I'm only going to comment on the last point brought up regarding people seemingly being misled about a year ago over the company's intention to switch to a subscription-only model.
Now I'm not saying Marton Kiss set out to intentionally mislead people and I'll take it at the word of those who know him that this was never the case.
But the end result is the same.
People feel misled one way or another and whether that was by accident (on account of his not knowing but still giving people the information that this wasn't going to happen), or by design (as in his higher-ups knowing all along and either giving him the wrong information which he then relayed, or worse still,.....not giving him the information but letting him convey the wrong information), it doesn't matter to the end receiver of that misinformation (i.e. us, the users).
Both scenarios paint a grim picture of the goings-on behind the scenes at Graphisoft.
I find it hard to believe that a company of this stature and size wouldn't have known in advance (as in,....YEARS in advance) that the switch to subscription-only was in their future, to the extent that it happened on them on a whim or unexpectedly in such a manner that would reasonably explain the whole,... "Marton himself didn't know a year ago, and therefore he wasn't really lying when he said we were never going to be subscription-only" situation and make it make logical sense.
Just as I - as I'm sure, many others on here would - find it perplexing to think that they'd send someone like Marton to inform customers with information that they (his higher-ups,... or even him) know not to be true, and which affects the decisions they make in how they run their own practices and their business futures.
Somewhere in here, there's a lie.
Either it was to Marton, or to the people that were assured that what we're now experiencing today was not going to be a reality of Graphisoft's future.
Or maybe it's the notion that all of this is happening by pure happenstance and unexpectedly,....due to current "unforeseen" market conditions, or something......
Ultimately it doesn't matter.
We're here now, and the purpose of this thread I suppose is to get people to accept the reality and get 'comfortable' with it, rather than any attempt at serious dialog to understand the "why" and the "how".
The anger is justifiable.
Besides which, we know the "why"
There have been by my count, and in my opinion, 4 consecutive weak, watered down, underwhelming version releases (some would say 5 and I wouldn't argue with that), that have seen Graphisoft starkly shift away from what used to be the core purpose of this program in providing an advanced ARCHITECTURAL design and documentation software (emphasis always on the "ARCHI", because god knows, Graphisoft themselves seem to have forgotten), to now them chasing what we're assured is a modern marketbase of other customers that they deem are critical for their future survival, even as we (the rest of us) have to put up with a lower return on our investment.
And now the information as that the right to use it, is going to be enforced going forward and entirely dependent on their end with no guarantees on quality, or value or imrpovement on tools, and seemingly no incentive on their part to ever do so in the future - especially if they can always be assured they'll still get your subscription fees at the end of the year anyway.
I would hope that someone would make that make sense for me, but at this stage what does it matter?
A more decent shift would have been if this decision was coming after a version or two they released where they showed they were truly committed to fixing the tools that have been lagging and improving in the areas they've been ignoring, but to choose to do so after 4 weak version releases in my opinion just smacks of utter disdain for your users.
That's just my opinion.
@Jp1138 wrote:
.......
DDSCAD users are the next in line for next year...
They've pretty much just confirmed this in the just-posted FAQ
Still looking?
