Sandvik acquires Cambrio (GibbsCAM) - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 42 of 42
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,243
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    926
    Likes (Received)
    2903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MotoX View Post
    Getting back on topic, I'm glad to see Gibbs in the hands of a company I know.
    Honestly, the only problem is that Sandvik is not a software company. Yes, any enterprise the size of Sandvik has software people in it to keep up the pipes, but do they really understand how software development works?

    Part of the reason we are even having the Perpetual v. Sub debate is because software development is a sysiphian slog. It isn't like making a physical product where all the work is front-loaded, you tool up, and you can sorta sit back to manage the process and (hopefully) print money. Software applications of CAD/CAM complexity are always evolving, always needing new features, always sitting atop a foundation of sand that is the host OS. You cannot just hire 1000 developers, ship V1.0, then fire 80% of them - which is why recurring revenue is such a massive push for these companies. Lots of very smart people have walked into the software world, enticed by a zero marginal cost product, only to have their asses totally handed to them.

    Does Sandvik have an aptitude here? We'll see.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    4,676
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1712
    Likes (Received)
    2258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gkoenig View Post
    Honestly, the only problem is that Sandvik is not a software company. Yes, any enterprise the size of Sandvik has software people in it to keep up the pipes, but do they really understand how software development works?

    Does Sandvik have an aptitude here? We'll see.
    Sandvik are not not a software company. It's easy to become too focused on the Sandvik that we are familiar with - Sandvik Coromant. The Sandvik group is much bigger than that, and have a huge amount of IP in a number of different industries, and plenty of that in software. It is true that most of Sandvik Coromant software products are from acquisitions or partnerships.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkoenig View Post
    Part of the reason we are even having the Perpetual v. Sub debate is because software development is a sysiphian slog. It isn't like making a physical product where all the work is front-loaded, you tool up, and you can sorta sit back to manage the process and (hopefully) print money. Software applications of CAD/CAM complexity are always evolving, always needing new features, always sitting atop a foundation of sand that is the host OS. You cannot just hire 1000 developers, ship V1.0, then fire 80% of them - which is why recurring revenue is such a massive push for these companies. Lots of very smart people have walked into the software world, enticed by a zero marginal cost product, only to have their asses totally handed to them.
    You description of software development is semi-accurate*, but your analysis of the situation is not.

    Industrial software companies used to recoup their costs from maintenance fees, which were split between the developer and the VAR. When featureful updates were frequent and each release was a significant upgrade from the previous, everyone was delighted to pay the maintenance fee and get all the new shiny, in spite of all the gripes and moans about the costs of maintenance. It is simply the nature of people to complain, but when maintenance was worth it, people paid it.

    The problem is that development of industrial software generally, across multiple domains and disciplines, has stagnated horribly in the last 10-15 years. The perceived value of the maintenance fee approaches zero, and users stop paying it. That is 100% the fault of the software development companies, who have routinely failed to innovate, and 0% the fault of their consumers who are free to spend or not spend their money as they see fit.

    "Subscription" is a loophole that the failing software companies have discovered and are exploiting, whereby they can impose mandatory maintenance, so they can keep the money rolling in even while they offer nothing of value in exchange. It is, as many before me have stated, legal blackmail, with our data being the hostage. I appreciate that you place little value on extant data and the ability to access it, but you should appreciate that view is not representative of most users, and consider the possibility that subscription software models are only intended to benefit that entity collecting the subscription fees.

    *Trimming the development team is common after shipping a major release, but that doesn't really apply to specialised softwares such as cadcam which are usually developed by small teams of people in the first place. I know your comment about "1000 developers" was hyperbole, but I'd still wager that the operating costs of most cam development studios is nowhere near as high as you think.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •