The problem with upgrades, pin pointed

Over on Steven Johnson's blog nauseam, Jonathan Yeandle pinpoints the problem with upgrades, especially in the way they are marketed by large CAD vendors:

Here’s a question: if a new CAD version is so good that we need to upgrade to it now, why does it become no good in 12 months?

Comments

[Juergen]

evolution?!
Why do we buy new cars, cell phones, tv sets, computers, netbooks and many other stuff?
My HTC G1 Android cell phone was good 1 year ago but now I bought a Nexus One because it is even better. Is it possible that in 1 year there will be an even better cell phone? Maybe...

Sorry, but I think this question is studid.

[R. Paul Waddington]

Evolution? What a load of rubbish and, no it is not a stupid question Juergen.

CAD software never wears out, car and shoes do. Anybody who buys a new phone or software just because it is 'evolving' is just wasting resources.

Many who have stayed on older versions of software will be finacially well in front of those who have kept 'updated' only to find their income stays the same.

[Steve Johnson]

Answer: because now it's even more betterer!

More seriously, the question is based on a suspect premise; who is saying the old product is no good? It would be interesting to do a study on how old a product has to get before it is publicly criticised by its own company. 5 years? 10 years? It will vary by company and product, but vendors rarely bad-mouth last year's product in promoting this year's.

Thanks for spelling nauseam right, but it's Johnson without the T, please.

[ken elliott]

One of my clients quit upgrading AutoCAD after 2000. It meets all their drafting needs, and they know it rather well. They don't have version issues, training issues, and performance is outstanding on any modern PC they can buy. They went to SolidWorks for 3D solids, and use AutoCAD for drafting. I can't say I can argue with their decision. While it lacks many features of newer versions, they work really fast through years of pure repetition - the software never changes and they know where the bugs are.

It seems that once software has hit the "good enough" point, upgrades become a tough sell. Look at all the folks on Office 2003 (and earlier), Windows XP and Photoshop.

[CADDIT]

There are several factors at play here. Some engineering software companies are simply not engineering driven. They are marketing driven, adept at making software a fashion that should be changed for its own sake. Case in point, I have already lost count of the number of AutoCAD users who tell us they hate the ribbon. So why's it there?

On the other, when a company like PTC invests large portions of capital in less obvious (but important) improvements like speed, stability and refined integrations for performance-critical engineering work, average SMB Joe still has a hard time "seeing" the immediate value added.

Looking back ten years, I have to say CAD software has come a long way - so we did get _something_ for our money. If it was enough, probably depends on who you are and what you use.