What's new
What's new

Will Autodesk cheap Fusion subscription whoring hurt other CAM companies?

irobotix

Aluminum
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Location
Greenville, PA
I am seriously evaluating others as stated in another post... but as I think about it - is Autodesk going to wreck the business model of other perpetual CAM s/w companies by whoring their Fusion HSM packages so cheap w/ no up-front cost? I am actually nervous to purchase another integrated CAM package because of this. I really have gotten to like SolidCAM over the past few days of my evaluation - it's been very easy for me to jump from HSMWorks to SolidCAM and make sense of it quickly.... but - another 5-digit investment into a CAM package that may get damaged because of what Autodesk is doing...

Are these valid concerns? I am very gun shy now with purchasing another CAM software because of what has happened to me in the past with HSMWorks.
 
Just remember that Autodesk ALWAYS does what is best for Autodesk.

You need to do what is best for you in the long run.

Autodesk can change their pricing or even kill off Fusion, they have a habit of doing things like that, in a year. Pick something that works for you and will have the greatest chance of being around for years to come.
 
Kind of just hoping they dont smash other companies out of business along the way. I doubt they'll hurt MasterCAM but could a SolidCAM type company take the beating? It's gotta hurt their bottom line, a lot.
 
Hi irobotix:
Don't underestimate the power of the market in shaping where all this will eventually go.
Autodesk has got to be aware of the growing discontent with their business practices, and will either be forced to respond or will start to lose traction.
Bigger fish than Adesk have dealt themselves fatal blows by refusing to mend their ways; they may not even be around a decade from now if they persist in their self absorption and there may well be a new "King of the Heap" we haven't even heard of yet, who does just this one thing of listening to their customers a bit better than Adesk.
After all, CADCAM software is pretty mature by now: the differences between brands are getting to be pretty trivial and the "upgrades" are a joke, so customer service and responsiveness are going to matter more and more.

You can't predict the future, you can't control it and you can't wish it away.
But you can make your choice knowing how you intend to respond if the shitstorm begins, so you can avoid the most obvious traps.
You can also stop worrying about it too much.

So I would do as Speedie recommends; find the good fit, run with it and accept what you must but resist what you know will make you vulnerable unnecessarily.

Per the comments of many on your recent other thread on the subject, you only have to drink the Koolaid that you BELIEVE you have to drink.
If you choose with the back-up plan in mind that you may find yourself working without yearly "Upgrades" and without the comfort of "Tech support", so be it.
It's not gonna kill you or your business.

A subscription model that goes south on the other hand...

Cheers

Marcus
Implant Mechanix • Design & Innovation > HOME
www.vancouverwireedm.com
 
Fusion has its place in the market: it's entry-level and affordable. I think it remains to be seen/determined if it as efficient a program as a MasterCAM or similar price level program. (And I'm talking an honest comparison with a couple of people who are good at both programs, not a "well I've always used MC, so it's obviously going to be faster" test.)

The real question needs to be: if a $300 program is good enough to disrupt a market where every other available product costs 10 or 100 times as much, then aren't we glad the market is getting disrupted? At the very least it will force the current big names to either figure out how to lower their prices, or how to add even more value for the extra $5,000-$25,000 they charge over their $300 competition. Other than familiarity, what does MC offer that Fusion doesn't for a guy who's got a couple of CNCs, and has never used CAM before?
 
Fusion has its place in the market: it's entry-level and affordable. I think it remains to be seen/determined if it as efficient a program as a MasterCAM or similar price level program. (And I'm talking an honest comparison with a couple of people who are good at both programs, not a "well I've always used MC, so it's obviously going to be faster" test.)

The real question needs to be: if a $300 program is good enough to disrupt a market where every other available product costs 10 or 100 times as much, then aren't we glad the market is getting disrupted? At the very least it will force the current big names to either figure out how to lower their prices, or how to add even more value for the extra $5,000-$25,000 they charge over their $300 competition. Other than familiarity, what does MC offer that Fusion doesn't for a guy who's got a couple of CNCs, and has never used CAM before?

I totally agree with this, at the same time hope it doesn't harm some otherwise great stuff on the market. I am glad I found SolidCAM at this point and like it a lot better than the few others I've tried...my luck I'll blow 5 figures on it and find them gone in 2 years :eek:. But you are right - a $300 CAM package going toe to toe with the larger more expensive packages... It does have its place - and it is pretty undeveloped thus far.. I could get away with using it for what I do, and save a lot of $... but, if (WHEN) they raise their subscription price after they have xxxxxx people sucked in, then I'll be super unhappy I went this direction since all my work will be held hostage to their subscription. Without paying your files are gone. That is scary.
 
Fusion has its place in the market: it's entry-level and affordable. I think it remains to be seen/determined if it as efficient a program as a MasterCAM or similar price level program. (And I'm talking an honest comparison with a couple of people who are good at both programs, not a "well I've always used MC, so it's obviously going to be faster" test.)

The real question needs to be: if a $300 program is good enough to disrupt a market where every other available product costs 10 or 100 times as much, then aren't we glad the market is getting disrupted? At the very least it will force the current big names to either figure out how to lower their prices, or how to add even more value for the extra $5,000-$25,000 they charge over their $300 competition. Other than familiarity, what does MC offer that Fusion doesn't for a guy who's got a couple of CNCs, and has never used CAM before?


Johnny, do you think they found some way to cost effectively develop software for $300/year at the same level as the more mature packages? I mean is there some magic allowing them to cut cost that far? I don't believe they have. They have actually admitted it. So the $300/yr is to either get people in and up sell them to a more expensive package basically a loss leader for them. Or to strategically increase the price until profitable. Or even possibly a combination of the 2.

Sure they are going to disrupt the market, but to what end? For whose benefit? I am sure they are already doing some damage to cam companies.
 
Johnny, do you think they found some way to cost effectively develop software for $300/year at the same level as the more mature packages? I mean is there some magic allowing them to cut cost that far? I don't believe they have. They have actually admitted it. So the $300/yr is to either get people in and up sell them to a more expensive package basically a loss leader for them. Or to strategically increase the price until profitable. Or even possibly a combination of the 2.

Sure they are going to disrupt the market, but to what end? For whose benefit? I am sure they are already doing some damage to cam companies.

Could also be that Autodesk sees a large entry level market; hobbyists, Tormach owners, part-time prototype and maintenance shops etc. If so, they can amortize development costs over a much larger base. The corollary is they won't spend the time to develop the advanced features (5 axis, job management, etc.) sophisticated shops need.

Another factor is that Autodesk wants to level out its revenue stream and reduce maintenance costs through annual pricing and cloud-based pricing. Not necesarlly in the interest of PM type users, but to the extent their 3D CAM stuff promotes their annual/cloud strategy on the design side they could pretty much (and maybe are) subsidize the limited CAM development.

I find it hard to complain about cheap prices. Kind of like "free love" back in the 60's and 70's -- these may be the good old days. Better yet, even if Autodesk manages to gain dominant share and then raise prices, the barriers to entry of new competitors (many even in places like China and Russia) are low enough to keep them in check.

One might add that the whole CAM software field is probably ripe for disruption; with a more direct route from model to part. Despite the overlay of graphical user interfaces for decades now, the underlying software technology to drive CNC machines hasn't changed much.

Biggest threat to Autodesk users, IMO, is the combination of Carl Bass' departure and the larger stakes held by "activist" shareholders who could care less about the product.
 
Could also be that Autodesk sees a large entry level market; hobbyists, Tormach owners, part-time prototype and maintenance shops etc. If so, they can amortize development costs over a much larger base. The corollary is they won't spend the time to develop the advanced features (5 axis, job management, etc.) sophisticated shops need.

Another factor is that Autodesk wants to level out its revenue stream and reduce maintenance costs through annual pricing and cloud-based pricing. Not necesarlly in the interest of PM type users, but to the extent their 3D CAM stuff promotes their annual/cloud strategy on the design side they could pretty much (and maybe are) subsidize the limited CAM development.

I find it hard to complain about cheap prices. Kind of like "free love" back in the 60's and 70's -- these may be the good old days. Better yet, even if Autodesk manages to gain dominant share and then raise prices, the barriers to entry of new competitors (many even in places like China and Russia) are low enough to keep them in check.

One might add that the whole CAM software field is probably ripe for disruption; with a more direct route from model to part. Despite the overlay of graphical user interfaces for decades now, the underlying software technology to drive CNC machines hasn't changed much.

Biggest threat to Autodesk users, IMO, is the combination of Carl Bass' departure and the larger stakes held by "activist" shareholders who could care less about the product.

They have already been trying to add more advanced features like 4th and 5th axis.

I am not complaining about the price but would question their ability to sustain it. It is a great value if you can use it and find the support sufficient. Can they maintain that?? who knows would be great if they did. but I believe reality will set in before long. The other reality is the large market of makers and hobbiest you mention would likely fall under the free category and be more of a drain than a revenue stream.
 
This is just my opinion, but I'm surprised there are still as many CAM products in the marketplace as there are, and that there hasn't been more consolidation or products dropping out as there has been.

Today if you look at the Solidworks site for CAM partners, it lists 39 products. That number used to be larger, before they removed products owned by major competitors like HSMWorks and DelCAM products.

The number of installed CAM seats is pretty low compared to the number of installed CAD seats, yet the number of players is significantly larger. Logically, I don't know if that can continue long term, but I have no crystal ball either.

There is probably no one reason to explain this difference, although I suspect local support, and how it affected certain geographical areas, is a significant factor.
 
Before you move forward I suggest looking into CAMWorks. SOLIDWORKS is integrating it into the 2018 version under the name SOLIDWORKS CAM.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
Before you move forward I suggest looking into CAMWorks. SOLIDWORKS is integrating it into the 2018 version under the name SOLIDWORKS CAM.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yeah I am going to eval that as well...haven't yet. I am sure what's shipping w/ 2018 is going to be a 2.5D only - but it's definitely going to be worth checking out. I've heard mixed reviews with Camworks, but I'd like to try it.

So far man - SolidCAM is winning for me by far. They even made post modifications for me yesterday on a Sunday, holiday weekend - you cannot beat that.

I tried MasterCAM again -still have the trial, and both the SW and stand-alone versions crashed within 5 minutes... I am trying to force myself to like it, but just can't.
 
Yeah I am going to eval that as well...haven't yet. I am sure what's shipping w/ 2018 is going to be a 2.5D only - but it's definitely going to be worth checking out. I've heard mixed reviews with Camworks, but I'd like to try it.

So far man - SolidCAM is winning for me by far. They even made post modifications for me yesterday on a Sunday, holiday weekend - you cannot beat that.

I tried MasterCAM again -still have the trial, and both the SW and stand-alone versions crashed within 5 minutes... I am trying to force myself to like it, but just can't.

2 of SolidCAM's tech guys are great, Ken Merrit and Daren both used to work for surfcam (Surfware days not VERO) as AE's and Ken did even more in the development the surfcam solids and then worked for EdgeCAM and now has been a SolidCAM over 10 yrs.

If you need help he is the master, tell him lenny sent ya!
 
Johnny, do you think they found some way to cost effectively develop software for $300/year at the same level as the more mature packages? I mean is there some magic allowing them to cut cost that far? I don't believe they have. They have actually admitted it. So the $300/yr is to either get people in and up sell them to a more expensive package basically a loss leader for them. Or to strategically increase the price until profitable. Or even possibly a combination of the 2.

Sure they are going to disrupt the market, but to what end? For whose benefit? I am sure they are already doing some damage to cam companies.

I think they begged/borrowed and/or stole a lot of the foundation from HSMXpress and HSM Works. I'm not a software guru at all, but that's what I would have done. Why redesign the wheel?

When I talked to their guys (Fusion/AutoDesk) I flat out questioned how they could sell it so cheap, or just give it away outright. I kept getting the same one word answer: quantity. From what I heard from their guys, they're making more money off of Fusion then they are from PowerMill, which is a hugely powerful and extensively optioned program, that, last time I checked, started well into the five-figure price range.

And I don't doubt for a second that the price is going to go up over the years, but if they're smart, they'll retain an entry level version that is always mega-cheap or free.

Speaking generally, I know AutoDesk is the company everybody loves to hate, but I also don't conflate solid business practices with evil shenanigans. If someone hates them, or hates their stuff, don't buy it. If someone thinks they can do it better, or cheaper, then go do it! I'll be the first in line to evaluate the new product.
 
Hi irobotix:
Don't underestimate the power of the market in shaping where all this will eventually go.
Autodesk has got to be aware of the growing discontent with their business practices, and will either be forced to respond or will start to lose traction.
Bigger fish than Adesk have dealt themselves fatal blows by refusing to mend their ways; they may not even be around a decade from now if they persist in their self absorption and there may well be a new "King of the Heap" we haven't even heard of yet, who does just this one thing of listening to their customers a bit better than Adesk.
After all, CADCAM software is pretty mature by now: the differences between brands are getting to be pretty trivial and the "upgrades" are a joke, so customer service and responsiveness are going to matter more and more.

You can't predict the future, you can't control it and you can't wish it away.
But you can make your choice knowing how you intend to respond if the shitstorm begins, so you can avoid the most obvious traps.
You can also stop worrying about it too much.

So I would do as Speedie recommends; find the good fit, run with it and accept what you must but resist what you know will make you vulnerable unnecessarily.

Per the comments of many on your recent other thread on the subject, you only have to drink the Koolaid that you BELIEVE you have to drink.
If you choose with the back-up plan in mind that you may find yourself working without yearly "Upgrades" and without the comfort of "Tech support", so be it.
It's not gonna kill you or your business.

A subscription model that goes south on the other hand...

Cheers

Marcus
Implant Mechanix • Design & Innovation > HOME
www.vancouverwireedm.com

I completely agree.

In my view, I've been using AutoCAD since around R10 back in the 1990's at a few different places.

I don't like the current Autodesk business model for that reason. As far as I know I can still purchase a copy of Solidworks and use it for the next two or three years before I purchase a new version or choose a different vendor. I'm a year into engineering school, and have access to a student copy of Solidworks which I'll most likely install tonight or Monday for the college course. Once I learn Solidworks it's likely that I'll purchase it for my machine shop as well. I need something with 4 axis milling and 2 axis turning... Audotesk is familiar, and I'm their customer to lose, but their business model is cause for me to spend my money elsewhere.

For me, the upgrades are rarely a good thing. I often find that they break some kind of functionality in the process of the upgrade, then patch it the following week. Other times, the updates are just a bunch of features I don't use and just get in my way until I figure out how to disable or hide them. The old-fashioned software model with a major version change every few years is easier on the human brain. I can learn the software with a steeper learning curve at the major milestone, then it remains the same for one to three years.

I want to make parts, not re-learn software every other month.
 
I don't like the current Autodesk business model

I think that's what is helping other CAM companies. There are a lot of people that don't want to rent their software, and/or don't like the idea of cloud based anything. The validity of that mindset can be (and has been) argued ad nauseum. This is helping competitors who still offer a perpetual license. Whether or not the product is superior or inferior will be a secondary consideration as compared to "can I own it or do I rent it". We'll see how it works out for them.

Dan
 
A lot of you folks need to de-couple the concept of software quality and cost being linked they way they are in the hardware world.

When you have a very high upfront fixed cost capital asset (i.e. a functioning piece of complex software, like the Google search algorithm, or Facebook's base code), and the incremental cost of serving a new customer is next to zero - the optimal model is to bring the cost down as low as possible in order to maximize the user base.

There is a reason the best software talent in the world is getting sucked up by companies who literally give their software away for free (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple). Mind you, those companies have indirect business models that get revenue through other pathways, but the amount of revenue per user is shockingly small. They make billions because they achieve tremendous scale.

It's hard to make software that scales when you're in a relatively small market (which CAD/CAM is), where the software complexity is absurdly high (which CAD/CAM is).

In the end, it's also a generational thing. People in my peer group don't view the same downsides to subscriptions as older folks do - it's a relief to the absurd up-front costs and doing even a simple back of the napkin calculation tells me that it takes over 10 years for an Upfront+Maintenance model to start saving money over a subscription model. People younger than I am are even more vociferous in this belief.

In the end, it isn't Autodesk "harming" the market... it is Autodesk seeing where the puck is going and being the first to start moving in that direction.
 
A lot of you folks need to de-couple the concept of software quality and cost being linked they way they are in the hardware world.

When you have a very high upfront fixed cost capital asset (i.e. a functioning piece of complex software, like the Google search algorithm, or Facebook's base code), and the incremental cost of serving a new customer is next to zero - the optimal model is to bring the cost down as low as possible in order to maximize the user base.

There is a reason the best software talent in the world is getting sucked up by companies who literally give their software away for free (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple). Mind you, those companies have indirect business models that get revenue through other pathways, but the amount of revenue per user is shockingly small. They make billions because they achieve tremendous scale.

It's hard to make software that scales when you're in a relatively small market (which CAD/CAM is), where the software complexity is absurdly high (which CAD/CAM is).

In the end, it's also a generational thing. People in my peer group don't view the same downsides to subscriptions as older folks do - it's a relief to the absurd up-front costs and doing even a simple back of the napkin calculation tells me that it takes over 10 years for an Upfront+Maintenance model to start saving money over a subscription model. People younger than I am are even more vociferous in this belief.

In the end, it isn't Autodesk "harming" the market... it is Autodesk seeing where the puck is going and being the first to start moving in that direction.

It's interesting that of the companies you mentioned, the average age is 24 years. Throw out Apple and the average is 18 years. Maybe it is a generational thing. These days most companies don't survive 10 years. Some don't even plan on surviving that long. It's a "business model" I'm told. Usually it involves LLCs and unpaid creditors (I confess I don't know if that is by design or coincidence).

What happens to the data when companies that use this type of software go belly up I wonder? And how is it monetized? That is how the companies mentioned make their money on the other "pathways", right?
 
I think that's what is helping other CAM companies. There are a lot of people that don't want to rent their software, and/or don't like the idea of cloud based anything. The validity of that mindset can be (and has been) argued ad nauseum. This is helping competitors who still offer a perpetual license. Whether or not the product is superior or inferior will be a secondary consideration as compared to "can I own it or do I rent it". We'll see how it works out for them.

Dan

Cloud based is the other big issue for sure.
 








 
Back
Top