Should Wolfe Be Denied Entry to Autodesk University?

A debate is raging amongst editors over whether Autodesk should have kicked Steve Wolfe out of Autodesk University 2009. Each year, Mr Wolfe pays his own way to attend the event -- unlike the rest of us blood-sucking leeches of the media.

Mr Wolfe sometimes writes acerbic sentences about Autodesk software that has unendeared him with some. For example, this week he wrote [pdf] on Autodesk's 31% plunge in revenues (as contrasted with just 13% for Dassault Systemes), and threw in this sentence to explain the drop in new sales and subscription income:

Because Autodesk's products are cheap and used for relatively unimportant tasks, such as drafting, customers can get by without upgrading them or renewing their subscriptions during tough times.

I and a few other editors see the sentence as unwarranted snarkiness. We can, of course, disagree with a CAD company's policies, directions, and software packages. 

Other editors argue that in the context of what Dassault and PTC software gets used for, Autodesk software is indeed unimportant; Inventor isn't designing Boeing's wing-cracking Dreamliner or Airbus's electrically-impotent Airbus A380. But Autodesk's Alias software does create the special effects and animations in just about every movie, advertisement, and computer game. (Cars in car commercials these days are all pretty much Alias-generated.)

Which Drawings Are Important?

So the question becomes, "What defines 'relatively unimportant tasks'?" I have a stack of drawings on my desk that my dad hand-drafted in the 1960s. Most of them would be trivial to draw today with AutoCAD. (I sometimes use them for tutorials, much to my father's pride. In just a few minutes last night, I recreated in 3D his 2D drawing illustrated below, using *ahem* AutoCAD, which blew him away.) 
 
Each of his drawings was crucial to the continuing operation of the world's second largest aluminum smelter, such as the one shown here: Return Roller Replacement Jig for 24", 30", and 36" Belts, Plant Belt Conveyors, Oct 13, 1966. (Click thumbnail for full size image.) He tells me the jig is probably still in use, 43 years later.

So while designing airplanes is really "important," so is designing jigs that help maintenance workers replace rollers under conveyor belts that service mile-long industrial plants that make the aluminum used to build airplanes.

To AU or to BE?

As for the original question, "Should Autodesk have refunded Mr Wolfe's admission fee to AU?" The event is a private function, and so it is their right to limit admittance in any way; but it does not mean it necessarily was the right thing to do.

As for Mr Wolfe, he has the right to write as he wishes; but then he has to accept the fallout.
 
(I do not speak in the theoretical: I apparently once wrote something sufficiently snarky to offend the uppermost management at Bentley Systems, and so I don't get invited to BE in North Carolina. I'm fine with that.)

PS

There is a debate raging in this issue over at Deelip.com: Are Autodesk Products Unimportant? Plus, other editors intend to write on this issue.

Comments

[Sean Doughtie]

In my opinion, censorship as a policy to control your corporate image rarely works in the long run. It becomes a slippery slope of banning people who are critical and leaves you with a bunch of fanboys that no one believes. Its the old template that doesn't work in the age of blogs and Twitter.

A similar comparison, take a look at the Verizon-AT&T war. Everyone knows the truth no matter how many times AT&T takes Verizon to court.

I understand what Wolfe means about 'unimportant'. I think I would have phrased it differently. Autodesk IS suffering from several things: market saturation with the push to Revit, companies bought it and many do not use it; AEC industry slump; Game industry slump.

I'm not part of the media or even a blogger, but when I've been critical about Autodesk it usually ends with people getting snarky. Not everyone is going to fawn all over your products all the time, when people have concerns you should listen.

I don't think they should kick Wolfe out and Bentley should also reconsider...

[Mook]

Well said Mr. Grabowski. You write with an edge, but your thoughts tend to be well thought out and well informed. Although I found myself agreeing with Mr. Wolfe's larger observation about ADSK's sales declining faster than that of their competitors, he did go too far in declaring that Autodesk's products are used for "unimportant" tasks. It may have been snark, but it came across as an ignorant statement. He then double-downed by declaring that drafting was particularly 'unimportant'. Wow, I guess in the heat of emotion it didn't occur to him that the creation of properly dimensioned drawings (aka drafting) is the basis for building and manufacturing pretty much everything... with today's 'drafting' technology, including products from ADSK, are often tied to procurement and fabrication to produce BOMs and CNC data.

Wolfe also wrongly conflated the building design market and "subdivision" markets which are largely disconnected, in a ham-handed attempt to tie ADSK's products to the consumer housing crisis. Revit is used almost entirely by architects and engineers who design building and parking structures, not subdivisions. There is a looming commercial bldg crisis too, but that's another story. Having said that, it was a bonehead move on the part of ADSK to ban him, as it was poor judgement for Bentley to try and block you from one of their conferences. A pox on both their houses

[R. Paul Waddington]

Children 'ban' other children from playing in 'their' pool or cubby house when unflattering comments are made about them and for other silly reasons; and parents will often point out that out.

But when we see 'adults' do the same thing it is a reflection on their maturity and professionalism. Remember it is not 'Autodesk' that made the decision it was a person who made the decision and brought the Autodesk name into disrepute!

No 'company' will benefit from a decision made by an individual to ban an outspoken individual from an event - on this I can speak with some experience.

Better to keep your 'enemies' very close and go for a conversion, that to keep them at a distance and continuing to do the own thing!

[Sean Dotson]

AU is a private event. It is an opportunity for Autodesk to showcase their new products and their company. Why would you want to have someone there who has made disparaging remakes about your product?

Mr. Wolfe is free to make whatever comment he wants. However he also has to realize there is a price to pay for your remarks.

I do feel Autodesk should refund his entrance fee if they have not done so already.

[My understanding is that Autodesk refunded the fee. - Ed.]

[Deelip Menezes]

Let me repeat what I said in a comment on my blog:

Someone who comes along and p**ses all over my programmers and customers and then goes away without saying a word is not going to be allowed close to my office, let alone a user conference where all my customers will be present. I don’t care who the person is or what he has or has not done. There are some lines you just cannot cross.

[Charles Bliss]

I came from a company that made large complex high precision semiconductor manufacturing machinery. Despite the rhetoric, AutoCAD and Inventor were / are the mainstay for design averaging over 100K hours a month in use. It was used to design the equipment that makes computer chips, flat screens, telecommunications, etc... possible Is that "unimportant". My sense is that someone wrote an article without thinking or doing proper research.

[Bob Bennett]

Ralph, this sentence above caught my eye "(Cars in car commercials these days are all pretty much Alias-generated.)" Good old fashioned photography is still used in car advertisements - particularly when you need to see a person prominently or when the vehicle is making a proof point about performance. It is bad mo-jo to have CG imagery of a truck for example, pulling an airplane or similar. Of course, many non-Autodesk applications are used for CG-based automobile marketing and more importantly, this type of visualization is now commonly done for a wide variety of consumer products too.

[ken elliott]

This discussion reveals the dirty secret of CAD. The old stuff is adequate for getting the job done. I've seen companies getting by with AutoCAD 2000 and later. In fact, I've noticed a lot of companies that switched from AutoCAD to Solidworks continuing to use their old copies of AutoCAD, and feel no need to upgrade. It seems that everything past AutoCAD R12 is considered "good enough". AutoCAD 2000 seems to the the version of choice simply because it works with Windows XP, Vista and 7.

I saw a demonstration of a new version of a popular CAD application, where they showed a new "carbon footprint" feature. Yet, they still can't show threads in isometric views. No wonder users think they can get along fine without upgrades or subscriptions.

The industry has been too inwardly focused, and this recession shows us the customers are NOT satisfied. A few that I spoken to have said they canceled their subscriptions, and plan to forego upgrades. If the current vendor won't let them back in to the subscription program (post recession), the money they save will allow them to switch vendors. Sounds like the subscription model may have backfired, creating animosity with the customers. Should be interesting next year.

[Ralph Grabowski]

I visited friends, whose son uses SolidWorks at work. He told me this company is paid up to for 2010, but continues to use 2007.

[Jon Banquer]

What R. Paul Waddington had to say makes a lot of sense to me. Same with Sean Doughtie's comments. Sadly I think that many CADCAM companies operate in a manner similar to Autodesk.

I'm not surprised one bit to see what Deelip Menezes wrote and I'll just leave it at that.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
www.jonbanquer.wordpress.com

[Evan Yares]

Re: what Ken said

Release 14 was probably the sweet-spot in AutoCAD's development where, for most users, it became "good enough."

[Ralph Grabowski]

This is certainly the dilemma for software companies: what to do when your customers considers your software is finally good enough?

[ken elliott]

Ralph: "what to do when your customers considers your software is finally good enough?"

Look for other problems to solve.

Henry Ford once said "If I had asked my customers, they would have asked for a better horse".

The software vendors are focused on making 3D computer models, thinking that is what we want (because that is what the discussion is always about). We actually want to make the parts. Some of us know how to stand in front of a mill and make it without drawings. We have a different idea of what CAD should do, and where it falls short. I'm not talking about CAM.

I always find it interesting that I can discuss this with users and get nearly 100% agreement. But vendors can't seem to wrap their heads around it. The viewpoints are so far apart that the existing vendors will never "get it". Some startup will, and the game will be on.

[Bill Fane]

Whatever the merits of letting or not letting Mr. Wolfe into AU, I found his reported remarks about "unimportant" drawings to be elitist and condescending. How would he feel if the next new car he bought was delivered without a pivot pin for the brake pedal because someone thought this was an "unimportant" drawing?

[Charles Bliss]

Just returned from AU. On exhibition was a GM / Chevy Camero. If they didn't use Autodesk software, then why was it there? I spent considerable time talking with 2 of the 30 plus people from Ford in attendance, who are designing Ford cars, trucks, factories etc...

I am not sure there is such a thing as an "unimportant" drawing, just ask the artist who created it. Perhaps Mr. Wolfe made a bad choice of words and didn't proof read before posting.