On Dealers
28 messages in this thread
Yes, I was talking about the "Chinese Firedrill".
>>Just a thought.<<
Well, I must say a pretty well composed one! <G> I agree on the fact
that Autodesk did not start out with a dealer channel in mind, and
that this channel has become a "liability" in the sense of an
immovable mass (inertia you would call it! <BG>).
BUT, I must disagree with one basic thought of your response, the idea
of CAD consultants. While I agree that it would be possible for a
"good dealership" to maintain a profitable existence as an
integration consultant. With margins the way they are now, I think
several dealers (especially those on this forum, including myself)
would admit that a significant portion of their financial resources
comes from consulting services. I do feel that this overlooks one
invaluable asset of the dealer channel – Marketing.
I think all dealer have felt the "firedrill" effects recently. You
should be the one that receives AutoSurf R2, AutoCAD ADE, AutoVision,
and 3D Studio R3 in a three week period! Talk about a learning
curve! It was the dealer channel, however, that bore the
responsibility for learning, demonstrating, and SELLING these
products. Autodesk could not have provided the resources required to
generate the early market interest and success that these products
have enjoyed. People may buy a wordprocessor or spreadsheet
mailorder, but they want to "get their hands on" products from which
they generate their livelyhood. Let me explain…..
I think you may have struck a personal cord on this one, because of
my experiences as a frustrated end user. I was not always a dealer,
I am an Architect by trade (you are also, aren't you?) and was the
Manager CAD Services and a Project Manager for a local Wichita firm
for seven years. My frustration was that I was in charge of making
decisions regarding software that would ultimately affect the bottom
line. It didn't matter whether the software was $50.00 or $5,000.00,
I had to evaluate its potential cost-effectiveness. The most
expensive software the firm ever purchased was AutoCAD, but it was
the easiest decision I had to make. Why? The dealer channel!!! I
was able to go to a local dealership and perform a "detailed"
analysis on AutoCAD before we purchased.
The final point I would like to make deals with geography. If
Autodesk would make a move away from the dealer channel and toward a
wider distribution channel, who would carry the torch for "marginal"
market areas such as Wichita. "Resellers" in these areas would not
have the resources to sponsor the seminars and other events that the
current "dealers" do. I feel that Autodesk would suffer greatly in
these "outlying" areas, and that would ultimately have an negative
impact on their gross revenues.
Well, just a return thought <BG>!
Chuck:
Very good point and one that I had not completely considered. I do, however,
also call for a significant reduction in the cost of AutoCAD to make it more
of a mass-market product. I think there is a very big market out there for
CAD that hasn't taken the plunge yet because of the cost. These are the
people who buy a copy of these $39.95 CAD programs and then find they're
useless. They're also the people who will probably buy AutoCAD LT in droves,
but wouldn't it be nice if they bought AutoCAD instead and tapped into the
power that all the additional add-on software can bring. A mass market
approach would require more of a mass marketing mentality in terms of
advertising, store displays, and so on. But you are absolutely right.
Someone at the store still needs to be able to demonstrate the products,
explain the benefits, doing the seminars, providing the training, etc. So,
there is still a very real need for that portion of the dealer's services
and that's probably where most of your money is now made.
So, if AutoCAD were mass marketed, the margins would become even worse.
There would be no money in AutoCAD sales for the dealers, but there would be
a lot more copies of AutoCAD out there which would equate to a lot more
users to be demonstrated to and trained. And it would be the really good
dealers that were able to make this jump to pure AutoCAD consulting the
would reap the rewards. So, it could still work.
I don't actually think the dealer channel is going to go away. And I don't
think Autodesk will mess with the pricing structure they now have in place.
They almost made the BOLD MOVE with LT, but wimped out at the last minute.
But I really think they should make some bold moves. Not doing so risks
their future as much as maintaining the status quo.
And yes, I am the one that received AutoSurf R2, AutoCAD ADE, AutoVision,
and 3D Studio R3 in a three week period. Each and every one of them, so I
know exactly what you mean.
David
David,
Hope you don't mind if I add My two cents. But, for me, this is very close to
home.
Although I agree that the dealer channel, in general, is vital to AutoDesk.
Everything changes.
You touch on the needed difference in mass maketing… What about the needed
changes in "mass Training"? Seems to me that more people than not are
currently unhappy with the current state of training/Education.
Eric
I'd like to get my 2 cents (Cdn.) into this discussion.
I have been a drafter/modelmaker for many years. Before CAD programs existed
all you needed when you showed up for a job was your reference material,
scales, templates and pencils. Now you have to know AutoCAD, Microstation,
MiniCAD, Claris CAD, CADkey, VersaCAD etc. Plus you have to know all the
various 3rd party packages for whatever discipline you are in.
Engineering companies neither hire staff nor train freeelancers so my question
is: where do I learn all these programs? Everytime I raise this question I get
the response: we can't sell education versions of these programs because we
have to protect our dealers. You can take your dealers and shove them. I resent
this concept that in order to learn a program you have to buy it. I'm sorry but
I don't have a hundred grand or so lying around just to keep the dealers happy.
I recently lost out on a contract because I didn't know ClarisCAD. I tried to
find out where I could learn it. It is not possible to even buy ClarisCAD.
A large network of software pirates dedicated to education and training is the
only solution. If you can tell me another solution I'm interested in hearing
it.
J.F.
<A large network of software pirates dedicated to education and training is the
only solution. If you can tell me another solution I'm interested in hearing
it.
Come on! You can't be Serious!!! Would you really support such a thing??? Let
the Laws and a basic understanding of whats right and wrong be damned? Not me.
Besides do you think that your the only one with the same sentiments.
I'm dissapointed you haven't come-up with a more capatalistic approach. Don't
you see a tremendous need/opertunity?
Do you really need me to spell it out? OK
S E L F – P A C E D T R A I N I N G M A T E R I A L S
Eric
Joe:
You couldn't buy Claris CAD because it's no longer sold.
Evan
I know it's no longer sold. The question is how do I learn it? If the software
companies don't provide an avenue for legitimate educational needs then what is
the solution? I have put this question on several forums and have not had a
response from a software vendor. I'm looking for a legit solution. Got one?
J.F.
Joe:
Please don't take this wrong – it's not a flame.
If you want to play with the big boys, you have to pay the price. That means
buying a bunch of expensive software, and learning how to use it yourself.
Most of the people on this forum have stepped up to the plate, and put out
thousands of dollars for software. Yes, it's painful, but that's life.
Many CAD vendors have educational versions of their programs. This is very
true of Autodesk – all you have to be is a bonafide student, and you should be
able to purchase the educational versions at your college book store.
Regarding Claris CAD – too bad, it's gone. If you shop, you may be able to
find a copy somewhere. But it's unlikely that Claris is going to provide any
training for you. They've quit the business. Not that it matters – any
experienced CAD jockey could sit down at Claris CAD and run it in an hour's
time.
The bottom line is that many software vendors have educational tools, but
they're under no obligation to provide you with them if you can't afford to pay
for them. So quit whining.
Evan
Evan:
The point I'm trying (and obviously failing)to make is that it is not a matter
of buying one (1) program. If it were only that simple.
I work for engineering companies using their software and their hardware.
Clients expect that you can use their software, and all things being equal the
person who can drive their program will get the work. Therefore the way to be
competitive is to learn more programs all the time. Should I buy Omnipipe,
Autoplant, Adev or CADpipe? If I'm not going to be using them myself, why
should I have to pay the thousands of dollars to learn them? That's life eh?
I think that I should be able to go to the library and take out a program,
take it home and learn it.
J.F.
Joe –
> Should I buy Omnipipe, Autoplant, Adev or CADpipe? If I'm not going to be
> using them myself, why should I have to pay the thousands of dollars to
> learn them? That's life eh?
Actually, you might be able to get a demo copy of Autoplant from EDA. It only
lets you draw 6" and 12" lines, but I think everything else works. You'd need
the dongles to access everything.
Have you tried approaching some of the software companies and saying you're
interested in becoming a consultant for them, and asking how you can get some
training? You never know; *someone* might be willing to give it a shot…
Otherwise, I agree with Evan. If you want to have the software, you pretty
well have to buy it. I think you're going overboard, however, if you think
you *have* to know Omnipipe AND Autoplant AND Adev AND Cadpipe. Just do a
little research in your area and find out which one is most common.
Dave
Dave:
<< Otherwise, I agree with Evan. If you want to have the software, you pretty
well have to buy it >>
The point I've been trying to get across is that I don't want to "have" the
software, I just want to learn it. Right now there is no legitimate way for
people to learn software without incurring outrageous costs. If you are not a
big engineering firm the dealers won't send you any demo copies. I've tried
that route.
I would pay a reasonable sum $50-$100 for a crippled version of a program.I
think a lot of people would. But since a person learning at home is not taking
costly training through the dealer this is seen as a threat to the dealers.
The end product (a drawing) and the producer (a drafter) has not changed. But
a huge industry has grown up in between the pencil and the paper. The cost of
adding a seat in the drawing office is enormous. Made more expensive by having
to support a network of dealers, training consultants, hardware consultants,
etc. When you spend as much time as I do scrounging for work and trying to keep
up with all the different software you begin to resent having to support all
these people. Most of whom would not be required if a legit low cost method of
training and education were available.
I've ranted about this before (and I probably will again) but I realise now
that most of the people active in these forums are not users but dealers. Or
they are User/Dealers. Trying to make a buck just like I am. Thanks for the
response.
J.F.
Joe – I understood the point you were trying to make; I don't think you're
picking up on the point that others and I are trying to get across… you're
going to HAVE to "have" the software in order to learn it.
The best way to learn it, unless you're independently wealthy (and if you were,
I guess you wouldn't have problems buying it), is to use it in your daily work.
That's how you encounter the problems and notice where you should do some
streamlining beyone what's in the program. And there's nothing like the
pressure of a deadline to give you a push up the learning curve.
You have to realize that this IS an expensive business to be in. If you're
going to work in AutoCAD, are you prepared to update your computer every 2-3
years?
Sorry if it sounds like people are coming down on you, but most people I
know who are making a living at this, at *some* point had to buy some
software. Once you get established, you may well find you can strike deals
with some software companies to work as consultant and get their software.
Dave
Joe – another point I forgot to make was that instead of viewing dealers as
the root of your problems, you view them as a potential source of revenue. I
do a considerable amount of training and support work for a local dealer and
I started off as one of his customers when I purchased AutoCAD Release 9 and
a PC.
Just think… maybe *you* could end up as the person delivering that costly
dealer training!
Also, I think you are dead wrong if you believe that most people on this and
the ACAD forum are dealers. It would be great if more dealers were on here;
at one time, in fact, Autodesk *required* that their dealers join the ACAD
forum, but that's since lapsed. Many forum members *do* make their livings
as those consultants that you object to, however. But that doesn't make them
dealers!!!
Dave
Joe:
Sounds like you have a problem. I'd suggest you go to your local CAD dealer,
and trade him your labor for time on his CAD systems.
Evan
Joe:
Adding to what Evan said, Claris CAD is no longer sold and Claris has worked
out a deal for its users to upgrade to AutoCAD Release 12 for the Mac.
David [CADalyst]
Eric:
There are a lot of things that could be addressed on the training issue.
But, I will also add that AutoCAD has gotten a bad rap over the years. A lot
of people consider AutoCAD to be a difficult program to learn. I don't know
why. Have you ever tried learning a program like Corel or Ventura Publisher
or Quark to the same level of proficiency that most users learn AutoCAD? How
about programming Word for Windows macros or building a particularly
intricate spreadsheet with Excel?
If anything, many of the programs I mention are easier to simply start
using, because more people understand the metaphors, but are just as
difficult (or more difficult) to master when one delves into the more
intricate depths of the software. AutoCAD, on the other hand, may be a bit
harder to start with because the metaphors are a bit different from those
we're used to (on a drafting table), but once you get started, it falls into
place rather quickly. It's just a matter of the shape of the learning curve,
not the difference in elevation from beginning to end.
Where is this leading? I think AutoCAD can be mass marketed. The technical
support of AutoCAD is probably more involved in getting all the peripherals
configured properly rather than in making the program work. That was
certainly part of the reasoning behind not including ADI driver support in
AutoCAD LT.
David
David
I also beleive that AutoCAD has received a bad rap. Actually, I feel that
AutoCAD is one of the more logical pieces of software found in many offices.
By logical I mean that logic can often be used to help solve problems that
present themselves with the lack of hands-on experience.
Also, I would say that more is expected from AutoCAD. In fact, the
expectations are often unrealistic. In turn, most of the users of… Word,
Excel or even Project fail to even understand it's full capabilitiy, never mind
develop unrealistic expectations.
However, I don't think that anyone would even suggest that AutoCAD is simple to
learn. At the same time those searching training are usually in need of some:
first, confidence building and second, hands-on experience.
Can AutoCAD be mass marketed? Yes, I agree. Can these masses be effectively
handheld and eased throught the fear of the unknown? I personally hope so for
I'll soon be banking on it!
Eric
Eric:
I am amazed at the favorable response to my editorial from AutoCAD dealers,
but I guess it makes sense. From what I am hearing, dealers are not really
making any money selling AutoCAD at its present price because they are
having to discount it so deeply. So, mass marketing it does make sense. At
the same time, the dealers have indeed become consultants.
Thanks for your well thought out additions to my arguments. I'd like to draw
upon them for future editorials, if I may.
David
David,
Isn't it ironic that AutoDesk will go to such extremes to keep theit dealer
channel happy that they radically change the makeup of a new product at the
last minute. (LT) But, at the same time they add to the over all problem many
people have with AutoCAD, its price. Would you dissagree that the high price
of AutoCAD is at least in part, often part of what scares many potential users
away.
Now, let's see if I have this right, The high price is needed so that steep
discounts can be given, however, the high price scars away many potential
users.
I enjoy the thoughtful and insightful interaction. More importantly, I find
the occupationally relevent exchange of thoughts… stimulating. It's amazing
how difficult it can often be to exchange idea's and get relevent feedback.
I'd be pleased if any of my thoughts served to ad any to your editorial needs.
Eric
Although getting to the real power of Acad will take me some time, I have
learned to use it in a few months. I was tutored a bit by a friend of mine who
does Acad for a living, and have since been doing the textbook and NRP
tutorials. Since I only use Acad to complement 3D Studio I don't feel the need
to spend large amounts of time in intensive training, yet I still feel the
program is very accessible. I can imagine that private training would go quite
a long way.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
John,
>> Since I only use Acad to complement 3D Studio……. <<
See, I have always felt that that's one of the beauties of AutoCAD, each
individual user will learn a small subset as required to produce their work. My
big joke about AutoCAD is when people ask "How long did it take you to learn
AutoCAD?"
I always answer that "I have been working with it for 9 years", as I don't
think anyone person will ever "know" AutoCAD. You will learn your particular
subset, and learn it well, but you will not "learn AutoCAD".
Chuck
I agree. I don't think I'll bother to learn a good portion of Acad because it
doesn't apply to my work or my personal interests. But the parts that do can
be real fun. Especially with the Matrox MGA zbuffered card I've got, and the
real-time 3d drivers.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
John,
The Matrox Z-Buffered card is COOOOOOL for AutoCAD 3D !!!!!
Chuck
David,
>>They're also the people who will probably buy AutoCAD LT in droves, but
wouldn't it be nice if they bought AutoCAD instead……
I have mixed feelings on that one, as I truly believe that some people are not
"AutoCAD Ready". I am not talking about their skill level only, but their
inate ability to get in and mess the whole thing up! For these, LT is and will
be the solution. It's much more "bullet proof" for this particular user, and
in the end will prove more cost effective for them.
>>They almost made the BOLD MOVE with LT,…..
I agree TOTALLY. I think the decision to remove LISP at the last minute
illustrated a serious lack of spine on their part. I honestly do not believe
that an LT with "some sort" of LISP would have killed AutoCAD, I think it would
have only helped. Why? Because the value of third party products, and a
market of "junior" 3rd party apps, would only enhance the appeal of AutoCAD and
the full blown ADS oriented 3rd party apps. It would have been a natural
progression. Now, it will be a GIANT step!
Thanks for the dialogue,
Chuck
PS My condolences on being one of those during the "software barage". But I
am glad to know someone else out there didn't sleep for a month or two! <BG>
Chuck:
You've got it. That was the very argument I've been making in favor of the
limited AutoLISP that was SUPPOSED to be included in LT.
As for those users who might not be "AutoCAD Ready," they could be
accomodated with a simple change to the installation and configuration
routine, at least for the Windows environment. You know the way AutoCAD's
old black bozo configuration screen has a selection for setting advanced
parameters? How about not allowing users to configure AutoCAD for Windows
for anything other than the installed Windows devices (ala LT) unless they
first make that selection?
It seems to me that the only real difference between AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT
is that LT only works with the installed Windows devices. Sure, LT omits
some of AutoCAD's functionality, but that's just window dressing (pardon the
pun). That was an arbitrary decision based on what needed to be left out to
protect AutoCAD sales. The only real difference is a support issue. LT isn't
supposed to need technical support for peripherals since they're already
installed and working in Windows before loading the program (yeah, right!).
The only reason LT is more cost effective is that it's cheaper. But AutoCAD
has become too expensive. I still say that it's time to lower the price.
David
David,
>> … How about not allowing users to configure AutoCAD for Windows for
anything other than the installed Windows devices (ala LT) unless they first
make that selection? <<
Here! Here!
Chuck
Chuck:
See, it's the simple things in life. <G>
That intermediate step wouldn't prevent someone from screwing up their
configuration, but at least there would be an additional warning that might
prevent some of the problems dealers otherwise have to cope with.
David
David,
It's so funny that the "screwing things up" comment came up now, as I
experienced one of those NIGHTMARE scenarios yesterday.
We have a client that use a very "vertical" demographics program to look at
potential sites. The machines that they run the software on have a 4 CD-ROM
jukebox connected to them, with some slightly 'intricate' driver set-up. One of
the locations called in Friday to say that their machine was not recognizing
the CD-ROM's anymore. When I asked them if they had changed anything, of course
they said no. So I asked them to FAX me a copy of their CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT. They weren't even close to the files that the machines had
originally. When I called back to ask what had really happened, one of the
people there said (and this is a quote) "Oh, that. Well one of the gals here
has a husband that is really sharp on computers so he 'optimized' our systems
for us!". Fortunately our technician that set the machines up stored a
read-only, hidden version of the files in a safe place. So we had them back up
in no time.
At least they didn't change anything!!!! <BG>
Chuck