F**king scum VAR's!

Penalty-Free Subscription Re-Instatement is Here!
PLEASE NOTE: This offer is for existing GoEngineer SolidWorks customers only.
Now through November 10, 2008, we're offering you the opportunity to get your SolidWorks licenses back on subscription - just in time for the release of SolidWorks 2009!
We're waiving the $100-$500 reinstatement fee to get you back on subscription so you'll receive the 2009 upgrade free.
What's even better is we're offering a SolidProfessor 2009 Update training DVD at no charge with your order. This is a $100.00 value.
You may also take the CSWP (Certified SolidWorks Professional) test on line at no charge.
GoEngineer 1787 E. Fort Union Blvd. Cottonwood Heights, UT. 84121
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What's the issue here? It's your choice whether to get back on subscription or not. There was always a penalty that came from SolidWorks for reinstatement. They're waiving the fee and throwing in some extra's. I don't understand the issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wow..... amazing,...
It seems,... you guys see it as a BLUE LIGHT SPECIAL,... the deal of the century!?!?!?
.. one thing is very clear,... many people did NOT upgrade,... their revenues are LOW... so,.. we see marketing crap like this.... they are using this as bait? It's one of the reasons I left.. that fee shows NO incentive for them to provide better service.... it's designed from a sales/marketing perspective! And,.. offering this to the people who have left.... is like rubbing our nose in it?!
The issue is,... why,... why did/do they have to have a fee,.... To cover cost!? NO. As a incentive to the users!?!?!? NO. (unless you see it as a blue light special?!?!?) A PENALTY!!!? YES It's a incentive penalty to stay on maintenance. It is how they "reward" (cost less?) you and I as clients!?!!? It simply says,... fuck you user,... or we will charge you for not staying current.
There isn't and wasn't a REASON for penalty fees other than,.... GREED! The reinstatement fees from software sales/marketing has ALWAYS been about greed!! These scum sucking people which provide NOTHING to the software system create a penalty to maintain their uselessness... It's not much different from simple mafia business tactics of the past.
Would it be OK if you or I were to charge our clients a reinstatement fee.... yeah right,... it would be unacceptable and unethical.
That is.... fee's are UNACCEPTABLE and UNETHICAL, period!
..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks, I appreciate the support! I really need it!! 8^)
You do have silent support. My policy here (16 seats) is that we upgrade only every time we change hardware.
We got back (with no penalty) on suscription last july, as I plan to switch to '09 next june. Next time will be somehow around 2013, and I plan to search the market for maybe another CAD solution by then... Or maybe stay on '09.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There in a fairly strong position to do this now because 2008 was a crap release therefore people will go forward to 2009. If I had stayed with 2007 I would not subscribe again unless forced by clients. I'm hoping 2009 is a stable release I can live with for a few years so I can tell Solidworks to take a hike. Weird how they profit from incompetence but may be penalized if they ever get it right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul,
Would you have been happier if they kept the reinstatement fee and provided a bug free version just for the reinstaters?
SW needs to consider the fact that they are now entering the commodity zone. The only way to compete in that zone is to cut prices and sell more new seats. Put Europe and the US on the China price schedule so we can compete better. Or have the price of a new seat start to converge on the subscription price.
Subscription offers less value to many people, especially organizations with many seats. A company with 100 seats is not going to see the same value as a small user from the current subscription schedule. A $100 or $500 penalty for not re-upping a 100 seat installation isn't an incentive.
Subscription is kind of like a project that never finishes. We all know people who can never seem to get to the end of a project. When times get tight those folks are the first to roll.
TOP
zxys wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't care what Go Engineer & SolidWorks calls the maintenance fee or subscription or whateverVAR fees.
In reality, yearly upgrades are too much, too quick. I really do not think that major upgrades should come more than once every two years, so that the amount of retraining, installation and debugging, which are more costly than the VAR fees, are minimized to increase user productivity.
The SolidWorks CEO and CFO don't want to hear this type of feedback, but it is realistic feedback from a customer. I am not the only one with the same feelings about maintaining efficiency. I've talked to many users who have no problem going 3-5 years between upgrades. I'm using SWks 2006 & will probably upgrade to 2009 mid-way through the year.
The demand that "quarterly profits" go up every quarter and that "double digit" growth be seen year over year leads to pushing software on the users, after pushing the development team to do major upgrade and debugging in time for each yearly release, which inevitably has too many bugs on January of each year. Users and their employers, however, want efficient use of tools, and it is difficult to see benefits to yearly upgrades that require a lot of time and money, with no demonstrable reason to upgrade.
The music industry was wedded to CDs and reluctant to understand how to move into the 21st century electronic player and distribution systems. They paid a heavy price.
My guess is that the software industry is going to have to do a better job of understanding customers, and likely accept that companies and end users are not going to be willing to blindly accept every update and upgrade that comes down the line, just because it is available. New ways to working with customers are needed.
The yearly upgrade may have been generated by the large initial run up in features and capabilities in early years of CAD development, but sooner or later, development must slow down, as the features & interface solidify.
Why would a user want to keep upgrading if he doesn't see a modeling benefit, and has to spend lots of additional time to implement the upgrade to boot?
Change is afoot.
Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When SolidWorks first came out a company could differentiate itself by going 3D. Now companies must do so just to survive in a global market. A company in the United States or Europe and a company in China have access to the same software. The company in Europe pays double for the software over a company in the United States. But labor is a bit cheaper there although taxes aren't. A company in China or India pays a lot less for SolidWorks than the United States and labor is much cheaper and there are minimal tax issues so the China or India company can throw a lot more bodies at a project and still be cheaper. So SolidWorks isn't the competitive edge it once was. It is moving towards being a necessity and hence a commodity.
On the other hand, SolidWorks is so easy to learn and use that companies in the United States are moving to using cheaper labor, i.e., people without degrees or training in drafting or design forcing the better trained/experienced people out. China and India on the other hand tend to put people with degrees on CAD. So companies in the United States are losing the edge in brain power also and CAD levels the playing field as far as the finished product is concerned.
So the idea that major improvements should come every two years is a good thought. So is the idea that mid-range CAD should be a commodity item with a commodity price point. SolidWorks should rethink the long standing inability to write backwards compatible files as well. The next big landslide in CAD sales will be the commoditization of a mid- range product with an evaporation of the subscription.
Mr. Pi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Thanks for the news flash, Cliff, you freaking retard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.