Archicad pricing policy

[Anonymous]

Can please someone from GS explain the big difference in prices bettween US and Europe?

The price in Europe is almost double.

This also holds for upgrades.

Can please someone give a responsible answer?

[Eduardo Rolon]

Vitruvius wrote:
The fact is that AutoDesk has a massive installed user base through AutoCad which provides a ready entry for their next generation product Revit.

I disagree on this point. Most AutoCAD users are just users they learned the software and that was as far as it got. They will not switch to either Revit, ADT or AC because then they will have to relearn a new software (example of this is that most ADT users work with it as if it was just plain AutoCAD) and they are not in a position to evaluate new software or to think up new procedures to produce a set of Construction Docs. Also the other problem with this point is that it assumes that AutoCAD users are computer literate IMO the biggest majority are more like secretaries that only know how to work with MS Office and that's as far as their knowledge of computers goes.
I have given demos of AC to a lot of architectural offices either in conventions or in our regular association. The biggest concern from principals is not production it is what to do with their investment in AutoCAD and secondly the training for their employees (since our profession has a lot of turnover in employees they are afraid to have to keep training new personnel all the time). The only way Revit is going to be able to get into existing Architectural Offices is if AutoDesk sells it as an upgrade to AutoCAD users for the same price of a regular AutoCAD license, (that is how the majority of ADT licenses were sold) and even then it will not guarantee its use.
IMO the move to a BIM solution in an office situation is more difficult than the original switch from hand drawing to AutoCAD. The easiest way to start the change will be in schools if students graduate knowing how to use AC or Revit, eventually when they establish their office they will choose a BIM solution over a flatland program. Also GS might look into offering a discount to students for a professional license when they graduate since this will get AC into existing offices thru the backdoor.

On another point:

oreopoulos wrote:
The pricing policy is very different across the glob, with prices reaching as much as twice the US price.

AND

They force you to upgrade every 2 upgrades or you lose your right to upgrade!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was the main reason i left them. THis is pure blackmail. Why should i upgrade form AutocadV14 to any later version? As architect i see no reason.

So i looked elsewere and Archicad is a great solution.

This was one of the points that made me switch when I started my office.

[Vitruvius]

This thread has migrated WAY off topic.

My original post was a whinge about the disparity in AC pricing globally. And, if any of you are working outside of North America you know exactly what I mean.

Secondly, and tangential to the above, it is about the fact that there is a very real competitor to ArchiCad out there. Yes, I really love ArchiCAD and hope for the best in terms of its future prospects but price is an issue.

The very real fact is that AutoDesk is now swimming in the same pond. And it is a very big shark.

And though I can't speak for other markets, the cold hard truth is that throughout Asia, a reference to ArchiCAD is consistently met with "what?". And when I get a colleague interested they instantly shut down when they're quoted a price 50% above AutoCAD. --- And, yes, I know AutoCAK ain't equivilant, but only to those who've used the best would pay for the difference.

ArchiCAD is a really great product, but their pricing policies could very likely consign them to a marginal role. Which would be a shame.

And Ejrolon: AutoCAD users may just be unthinking users per your logic, but at $3500. a pop, and with Revit in the wings, and with a massive installed user base, and an almost blind acceptance as the industry standard .... they have problems I would dream for.

Look folks, get off your "I hate AutoDesk" bandwagon and contribute some real ideas about how to expand the user base of a an exceptional software package.

Or learn to love Revit.

[Vitruvius]

Ejrolin wrote:

"The only way Revit is going to be able to get into existing Architectural Offices is if AutoDesk sells it as an upgrade to AutoCAD users for the same price of a regular AutoCAD license."

Unless I'm grievously mistaken, AutoDesk has bought Revit as the successor to AutoCad and will do exactly what you've suggested. They'd be idiots ( which they demonstrably are not ) if they didn't do exactly that.

Every AutoCAD user will be enticed, financially and otherwise, to switch to Revit over the next couple of years.

And meanwhile, GS is still dodging the question of the egregious price differentials paid by their LOYAL users around the globe.


AND THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!!!

[Eduardo Rolon]

Vitruvius wrote:
Unless I'm grievously mistaken, AutoDesk has bought Revit as the successor to AutoCad and will do exactly what you've suggested. They'd be idiots ( which they demonstrably are not ) if they didn't do exactly that.
And meanwhile, GS is still dodging the question of the egregious price differentials paid by their LOYAL users around the globe.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!!!

Sorry I went Off Topic, I agree that the different price structure is not fair to the users.

[Vitruvius]

Heyo Ejrolan,

No problem.

The issues I'm trying to raise are unfair pricing policy and the very real new competitor to our market. Don't misconstrue my thoughts, because I very much want to see GS prevail.

But AutoDesk will win thousands of converts through their acquisition of Revit. And AutoDesk bashing is a complete waste of time.

I really do differ with Aaron, because I don't think he's addressing the reality of the market - which is, bluntly speaking, AutoCAD users will switch to Revit because it is now an AutoDesk product. Tirades against the AutoDesk behemoth might be intellectually satisfying but they're damned useless at advocating a way of working.

This is a strictly commercial endeavour in which the winners will convince their users they have the best product. And honestly, GS may have the better product but still may lose the battle. My business is not about ArchiCAD, it is only a tool. And frankly, when that tool is blunted I'll dump it in a New York minute!!!

Because my business is design - and whatever tool best supports my business will prevail.

[Anonymous]

Please allow me to make my first post ever here...some replies to comments scattered throughout...

Pricing to me has always seemed more magic than science, at least as a consumer. But let's face it software makers are out to make money and each market has different costs associated with doing business. Market size, language, politics, governments, taxation, incorporation, import/export, legal, insurance just to name a few. Not to mention the definitive "art" and magic, currency exchange rates.

That said, I'm not certain I could make a business model that works on the upgrade fee's of software alone. If you resent paying for a tool that significantly helps you and your staff crank out your firm's "widgets", then don't buy it and stick with what you have. It's always your call. How well will you do without it? For how long? How much will it cost to wait? Only you can decide.

Have "we" ever charged one client a different amount than another for a similar project? Or if "we" sell the same design to another client later, do "we" charge them less? Or last, do "we" charge the "chain" commercial client less for the next standard building that is just placed on a site differently?

ejrolon wrote:
...Most AutoCAD users are just users that learned the software and that was as far as it got...problem with this point is that it assumes that AutoCAD users are computer literate...

This is inaccurate and unfair to AutoCAD users in general. Most that I know are creative folks that use a tool to get their job done. Some are better than others, not that different a condition from Architects in general. Besides, not many users of software are actually in a position to say which they use in the first place.

I think this thread on pricing and the thread regarding the new release are very important and relevant for your favorite product's continued existence. I believe it is safe to say that Archicad has never made it to mainstream marketplace acceptance (at least in the USA) that companies dream of. Autodesk is attempting to make that happen for Revit. Autodesk HAS however made it into the mainstream marketplace for cadd in general and it is very very hard to knock off the leader because the mainstream market prefers to back the leader to protect their infrastructure. Both Archicad and Revit have a difficult task to bridge this bias toward the status quo, the same battle waged over the previous years with 2D cadd adoption.

If you don't think Autodesk is making it attractive for AutoCAD users or ADT users to switch, consider that it cost my firm $250 per seat to switch from ADT last year. With Revit Series you get AutoCAD too, for about $400 more. What better way to do some tasting of the VB, BIM concept while you do the 2d cadd business as usual?

The characterization that AutoCAD r14 was a bad release is ironic since its success has been a big part of the problem getting folks to upgrade to new versions. It worked so reliably that firms are still heavily committed to it. Only the recent lack of support for earlier versions has forced their hand, in some cases the new seats sit on shelves only to avoid paying full upgrade prices down the road.

Last, history is littered with the carcasses of better products that lost the battle to lesser foe...it happens time and time again. Right or wrong, fair or unfair... A company has to understand what drives their market and where their product is in the technology adoption cycle. Perhaps Graphisoft are right where they want to be and are content to maintain their niche?

and...I'm a Revit user...who cares about this "new" way of working taking it's rightful place in our profession.

Nice forum all...

[Vitruvius]

Good points Steve - history is littered with great products which lost out to lesser products. And most losers lost the race due to their own bad marketing and product overpricing.

What bugs me is that Stefan is paying $6500. in Europe, and GS wants me to pay $5000. here in Asia for a product which can be purchased in the US for $3500. or thereabouts. Market differences do not justify such variances - is the cost of doing business in New York really half the price of Europe? Do European architects earn twice as much as US architects?

My local distributor knows squat about ArchiCAD, yet GS suggests that I should pay him a premium of $1500. bucks to drop a box off at my office? I will pay for value added to my business but paying that kind of premium for no additional value is just plain stupid. No doubt the European users are likewise mystified at paying hefty premiums. All I am asking is that GS provide standardized global pricing.

In the meantime, I buy in the US every time I travel there on business. As does nearly every other ArchiCAD user I know in Asia. I have no idea how the local distributor is progressing with sales of ArchiCAD.

[Anonymous]

Vitruvius wrote:
...Market differences do not justify such variances - is the cost of doing business in New York really half the price of Europe...

Since ArchiCAD is stronger in Europe than the USA (true?), I am surprised that it would cost more there unless pricing here is less to increase the sales potential? Are you speaking US dollars throughout your example?

Are you certain that there are not localization costs that legitimately drive up these prices in your country and others? These are not likely to be obvious but no less a factor. An import tax on a foreign product alone could negatively affect your price. How would you as the consumer know what or if this is happening unless you have connections with this part of your govenment? Just some thoughts...there has to be some "logic" even if it defies your analysis...even if it is opportunistic in nature.

[Eduardo Rolon]

IMO the problem with the pricing policy is the "magic" that Steve_Stafford writes about if there was a formula that people could understand then there could be less problems. For example in Puerto Rico buying a car costs about 30% more than the list price in the US, the reason comes mostly from taxes and shipping costs. So I know that the Mini Cooper that I want, no matter how much I fight will cost me 32,000 instead of the 22,400 if I were living in the US mainland.

On the AutoCAD users as computer literate point, it is not my intention to sound unfair or inaccurate but IMO the switch to a BIM approach to production drawings will face the same hurdles as the switch from hand drafting to CAD. It does not matter if it is Revit or AC but Autodesk's advantage is the pricing option that it can offer its installed AutoCAD user base.

[Anonymous]

ejrolon wrote:
...but IMO the switch to a BIM approach to production drawings will face the same hurdles as the switch from hand drafting to CAD.

aaah, on this we agree certainly. Both AC and R must make it incredibly easy for non techie architects to use (a non techie architect is ironic to me since we must be conversant in many things to be effective, so why is cadd "hard).

This means for every metaphor we use to put our designs on paper (until there is an actual means to construct a bldg w/o paper) there must be a corresponding methodology that is easily followed and executed. No workarounds and tricks...these don't appeal to mainstream users, only the techie folks enjoy these. So this still means a leap forward beyond what we see today. As "simple" as each program is, they could each be easier to use...