Graphisoft Corporate Management

[archislave]

I was wondering how Graphisoft is managed. Is it still controlled from Budapest. Is most all development done in Budapest still? I am wondering if it still has the same leadership that it has for years. I asked because it feels like Architect is developing very slowly. I have not seen any software developed for iOS devices except of r BimX viewers.

Part of me wishes Archicad would be bought out by a more progressive company or managed by a younger team perhaps.

[archislave]

The problem is you are using the purchase model as the basis. Why should anyone be expected to outlay such a large amount up front. Especially, given the fact that a yearly maintenance fee of $600 or so to remain current. It seems these prices are arbitrary and established for some reason decades ago. Had you ever thought that a lower monthly price would be a no brainer and more people would be willing to maintain a subscription.

The way it is now, many don't upgrade or some get pirated copies. I remember how we used to share older copies of Photoshop when the super high price as about $800. Then it was $250 every other year for the upgrade. Over two years you would spend Over $1000. On subscription it is $10 a month ($8 on amazon). Over two years you spend $240. You can look at their profit reports of how much more revenue they are taking in some more people are willing to pay than copy.

Autodesk is going all subscription and I hope they will bring down prices in a similar way. If you could initial purchase plus annual upgrade costs the subscription method is cheaper. Especially, as offices staff fluctuates with the economy. Yes maybe over ten years a purchase plus upgrades becomes cheaper than a subscription for 10 years. Then keep in mind how taxes work in the US. You can annualize your deductible offices expenses and not have to amortize or write down huge one time expenses over several years. This is the way it works and one big driver for subscriptions. Graphisoft ignores it a it's peril. I have never thought the US was their most important market and they will shrug their shoulders.

[archislave]

My other jab is that the current Graphisoft rest on the brave foundation laid by the previous forward thinking developer of Archicad. Even in the face of communism in Hungary this happened. Now there is no futuristic vision when things are so easy. It goes to show that some of the best inventions come out of hard times and adversity. They are so desperate to rise above and also used to risk.

It is too easy for the current executives to be happy with their pleasant lives. Nice houses, cars, clothes. Nice job to work in a nice city and pass the beautiful Danube everyday. Who would want to upset that. As long as the company is growing slightly and pay checks are coming in....

Meanwhile the sands are slowly eroding beneath their feet. The will be left standing on a pillar of sand due to their stubbornness.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the value to the client of the forced subscription model of Autodesk, in Australia it it currently $352/month for the Building design suite which contains s bunch of software I have no intention / desire to use (3ds Max, Navisworks, AutoCAD Architecture to name a few) but is used as 'added value' to increase the price of the suite. So after 2 years I have already more than paid for a perpetual license but will not be able to use the software or even open my files if I don't keep up the subscription.
The software companies are doing this to increase revenue and guarantee an income stream and dividends to the shareholders
Scott

[Laszlo Nagy]

archislave wrote:
My other jab is that the current Graphisoft rest on the brave foundation laid by the previous forward thinking developer of Archicad. Even in the face of communism in Hungary this happened. Now there is no futuristic vision when things are so easy. It goes to show that some of the best inventions come out of hard times and adversity. They are so desperate to rise above and also used to risk.

It is too easy for the current executives to be happy with their pleasant lives. Nice houses, cars, clothes. Nice job to work in a nice city and pass the beautiful Danube everyday. Who would want to upset that. As long as the company is growing slightly and pay checks are coming in....

Meanwhile the sands are slowly eroding beneath their feet. The will be left standing on a pillar of sand due to their stubbornness.

I just don't know where you get this idea from.

Scott, I am happy you chimed in with your opinion, it is better when two users clash their views, rather than a user and a moderator.

[Ralph Wessel]

archislave wrote:
My other jab is that the current Graphisoft rest on the brave foundation laid by the previous forward thinking developer of Archicad.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from either. When you think about any kind of technological advance, keep a few of things in mind:

• 1. Revolutionary breakthroughs are very rare. Apple seems to have pulled this off a few times, but it might never happen again for them either. Who knows - there isn't a technique for delivering revolutions. It's more likely to occur in relatively young markets. We were struggling with the notion of CAD when GS had a vision for BIM. There's still a lot of ground to break, but are there advancements on that scale to be made? Perhaps, but don't expect them as a matter of course.
  
  2. ARCHICAD and all the technology it rests on (OS etc) has grown and matured. Like any growing thing, greater changes are simpler at early stages. Once complex systems have matured and solidified, the consequences of change are increasingly harder to integrate. Radical changes might cause far more harm than good.
  
  3. GS didn't have an established customer base when ARCHICAD was started. That gives you a huge advantage if you want to start something radically different. Remember, GS has never forgotten its responsibilities to existing customers with every new development by ensuring our work can be safely and (relatively) easily moved from one version to another. This is a very significant design constraint – a wild leap forward that cuts off everything in the past is not a customer-friendly approach. Autodesk, by comparison, provided a terrible experience moving from AutoCAD to Revit and weak migration between Revit versions (e.g. no backward movement). Having fallen so far behind, it's probably the best they could do. Don't lose sight of the pains GS has taken to make your life simpler as changes are made.

If you knew the guys at GS personally, you wouldn't say things like this. They're a committed, incredibly smart and hardworking bunch of people.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

sboydturner wrote:
I don't see the value to the client of the forced subscription model of Autodesk, in Australia it it currently $352/month for the Building design suite which contains s bunch of software I have no intention / desire to use (3ds Max, Navisworks, AutoCAD Architecture to name a few) but is used as 'added value' to increase the price of the suite. So after 2 years I have already more than paid for a perpetual license but will not be able to use the software or even open my files if I don't keep up the subscription.
The software companies are doing this to increase revenue and guarantee an income stream and dividends to the shareholders
Scott

Can I just add my voice to a very firm and decisive NO to a subscription-only model.

As pointed out, the only reason Autodesk is doing this is to increase their revenue stream while locking in their customers to a market model that leaves them with no choice but to have to update and upgrade their subscription (and version number) every year, whether they want to or not, or risk not being able to work on their projects.

And all this while they lump on you "added value" extra software (more like shelfware), that you don't use and will never use.

You should hear firms that are locked into Autodesk's subscription model and how they complain about it.
And anyone who suggests this as a route for Graphisoft to take clearly hasn't worked for such a firm or under such a system.

It's a nightmare, that is all benefit to the Software developer, and almost no benefit to little benefit to the customer who ends up funding them for a lot of side-projects that never benefit them.
(ask Autodesk users how many of them are ever going to use Fusion 360 or Vasari, or any of these other side-projects that Autodesk is always seeming to start, and then abandoning shortly afterwards when they don't catch on. And yet they're all paying for it/them)

[Eduardo Rolon]

Bricklyne wrote:

sboydturner wrote:
I don't see the value to the client of the forced subscription model of Autodesk, in Australia it it currently $352/month for the Building design suite which contains s bunch of software I have no intention / desire to use (3ds Max, Navisworks, AutoCAD Architecture to name a few) but is used as 'added value' to increase the price of the suite. So after 2 years I have already more than paid for a perpetual license but will not be able to use the software or even open my files if I don't keep up the subscription.
The software companies are doing this to increase revenue and guarantee an income stream and dividends to the shareholders
Scott

Can I just add my voice to a very firm and decisive NO to a subscription-only model.

As pointed out, the only reason Autodesk is doing this is to increase their revenue stream while locking in their customers to a market model that leaves them with no choice but to have to update and upgrade their subscription (and version number) every year, whether they want to or not, or risk not being able to work on their projects.

And all this while they lump on you "added value" extra software (more like shelfware), that you don't use and will never use.

You should hear firms that are locked into Autodesk's subscription model and how they complain about it.
And anyone who suggests this as a route for Graphisoft to take clearly hasn't worked for such a firm or under such a system.

It's a nightmare, that is all benefit to the Software developer, and almost no benefit to little benefit to the customer who ends up funding them for a lot of side-projects that never benefit them.
(ask Autodesk users how many of them are ever going to use Fusion 360 or Vasari, or any of these other side-projects that Autodesk is always seeming to start, and then abandoning shortly afterwards when they don't catch on. And yet they're all paying for it/them)

+1

[archislave]

Autodesk is certainly not the model to follow. I am holding up Adobe as an example of fair and even advantageous subscription value. I would also say that Microsoft Office 365 personal is a good value compared to buying Office. It is up to the seller to offer good value. Not gouge customers. I never understood why most architectural software costs over $5000 anyway. People have just accepted this with no question as to why or how this figure was arrived at for 20 years.

[Eduardo Rolon]

I include adobe in this. My Adobe software cost went from $100 anually to $360 for software that I don't use to produce construction documents.

[archislave]

You can stop your subscription at any time. I pay $10 a month for Photoshop and Lightroom. What other software would you need from Adobe to practice architecture?