull the rug out from under me is a feature, and when there are features I want it's easy enough to repeat the installation process while watching TV or whatever.
Second, you shouldn't be running any proprietary binaries unsandboxed with Internet access. My standard use of Windows is to install a fresh VM, install whatever software(s) I want, kill all network access but for my local Samba server, and then do my work. Lack of updates that pull the rug out from under me is a feature, and when there are features I want it's easy enough to repeat the installation process while watching TV or whatever.
[deleted]
More than often, not.
I dug around a little bit and couldn't find a source supporting either of our claims. I did find verified examples of crypto miners in cracked software[0]. I think the threat landscape for cracks has probably changed with the rise of crypto mining.
0. https://decoded.avast.io/danielbenes/crackonosh-a-new-malwar...
0. https://decoded.avast.io/danielbenes/crackonosh-a-new-malwar...
It is possible. But there are respectable websites with cracked software which generally does not allow for malware. If you would be a little bit picky and careful, the chances are not that high.
That's "precracked" software, which is big enough to disguise the presence of malware. I was talking more about patches/keygens to be applied, which are relatively tiny compared to a cryptominer (and, although I'm not sure about recent times since I've been out of the scene for over a decade, crackers used to be quite skilled and proud of making their releases tiny.)
There are plenty of trusted places that you can get clean cracks and keygens that have been thoroughly tested.
That being said, a small file size doesn't mean anything in the case of most cracks/keygens because you have to give them admin access to your system. Which means it can download and install anything it wants in the background.
That being said, a small file size doesn't mean anything in the case of most cracks/keygens because you have to give them admin access to your system. Which means it can download and install anything it wants in the background.
Well, you know what the free software people say, proprietary software is malware.
Perhaps Stallman is more right than wrong.
Perhaps Stallman is more right than wrong.
Stallman's problem is that he has a savior complex, is an extremist only interested in complete software freedom not incremental progress, is exceptionally emotionally immature (namely, splitting: everything in computing is either free and good, or evil if not completely free, by his definition of free), and narcissistic in the extreme.
Last but not least: he lacks the ability to recognize the advantages (if only for implementing his own goals) of perspective-taking, compromise, being physically presentable (ie dressed decently, hair groomed, body clean), the slightest bit amicable/sociable...
....and not doing things that are socially repugnant. Such as threatening suicide when women won't date him (numerous independent accounts of such behavior, mostly with women who were very young), picking his toe cheese and eating it on a stage (there is video proof of this), repeatedly expressing extreme views around sex trafficking and pedophilia (and then when called out on it, nothing but petulance), hosting semi-clothed cuddle sessions on bare mattresses in his office at a university campus office building, and so on.
He's so blind that he can't even see that his continued presence at the FSF in a leadership role has cost the FSF the vast majority of its working relationships with other organizations, free software or corporate. The FSF board is right there next to him; they're so devoted to him that even when almost the entire open source community says "if you won't fire Stallman, we're done working with you", they won't get rid of him.
Stallman and the FSF had been increasingly irrelevant in the thirty years proceeding the whole pedo/trafficking emails and sexual harassment blow-up. Given the reaction from both, they've since become even more irrelevant.
Last but not least: he lacks the ability to recognize the advantages (if only for implementing his own goals) of perspective-taking, compromise, being physically presentable (ie dressed decently, hair groomed, body clean), the slightest bit amicable/sociable...
....and not doing things that are socially repugnant. Such as threatening suicide when women won't date him (numerous independent accounts of such behavior, mostly with women who were very young), picking his toe cheese and eating it on a stage (there is video proof of this), repeatedly expressing extreme views around sex trafficking and pedophilia (and then when called out on it, nothing but petulance), hosting semi-clothed cuddle sessions on bare mattresses in his office at a university campus office building, and so on.
He's so blind that he can't even see that his continued presence at the FSF in a leadership role has cost the FSF the vast majority of its working relationships with other organizations, free software or corporate. The FSF board is right there next to him; they're so devoted to him that even when almost the entire open source community says "if you won't fire Stallman, we're done working with you", they won't get rid of him.
Stallman and the FSF had been increasingly irrelevant in the thirty years proceeding the whole pedo/trafficking emails and sexual harassment blow-up. Given the reaction from both, they've since become even more irrelevant.
Stallman's entire purpose is to sit at the extreme fringe and act as the canary against the Overton window moving.
Stallmans problem is that he is always right. It just takes 20 years for everyone else to notice.
The secondary problem is that everyone's paycheck here depends on him being wrong, so we get character assassination instead.
The secondary problem is that everyone's paycheck here depends on him being wrong, so we get character assassination instead.
[deleted]
Being right about a problem doesn't mean you're right about your proposed solutions. For the most part, his absolutism limited his ideas to lightly influencing the people trying in earnest to solve those problems rather than actually doing the leg work.* In my old job in academia, I called this "trickle-down public good." He wants to be a symbol for the good and true of free software, but is largely a symbol of ivory tower academic culture throwing shade at people who don't pretend we live in the star trek universe.
* Edit: the problems with software licensing which is the primary thing people know him for. See how many bios even mention his software development work, and then see how many fail to mention his free software zealotry. To even assume his development accomplishments are what people are talking about when discussing his public activities is strange even in a crowd of software developers. If he wrote that same exact software for IBM, or even if he had written it for GNU and not worn crazy outfits to software conventions, nobody would be talking about him 'at all.'
* Edit: the problems with software licensing which is the primary thing people know him for. See how many bios even mention his software development work, and then see how many fail to mention his free software zealotry. To even assume his development accomplishments are what people are talking about when discussing his public activities is strange even in a crowd of software developers. If he wrote that same exact software for IBM, or even if he had written it for GNU and not worn crazy outfits to software conventions, nobody would be talking about him 'at all.'
You're talking about the original author of GCC here.
You know, the compiler that kept free software running between 1990 and 2015?
The sheer erasure of his contributions would be comical if it wasn't done so maliciously.
You know, the compiler that kept free software running between 1990 and 2015?
The sheer erasure of his contributions would be comical if it wasn't done so maliciously.
[deleted]
I'm clearly not talking about his contributions as a software developer, but as a public intellectual.
That wasn't clear to me
Well now it is. I'm not really sure how you would think that gcc or any other GNU software solved a problem which nobody noticed until twenty years later-- the context for my comment-- but sure.
Let’s not conflate the messenger and the message.
As for absolutes, consider deadly poison: how much is okay? None, really-you can be poisoned with a lot, or a little, but you’re still dead.
As for absolutes, consider deadly poison: how much is okay? None, really-you can be poisoned with a lot, or a little, but you’re still dead.
> Stallman's problem is that he has a savior complex, is an extremist only interested in complete software freedom not incremental progress,
This is just telling on yourself.
What Stallman does, and all he has claimed to do, is set moral standards for technology. It's not his job to compromise any more than it's the job of a scale to tell you something weighs exactly a kilogram if it's close enough to a kilogram, the difference probably won't matter, you should be grateful for what you have, are you going to throw it away just because it isn't exactly a kilogram, it'll probably work as well as a kilogram's worth for most functions, so did you really actually need an entire kilogram?
At best you're condemning what you believe in for the sake of what benefits you.
At worst you're pretending to think that Stallman's ideas about software are correct (or as liberals say "perfect") when you actually think they're contemptible or dangerous, but admitting that you disagree with the concept of software freedom itself would cause the people who you want to demean Stallman to most to ignore you completely.
The FSF is as relevant as it's always been, and its enemies are who they always were. If they listened to you and both killed the messenger and compromised the message (which seem to be your only suggestions), they would be a non-existent organization.
This is just telling on yourself.
What Stallman does, and all he has claimed to do, is set moral standards for technology. It's not his job to compromise any more than it's the job of a scale to tell you something weighs exactly a kilogram if it's close enough to a kilogram, the difference probably won't matter, you should be grateful for what you have, are you going to throw it away just because it isn't exactly a kilogram, it'll probably work as well as a kilogram's worth for most functions, so did you really actually need an entire kilogram?
At best you're condemning what you believe in for the sake of what benefits you.
At worst you're pretending to think that Stallman's ideas about software are correct (or as liberals say "perfect") when you actually think they're contemptible or dangerous, but admitting that you disagree with the concept of software freedom itself would cause the people who you want to demean Stallman to most to ignore you completely.
The FSF is as relevant as it's always been, and its enemies are who they always were. If they listened to you and both killed the messenger and compromised the message (which seem to be your only suggestions), they would be a non-existent organization.
My old man owns a successful firm and has hated autodesk for as long as I can remember. He told me the prices like 20 years ago and I was blown away. No idea what they are today, but I imagine they’re much higher and much more “nickel and dimey”
They altered the deal. Pray that they do not alter it further
10/10
the most amount of exformation possible
https://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-exf1.htm
the most amount of exformation possible
https://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-exf1.htm
This is an industry that is happy to enforce Autodesk's lockin on their work, not allowing their peers to use any alternative.
The worst the software gets, the better. Maybe that way somebody not entrenched may have enough leverage to gain some market.
The worst the software gets, the better. Maybe that way somebody not entrenched may have enough leverage to gain some market.
The absolute contempt people would show others for suggesting the use of Blender over Maya was astounding. I hear it’s much better now. When I was in the industry in 2013-2015 it was very amusing to hear someone in the same breath talk about how much they hated Maya but how silly and *unprofessional* Blender was.
While self-hosted open source isn't immune to this, at least you could keep running an old version that still has the feature.
[deleted]
1. Fusion 360 appears to be pivoting towards CAM instead of CAD. Their CAM is getting better all the time.
2. Cloud sharing features in Fusion360 are unparalleled for cooperation between companies, SolidWorks doesn't come anywhere close.
3. Who needs FEA and isn't willing to pay a nominal fee? Anyone using an analysis feature is getting a lot more than what should come with a basic modeling and drawing package.
4. Simulation is definitely not a core feature for designers. It's an edge case, rarely used and is getting pulled further out from core functionality into cost+ territory.
5. With the pathetic Fusion 360 Manage this product seems directionless to me, but that's a separate topic. I see this change as moving even further away from engineers. Autodesk, if you're listening, we (designers and engineers) drive the bus at the end of the day. If you make your product suck for engineers (it does), we can and will move.
6. Refactoring CAD/CAM libraries is hard and involves a lot of technical, monotonous work. That's the "moat", but give me a good direction to move in and I and other designers and engineers will push hard to drop Fusion 360 like a hot potato if things don't turn around.
Do you use Fusion 360 professionally? I'm a former ME and I don't think I've heard of a single company that uses it. Solidworks seem to dominate overwhelmingly with ProE/Creo coming in second. I'm curious if this is a regional or industry thing.
However once you are a business many of those protections aren’t present. There is an assumption that businesses should be able to sort things out amongst themselves and the court system. However an SME barely has any more power then a consumer going against a giant like Autodesk.
I wonder if the solution wouldn’t be to extend those protections to smaller businesses, and additionally allow reclaiming the cost of any investments in the platform (Training, etc) and other expenses. Your not telling autodesk what they can do with their product, but if they are selling it based on features they are removing, they will be liable to make right anyone who purchased on that basis.