What’s Driving the 'Enshitification' of ArchiCAD?

[Paul King]

Just had an interesting response to the above question from Chat GPT5.1:

Below is a ranked list of the strongest drivers, from most structural to most fixable.

 1. Shift Toward Subscription / SSA Revenue Maximisation
Relative strength: Very high
Confidence: High
This is the biggest driver.
Graphisoft, like Autodesk, is under pressure to:
• maximise recurring revenue
• smooth cashflow
• increase ARPU (average revenue per user)
• reduce perpetual licence ownership
This creates incentives to:
• release incremental updates
• gate features behind subscription
• prioritise retention over innovation
• reduce investment in deep architectural tools
This is classic SaaS‑driven enshitification.

 2. Stagnation in Core Architectural Functionality
Relative strength: High
Confidence: High
Long‑term users consistently report:
• slow progress on core modelling
• unresolved long‑standing bugs
• inconsistent UI paradigms
• weak multi‑core utilisation
• slow performance on large models
• lack of modern parametric workflows
• GDL stagnation (no modernisation, no node‑based system)
This is not a failure of engineering talent — it’s a failure of product prioritisation.

3. Fragmentation of the BIM Ecosystem
Relative strength: Medium–High
Confidence: Medium
Archicad is increasingly isolated:
• Revit dominates large firms
• IFC workflows remain brittle
• MEP/HVAC integration is weak
• Structural workflows lag behind
• Interoperability is inconsistent
This reduces Archicad’s gravitational pull and forces Graphisoft to chase “catch‑up” features rather than innovate.

4. Corporate Ownership and Strategic Drift
Relative strength: Medium
Confidence: Medium
Graphisoft is owned by Nemetschek, which also owns:
• Vectorworks
• Allplan
• Bluebeam
This creates:
• internal competition
• overlapping product lines
• diluted investment
• strategic ambiguity
Archicad is no longer the flagship; it’s one of several siblings.

5. Loss of Deep Architectural Focus
Relative strength: Medium
Confidence: Medium
Archicad used to be:
• architect‑first
• design‑centric
• elegant
• coherent
Recent versions feel:
• marketing‑driven
• feature‑scattershot
• inconsistent
• less architect‑centric
This is a common late‑stage software pattern.

6. Declining Investment in GDL and Customisability
Relative strength: Medium
Confidence: High
You know this better than most.
GDL has:
• not been modernised
• not been given a node‑based editor
• not been integrated with Python
• not been given modern debugging tools
• not been given a proper IDE
• not been extended to modern parametric workflows
This is a huge missed opportunity.

7. UI/UX Drift and Inconsistency
Relative strength: Medium–Low
Confidence: Medium
Archicad’s UI is:
• partly modern
• partly legacy
• partly inconsistent
• partly over‑abstracted
This is typical of software that has grown without a unified design philosophy.

8. Marketing‑Driven Feature Development
Relative strength: Low–Medium
Confidence: Medium
Features that look good in release notes often take precedence over:
• performance
• stability
• deep architectural tools
• long‑standing user requests
This is a hallmark of enshitification.

What Would Actually Reverse Archicad’s Enshitification?

Here’s the high‑leverage list — the things that would genuinely change the trajectory:

1. Re‑invest in core modelling performance and multi‑core utilisation
This is the single biggest win.

2. Modernise GDL or replace it with a node‑based parametric system
This would restore Archicad’s competitive edge.

3. Commit to a stable, coherent UI/UX redesign
Not cosmetic — structural.

4. Re‑focus on architects, not marketing
Deep tools > shiny features.

5. Improve interoperability (IFC, Revit, Rhino, BlenderBIM)
This reduces lock‑in and increases value.

6. Offer a true perpetual licence with meaningful updates
This would restore trust.

7. Increase transparency in the roadmap
Let users see where the product is going.

Final Assessment
Archicad’s enshitification is real, structural, and reversible — but only if Graphisoft:
• shifts incentives
• modernises the core
• re‑commits to architects
• stops chasing Autodesk’s business model

The technical foundation is still strong.
The problem is strategic drift, not engineering impossibility.

[torben_wadlinger]

That is exactly what you get when you evaluate the posts here in the forum. The CAD/BIM market is saturated. All that's left to do is try to steal each other's users. Currently, the only choice is between a rock and a hard place. In situations like this, history has shown that a newcomer always suddenly appears and shakes up the market.

[Stuart Smith]

Very true, Torben.

I suspect Revit users have many of the same complaints about Autodesk.

Another headwind for Graphisoft is the massive task of training/onboarding users new to the software.

AC is an order of magnitude more challenging to learn than it was 20+ years ago when I started using it. New features in every version add up. I only have to learn what's new this year, but a new hire has to learn everything, or at least enough to not be dangerous.  

Firms in the US expect new hires to walk in the door already proficient in Revit.

A Revit-killer BIM app would need the following features to gain any market share

- roundtrip import/export compatibility with Revit

- a simple (not simplistic!), internally consistent UX/UI that can adapt to and add complexity as projects and users grow: i.e easy to learn

- free training included with a license

- cross-platform (Mac/Win)

- competitive pricing (less than Revit) and no subscription requirement

The first one is the whole deal. The ability to round-trip files with consultants is a huge reason why firms are locked in to Revit.

The training thing is up there too. 

[PB]

Absolutely agree with all the above posts !

[jl_lt]

The way i see it, the problem is not if Archicad can do parametric weird geometry (it cant natively), or if it can use AI to make renders (aparently it can, but why bother?).

The problem is one of vision, self reflection, creativity and essence. Unfortunately Archicad has completely lost all of them. And for what? for chasing a software that is at least 20 years ahead of you in what you are trying to chase now (MEP, AI and structure). 

Meanwhile, archicad neglected its niche. It refused to create strategies to position themselves in still up-for-grabs markets (where just by cheers numbers would have been very profitable); it allocated resources on the wrong fronts; mistreated long time users (and by mistreat i mean hitting them with a hammer on the pinky toe and throwing clhorine in their eyes while still wanting to get paid for it), and have become completely oblivious to one of the strategies that sold me on them which was "interoperability". And, as if that wasnt enough, its currently waging an internal battle with its siblings, all of them trying to do the same, but with a third or less of the resources.  Either all of them die, or one comes victorious at the expense of the others for i cannot see an escenario in which all 3 Nemetschek software survive. 

The more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to back track on all this mess.   

But personally, i still love Archidad. I dont need too many shiny new features that are all buggy.  I dont need it to connect to AI. I dont need it to make great renders. I dont need it to work with NURBS.   I only need it to let me be an architect (or at least let me think im one). It has become a digital drafting board to me and gives me a lot of confidence to tackle any kind of project, more than any 2d cad or other 3d software combined ever did.

Architects, what a word. Thats what we are and thats all i want to be.  Let other software do all the shiny magazine stuff. We just want to keep working.

My best wishes to all in this 2026.