Don wrote:
I believe that anyone graduating from Architecture school today, certainly in North America, has to consider Revit proficiency a must, if they hope to get anything of a foothold int he job market with the economy in dire straits as it is right now. Just as AutoCAD proficiency was almost a pre-requisite for getting into this profession 10-20 years ago.
My son is in architecture school right now and while Revit is very popular I don't see it as a must.
That's because you're not currently trying to find a job or get into the profession at the bottom level. The reality of the job market (compounded by this recession) in this economy is quite different to not only what they are teaching in Architecture Schools, which are far removed from the profession as it is already, but also what the students are aware of what they will require to be ready and competitive for the job market.
I hate to say it, but this is a reality that your son will discover for himself when he does graduate (unless he comes to work for you and doesn't have to go through the grueling job hunt like his peers) and has to try to find job in an already distressed profession With any bit of luck he will graduate when this recession has passed and when a good enough portion of the profession has recovered.
But at the present, talk to anyone who graduated in the past 2-3 years and is now looking for a job, about what their biggest concerns in their qualifications is, and what they hope to do about it, and you are likely to run into that Revit question over and over again. In fact talk to anyone in the profession who was laid off over the last 5 years even and who has been looking to get back into the profession and get employment again, regarding what they've been doing in their off-time or while on unemployment, and I guarantee you that you'll hear talk of people taking Revit classes, or brushing up on their REvit proficiency. And obviously the reason for all this is simple - do a quick scan of any job board on AIA, Archinect or even Craigslist and see the percentage between jobs calling for Revit proficiency versus other jobs, and you'll understand why.
Obviously the situation is a bit different if you have more qualifications (read: flexibility) and are licensed or experienced enough to be able to have a say in determining your fate, but this is not the reality that people of your son's generation are facing or will be facing once they graduate and try to get into a profession that has virtually lost an entire generation thanks to this recession.
Don wrote:
Not to mention the apparent if not complete apathy and disinterest that they seem to have towards the users.
I really don't disagree since you qualify a bit what you say, but I maybe don't infer from GS's actions that they don't care about the users or that they have some malevolent intent. My take on the article is that GS is looking to the long term and trying to be relevant in a Revit world.
Look, I'm not saying that GS shouldn't be looking to the future or to their own future and place in the market. My problem with that article and with articles like that as well as with what seems to now be the accepted GS philosophy and vision, is, how can all or most of your focus and efforts be directed to the future, when your present is littered with such problems and deficiencies that you either will not address or choose not to address. It's great to have ArchiCAD capable of collaborating and communicating with other software, but what's the point of that when I have nothing worthwhile, to communicate because I'm so limited by the current set of tools?
It's great to have ArchiCAD positioned to have a presence in the Corporate (big customers) market, but what's the point, when those Corporate players, are still going to be forced to revert to other solutions and software to address things that you can't address at the most basic level? It's great to have ArchiCAD capable of taking full advantage of today's super-fast computer hardware technology, but what's the point when the software's algorithms aren't fully optimized to take advantage of those technological advances, or if they are not accessible to users in a way that makes sense for the users (read: Visual manipulation and modeling, and not line Coding from the 80's)?
Brings to mind the old saying missing the forest for the trees, except in GS's case, its completely in reverse. They are so focused on the future, that they are virtually almost prepared to cut their legs, as they completely neglect the present. Actually, putting the cart before the horse is a more apt idiomatic analogy.
I actually also happen to believe that they can be more forthcoming with their customers, because they have been more forthcoming with their customers before and in the recent past.
When the previous president of GS took over (Gallardo I believe), right before the release AC9 and after the debacle that was AC8.0, he actually used to personally post on and participate in these forums and was quite open about the direction he hoped to take to firm in the future. And there were quite a few developers following suit then as well. This was not that long ago, and it was a great time to be an ArchiCAD customer/user, because you felt a certain confidence in the product, just as there was a certain level of accountability from those making the product.
Unfortunately Gallardo is no longer with GS, and it seems neither is that culture that he seemed to be trying to foster (nor, from the looks of it, are a whole bunch of the developers who actually used to participate in these forums). And maybe that's why. But then again, Gallardo was a former Autodesk man, and is it any surprise that Autodesk are so adept at marketing their products?
Sorry for going on so long about this, but watching what's happening to ArchiCAD, and GS by extension, is akin to the old saying of watching a frog just sit in a saucepan of boiling water slowly boil to death and die a slow death, when it's completely within their means to stop it.
