V-E-R-Y Angry Over SolidWorks Subscriptions

A rousing discussion of angry users over at Matt Writes and most other independent SolidWorks blogs on the subject of DS SolidWorks charging hundreds of dollars for skipping a year of subscription/maintenance services. For example, skip two years and Matt Lombard calculates:

Cost to resubscribe = Annual subscription cost + $1,700 penalty

(formula corrected from orignal posting)

Annual subscription fees are something that users feel just as helpless over as the end-user license agreements forced by software companies on end-users without mutual agreement.

In particular, read the train-wreck of a response from DS SolidWorks' vp of customer services:

It costs [Dassault Systemes] SolidWorks money to continue to provide subscription-level support to people who aren’t paying for it. 

Eh? DS SoidWorks is charging more for those people who aren't paying for support, because of the cost of supporting them. The logic makes my head hurt. There must be a problem with DS SolidWorks customer tracking software if they find themselves supporting people who don't paid for it.

Of course, this has nothing to do with subscriptions (or lack thereof) but a means of increasing the all-important ASP [average selling price] to satisfy Wall Street.

Update

DS SolidWorks reverses itself on the late-resubscribe penalty. Copy of letters to dealers and customers here. 

Comments

[John]

Matt Lombard was incorrect in his understanding of the late fees related to SolidWorks Subscription. Check out his blog to read his formal apology.

Of course, the PR damage has all ready been done, regardless if the facts were correct.

[Tony]

John,
OK, Matt's math is off, but the "correct" policy is still ridiculous:
$850 x years missed + annual subscription cost. If this damages SolidWorks' reputation, well, they deserve it. Paying $850/year for what? Support you didn't get? For the new version each year that you didn't use?

[John]

Tony,

Why not use the new versions? Despite what Matt says, many users (yes even "power users") like it very much.

Do you prefer Autodesk's "obit" policy, or PTC's "pay for all of the missed years maintenance" policy.

[Matt Lombard]

I was incorrect that you have to pay the penalty PLUS back subscription. You only have to pay the penalty plus subscription for the next year.

Regardless, this isn't a fee they mean for anyone to actually pay. It's just a deterrent, a big stick. And they don't make it easy for users to find the actual policy. The notice they sent out only included a badly worded portion of the policy.

Anyway, few people are really upset about the penalties. They are mainly upset that you are forced into an all or nothing situation, where part of what you are buying may have no value to you.

First, the software is bundled in ways that may include a lot of things you don't need or want, but you get to pay for anyway (Photoworks, Toolbox, FeatureWorks, PDMWorks, etc). Second, the tech support and updates are sold together, even if you never use tech support or if your reseller is capable of supporting you.

The error in the formula is inconsequential to the argument or what people are really angry about. Resellers want to focus on the error to detract from the fact that people may not value the services they offer. Maintenance is a cash cow, and resellers milk it relentlessly, some without doing much in return.

SolidWorks is forcing users to subsidize resellers. If you want to purchase services from the reseller, you should have the option, but not the obligation.

[Matt Lombard]

John

There are many reasons for not using new versions that don't fit neatly into resellers forward pushing view of things. One is that an old project is best completed in a single version. Another is that maybe your customers or suppliers haven't migrated yet. Your IT department may have other projects in front of upgrades. You may be waiting on new hardware. Your CAD admin may have other work to do other than testing the new version. You may also be held back by a PDM system that is not compatible with the new version. There are a lot of reasons other than saying that Matt Lombard doesn't like 2008, so that's probably whay people aren't upgrading. You're not going to resurrect anything by throwing darts at me.

Another thing that has been overlooked here is that the anger that users seem to be venting is nothing new. This is not CAUSED by the news of the new penalties, or even by my overblown mistake. The penalty news was just the catalyst that got people talking. They have felt the way they feel for years. Once they started talking they realized that many of them felt the same way. The fact that there is so much synergy between users on this issue is not my doing. If anger over subscriptions brings down the reseller house of cards, well, evolve or perish. Good resellers will sell more services and those who don't deliver value will wind up selling something else.

[Tony]

John,

See Matt's comments about using old versions. With SolidWorks' lack of backwards compatibility, there are even more reasons to be careful.

In my software development, I still use VB6 (thankfully, not often), MSVC 6, VS2002, and VS2005 - note I skipped 2002 and haven't yet moved to 2008. It would be a stupid waste of time to convert everything to Visual Studio 2008 - but that's what MS would force if it acted like SolidWorks. Fortunately, Microsoft makes it pretty easy to run the different versions on a single computer.

Now go look some major software companies, and their policies. Even much villified Microsoft doesn't require me to subscribe to MSDN (I don't, it's a waste of money for me), doesn't require me to move to the latest version, and doesn't charge penalties when I do decide it's time. Same goes for Adobe.

BTW, I'm sure we'd be very happy if SolidWorks decoupled support and upgrades in a reasonable manner - we almost never use the VAR, and find the newsgroups and forums to be much better.

[William Pelletier]

Unfortunately, this behaviour is not limited to SolidWorks.

As well as being a SolidWorks (2003) user, I am also a user of Alibre Design. I purchased Alibre for use at home, to use for designing woodworking and metalworking projects. (For me, Alibre was very affordable. I purchased my license of Alibre Professional for about $800, and the annual 'maintenace fee' on the software was only $295.)

In 2005, Alibre told its users that their maintenance was going up, which created a furur among Alibre users. In response to this, their then-CEO, Greg Milliken, posted a message on the Alibre forums (https://www.alibre.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1091&p=5403#p5403) stating that all users who had their maintenance current as of May, 2005, could continue to purchase annual maintenance indefinitely at the price of $295, as long as they did not let their maintenance expire. Recently, Alibre has decided to raise their maintenance fees (for me, since I have upgraded to the 'Expert' version of Alibre, my new fee would go up to $399). This is bad enough, but what Alibre also decided to do is 'tear up' the agreement they made with their users who were current in May, 2005, and apply the higher maintenance fees to all. I frankly think that Alibre is on unsound legal ground with this change, and I plan to seek professional advice on this issue.

I find it very disappointing and outrageous that Alibre would break a very explicit agreement they made with their users. I think that not only has Alibre lost a lot of good will with those of us that have been users before May, 2005, but I also think they are opening themselves up for litigation. Up until now, I have been very happy with Alibre.

(The whole story can be followed on these threads: https://www.alibre.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7941

https://www.alibre.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8035

The second thread has an actual statement from Paul Grayson, the current Alibre CEO.)

[John]

Matt & Tony, I get it!

1.) You don't think VARs add value.

2.) You want an upgrade only option, with no penalties.

3.) You don't like how SolidWorks bundles software.

As far as backwards compatability, this is a complaint you should pose to the entire 3D parametric CAD community. It is not exclusive to SolidWorks, and not easy to solve.

For years SolidWorks offered an upgrade only option, very few people bought it.

Over 90% of our customers renew their subscriptions because they see value in it.

Matt, I apologize for "throwing darts" at you, but feel compelled to respond to your misinformation and overall SolidWorks bashing.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is the minority position.

[Tony]

John,

Have you actually talked to your customers? Did you review the options in the past for them? (many people never knew SW had the upgrade-only policy -- which seems too pricey anyway. I'd say $1000 whenever you feel like upgrading is reasonable, not $895/year. And, people feel strongly that bugfixes should be free - after all, they're to fix flaws in the program that they just paid for. Heck, even MS ships out bugfixes for free, even to pirates...).

William,
If you don't need the new features and don't need support, why not just go off maintenance and wait until you need to upgrade (and yes, Alibre's actions seem designed to increase their income - and piss off their customers).