What do you think about the last presentation of Graphisoft?

[hpenbeoglu]

Archicad 24 event was good but probably focused on new users, so it was boring or let's say not exciting enough for advanced users like me. I was expecting more about the product.

[list=]

Logo change can be told with a video explaining the history of it and why did you select this one?

• Presenters could show some projects on dark Mac screen.

• Showing, walking in the campus (GS Park) would be perfect (like Apple) because standing still presenter is always not attractive.

What else did you think while watching?

[Anonymous]

IMO software industry is facing a revolution. The previous paradigm was "The secret is the soul of the business", when the technological aspect of the business (CPU, GPU, Internet latency, Storage, etc) were the main bottlenecks of the product competitivity to all players. The software that better capitalize these scarce resources would have an advantage over the others. And this is why the secrecy was essential to create, maintain and expand market share. But now, as Dylan says, the times they are changing. The technological environment is not a bottleneck anymore. We have 5G, 48cores CPU's, Gigantic GPU's, Teraflops, 4k! Machines can do mostly anything we may want. And now is the time when the human/social aspect of the business is starting to get more importance. The user experience and its expectations is becoming the soul of the business. Now users tend to engage to a product/software/company that stablish an empathy relation with their lives. Mega companies will have to adapt to survive. This is why more and more SW companies are listening to their customers and fulfilling their expectations, because now the paradigm is "The costumer is always right".

jl_lt wrote:
Consider this text:
https://www.onland.info/archives/2008/0 ... lement.php

So true... James Murray is a legend in the Archicad community.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

jl_lt wrote:
Sorry to insist with this, but after seeing some roadmaps, i think is pointless if nobody likes to where it is going. A direction needs to be stablished then you do the roadmap. Unfortunately, from a business point of view, in a software as big as Archicad, i think it would be dangerous to show your cards in that way. Its like telling yout competition what to do, specially for major updates. Graphisoft seems to like to use the surprise factor.

I'm sorry, but this is a mind-bogglingly bizarre perspective, you have here.
I've been reading your comments on here for a while now, wondering whether you're a Graphisoft developer, a former a developer for them or a reseller, and while I can't quite make up my mind which, I'm currently leaning on the latter.

Let's unpack some of this.....shall we?

The point of a road-map is not to solicit rave reviews and get brownie points and kudos from users, but rather to give people (both the users as your primary customers, any potential customers considering the software AS WELL as people within or connected to the company itself (like third-party developers) where the company is going with regards to its vision for the software and what it's working on for future versions. For current users it gives a good idea of how to allocate their resources vis-a-vis when to update or not and whether any immediate future versions will have features they greatly need and are looking forward to (this is more critical for small firm customers with limited resources and who need to keep a tighter rein on their budgets). For other people not necessarily clients themselves but still connected to either GS or the software - like third party developers who may or may not be working in tandem with GS, it gives a good idea on what they can work on in terms of what they're providing and producing (as in addons and plugins and productivity tools) for future versions and what they can concentrate on that GS might not be prioritizing for any near-future immediate versions. For potential customers from rival software considering switching - depending on how GS play it and how ambitious or elaborate the roadmap is, it could even act as an extra incentive for them seeing GS working on features they've badly wanted in their own (current) software but have no hopes of getting any time soon.
I could go on and on and on for the reasons why a roadmap could actually serve rather than hurt Graphisoft's own interests, but what's the point if they can't see these reasons themselves and if they're bouyed by the opinion of the more vocal cheerleading contingent.
Not everyone's going to love what they see in the roadmap, and likely even more will not like what they don't see but think should be there. Such is the nature of the beast, and anyone using the software ought to know that its development is not a democracy by any means and not everyone gets a equal say on what should or shouldn't be included or improved.
Most people are mature and sophisticated enough to get that point.
Just as most companies that put out or have roadmaps are savvy enough and cognizant enough to be aware of the potential pitfalls of doing so, but then choose to do so anyway - and this would include virtually every company that Graphisoft are currently in some form of a partnership or another (Epic Games' with Twinmotion; McNeel with Rhino and Grasshopper; Abvent with Artlantis; etc....)

And when you say "....a direction needs to be established and then you do the road-map",.....is the implication and suggestion here that Graphisoft still have no direction and are still working on it, hence the reason they're not providing one, or that the idea of providing one would suggest they lack direction?
Because I think it's pretty obvious that they DO have a direction they'd like to take this software.
It's just that recent versions seem to indicate it's not one that current users are eager to go with them.

And the idea that producing a roadmap would be "dangerous" and akin to "showing your cards" and telling competitors what to do for major updates, is pure nonsense and asinine.
Do you honestly believe that the developers or higher-ups and decision-makers at Autodesk or Bentley, or the Vectorworks or Allpan crews are taking their cues on what to develop in their respective software from what Graphisoft developers might be working on or are planing for their future versions?
Really?
Wouldn't it just be easier in that case to just buy a current or previous version of the software (as if they don't already have a copy or several copies, much like it wouldn't surprise me to learn that GS developers have copies of their rival software) and see what they have that you don't and go from there?
Or even easier, just visit the respective wishlist sections and see what their actual users want directly that you can do?

And all of this belies the idea or reality that even if you, as the developer of a rival software, found out from such a roadmap that Graphisoft was working on a particular "killer feature" for their next version of their software, that you'd automatically be able to work on the same either within the same time-frame or even at all (with the assumption that you already have all the necessary under-the-hood stuff ready to support such a feature) or that it would even serve the larger interests of your own software or company to do so.

You almost make it seem as if them publishing a roadmap would be akin to them publishing the ArchiCAD source code.

Secrecy as the end-all and be-all method and approach to software development is such an outdated 1980's/1990's way of working that it's a wonder any company approaches development that way at all.
Nowadays any Tech company, IT or software development firm worth their salt has a more open approach in this regard, and ironically the developers at Graphisfot have none other than their big "hero" the late great Steve Jobs to thank for this, who with his trademark black Turtleneck-shorn, eye-catching presentations in the early-to-mid 2000's popularized that approach of "here's what we're working on" and "What's coming down the pipe in the next version" way of keeping customer engagement that was eagerly adopted by all their other rivals once they saw how important it was to keep your users in the loop.

jl_lt wrote:
But on the other hand, for smaller things, do Graphisoft actually does some metaanalisis with the polls to know which wishes are the most sought for? What people actually needs? what changes could give the most results with the less effort? empirical evidence, from an external point of view (user) so far says "not much". My point is, right now wishes are quite scattered, with no order anymore, anyone can wish whatever they want, so its no surprise its hardly ever listened to. There needs to be direction even in what we ask for.

And who's to be blamed for that?
The perception that no wishes from the wishlist sections ever seem to be listened to?
The users for asking for them? Year after year and seemingly never getting any response or sense that they even matter?
Who's to blame for the fact that wishes, as you say, seem,...."scattered",.....and all over the place?

And you don't AT ALL imagine that a roadmap would be a small albeit not insignificant step in allowing Graphisoft to start to rein some of that in, while tempering expectations among users and also facilitating the people posting the wishes to have a better focus on what to wish for within the confines of what COULD actually happen that's being worked on as per GS' own limited resources?

It's almost like you bring up issues whose answers or possibly solutions you're so intent on dismissing offhand.

jl_lt wrote:
Consider this text:

https://www.onland.info/archives/2008/01/the_standard_element.php

It lays out beautifully, in a broad sense, what this user thinks all elements should behave. You can agree or not (personally i do), but this is the kind of vision that could get us somewhere.

Point of note:

That article you linked to was posted 12 years ago - as in,...TWELVE! - in 2008,.......and in that time almost none of the things he brings up (a lot of which come up over and over again in the wishlist section) have been addressed.
Granted, the "Curved Roof" one he suggests has been somewhat addressed with the Shell tool and to a lesser degree, the Morph tool. But the fact that neither of these tools have since received any major updates or improvements in that time, should, on its own, be rather telling.

And granted too, that the other things he's asking for would essentially and effectively require a complete re-think (and possible re-write from the ground up) of how ArchiCAD actually works, and I'm not certain that most people using the software now would be fine with such a radical change or approach to "fixing" the problems in the software.
But if the discussion can't be had at all - on account of not even knowing what direction the software or its development are headed - then what's the point?

[jl_lt]

Hi Mr. Bricklyne, what a coincidence, I have seen many of your posts too! im not any of that you might suspect i am (although i wish i worked as a Graphisoft developer... that would mean i live in Budapest!), but no, im just a relatively new user that likes Archicad very much, and someone who wonders how we survived for so long without it. Archicad allowed us to finally escape the horrors of the 2nd dimension drafting. I like it for what it is, and like it even more for what it could become, but still isnot, and im still not so bitter by years and years of neglect. I wont get bitter though: As i wrote in one post, writing on a forum with the pretention to be heard or expect anything to change is just wishful thinking to me. And yet, opinions must be made and something might change... or not.

All the software you mention that have roadmaps are very niche products that have nowhere else to go: Corona render will do renders, and grasshopper will be parametric i guess, so they have very specific purposes and goals... But Archicad and Revit and a few others can be as broad as the AEC industry... i really dont think it would be wise to show your plans that easily (although i have always suspected that there is some sort of agreement or legal blocks between many different companies, that would explain why software like vectorworks have evolved the site modeling tools so much while others havent, but who knows )

We all offer and receive help here, but I dont think anyone here would openly and gladly offer their office template to the public, specially to your competition right? (if someone does kudos to them!) so why then should i expect a company, many many orders of magnitude bigger than me or most of us, share their future plans just because?

As for the rest of your comments, they all have answers. But for now lets just leave it at the points i was trying to make:

- Companies like Graphisoft survive by giving people things that they didnt know they needed, instead of always giving them what they want. Imagine they show their roadmap, and some people dont like it? will they change it? why deal needlessly with negativity? So yeah, i wasnt clear enough with this: I didnt mean they dont have direction. Its just that we should not feel entitled to know it.

That doesnt mean that:

-We as users cannot have direction in what we ask for. If 1000 people ask 1000 different, sometimes disparatte and opposite things, no one will hear. but if 1000 people get their act together, and ask for 10 or 20 essential things, someone will probably hear... if they are not careful, someone that actually DOES HEAR might not be inside the newly branded Graphisoft. The risk of not hearing is upon them.

-So instead of a roadmap which usually comes from top to bottom "Company shows users what they are doing" to create the illusion of participation (as modern democracy does), my proposal involves proper analisis of the polls and even further user organization that could create preassure bottom to top "Users let the company FEEL the pain". That is my proposal, wether if its doable and worth the time, how and who would do it, that is another topic.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

jl_lt wrote:
.......

All the software you mention that have roadmaps are very niche products that have nowhere else to go (Corona render will do renders, and grasshopper will be parametric i guess, so they have very specific purposes and goals... But Archicad and Revit and a few others can be as broad as the AEC industry... i really dont think it would be wise to show your plans that easily.

What does this even mean?
How is a software like Rhino a "niche product"????
It's used in the Product Design, Architectural, Engineering, Mechanical part Design, Nautical (Ship and boat) design, and even among parts of the aeronautical design industries.
How could you possibly get any more not-'Niche' than that?
Or the notion that they have "nowhere else to go"? Corona didn't exist at all as a software (or anything at all, really) barely 8-10 years ago, and in that span of time since it started out as a student project back in 2009 it's now become practically the leading renderer used in the Architectural visualization industry.

Also, it seems like you STILL don't get what a roadmap is.....

jl_lt wrote:
We all offer and receive help here, but I dont think anyone here would openly and gladly offer their office template to the public, specially you competition right? (if someone does kudos to them!) so why then should i expect a company, many many orders of magnitude bigger than me or most of us, share their future plans just because?

NO, a roadmap is not the equivalent of a office template.
That's a totally different thing.
Its an outline of where you plan to take the product - typically very loose and non-binding in its format, and all it does is offer an informal guide as to where the Developers see themselves taking the software in terms of features they'd like to implement or in some cases that they have successfully implemented and are excited to show users before a full release.

And while we're on the subject of office templates, YES, quite a few offices do share their templates because it's not exactly their trade secrets that they're sharing

It's not a "How-to" guide of how you do things or how you actually design stuff (who would even benefit from such a thing?).
The obvious examples are ArchiCAD templates that are FREELY shared by people such as Shoegnome (Jared) or the BIM6X folks. Are they worried about competitors stealing their secrets just because they've shared something that's particularly helpful to people just starting to use the software trying to find better or effecient ways to work?

jl_lt wrote:
- Companies like Graphisoft survive by giving people things that they didnt know they needed, instead of always giving them what they want.

This makes absolutely ZERO sense.
No sense at all, whatsoever.
From a business perspective or otherwise.
But mostly from a business perspective.
Assuming you're an architect or designer, when setting out to design your projects, do you not ever take any time to find out what your client is hoping to get done in the realized project before you begin designing or do you just take it on blind faith and go about hoping to "give them what they didn't know they needed",...instead of what they actually want that might give them a better use of their building or project and a better lived experience?

You just design any old thing you want, based on your instinct and gut feeling, and give it to them on a 'Take it or Leave it' basis?

Getting client and user feedback is supposedly the backbone of good business service and quality work.

jl_lt wrote:
Imagine they show their roadmap, and some people dont like it? will they change it? why deal needlessly with negativity? So yeah, i wasnt clear enough with this: I didnt mean they dont have direction. Its just that we should not feel entitled to know it.

Shouldn't the fact that you're (pre-emptively) worried that you'll get negative feedback or "negativity" inform you that maybe you're doing something wrong and instead drive you to try to get it right?

And what ever happened to having enough faith and confidence in your product and your service that you'd be willing to put up the plans for it (we're not even talking about the final release here. Just the prospective plans for possible features) for scrutiny from everyone - from your harshest critic to your biggest cheerleading fans?

Didn't we all have Crit sessions in Architecture design school? Where they tear your labour of love dream design project to pieces before you start all over again and try to get it right again (with hopefully good feedback)

And so what if they don't like it?
Do you set about trying to do anything or everything in life in the hopes that EVERYONE will like it?
And if not then what? it's a failure?

Whatever happened to constructive criticism or agreeing to disagree? OR just plain old-fashioned......dialog.

That barely even exists right now on a substantive level.

jl_lt wrote:
-We as users cannot have direction in what we ask for. If 1000 people ask 1000 different, sometimes disparatte and opposite things, no one will hear. but if 1000 people get their act together, and ask for 10 or 20 essential things, someone will probably hear... if they are not careful, someone that actually DOES HEAR might not be inside the newly branded Graphisoft. That risk is upon them.

Oh, okay.
So now it's the Users' fault that they can't "get their act together" and their wishes in order (and trimmed down).
You hear that disgruntled ArchiCAD users?
It's your fault that you're not getting what you want (need?) from the software that you're paying so much money to use.

And who gets to decide what's "essential" from what's not in those wishes in your scenario?
Is there a process to decide this?
Like.......oh I don't know..... a poll?
Maybe even several of them?
In a wishlist section, maybe?

Re-inventing the wheel?

jl_lt wrote:
-So instead of a roadmap which usually comes from top to bottom "Company shows users what they are doing" to create the illusion of participation (as modern democracy does), my proposal involves proper analisis of the polls and even further user organization that could create preassure bottom to top "Users let the company FEEL the pain". That is my proposal, wether if its doable and worth the time, how and who would do it, that is another topic.

And yet democracy, as flawed a process as it is, works far better than all the alternatives for most parts of this planet.
And that's not even what's being asked for here ( i.e an equal vote or say in the matter).

The best equivalent of what's being asked here is,...

"Please lay out to me (in broad terms) what your plans are for fixing the roads, improving the water system, schools, bridges, creating more jobs,...and how you plan on doing it all before asking me to vote for you. (read : vote with my wallet for your product)"

I believe most people who vote in most parts of the world are familiar with this process, or at least this part of the process.
I can't recall a candidate ever having much success by then refusing to do so, on the basis of the fear that,.....".....my opponent might find out my plans if I do so,.... and steal my thunder.
But just trust me.
Just vote for me and I'll give you what you didn't even know you needed, instead of what you want."

Oh wait,....

Probably a bad example in the current climate.
(... a little too "on-the-nose".
Some people might get it.)

[jl_lt]

As i said, i have also read some of your posts Mr. Bricklyne, and you didnt dissapoint. If you think giving clients only what they think they want is a good practice, well, more power to you. Also, i didnt mention Rhino, just Grasshopper, lets not mix things up.

Anyway, You want Graphisoft to show a roadmap, and we would all like that as i also said before. What im trying to figure out is why they wont do it or what could prevent them from doing it and trying to offer a possible/alternative solution that is doable, either by them or by the good people in these forums, with the data we already have. Judging from your response can i conclude you might have not liked my proposal??? . What in your opinion could be done NOW to make graphisoft get this roadmap done and available to the public?

[jl_lt]

Last, but not least. Mr. James Murray was humble enough to say he was not qualified to define what a standard element should do (something i wholeheartedly disagree with), but was willing to start the conversation 12 years ago. Maybe thats the kind of conversation we should continue.

[Anonymous]

I feel I just watched a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode... Guess who is Larry?
Easy Bricklyne! We all know what is your mood about AC current development (and you have lots of points), but just try to remember we are all in the same boat here, ok?
Cheers,