Slashdot Mirror
Design Software Giants Target the Unemployed
avishere writes "People are losing their jobs, but for some execs the economic meltdown seems like the perfect time to get their software into the hands of those who can't afford their multi-thousand-dollar price tags. Software giants Autodesk and SolidWorks have each latched onto the worst-economic-disaster-since-the-Great-Depression meme and released free versions of their flagship computer-aided-design brands before their potential users are forced to sell their laptops on Craigslist. 'In these uncertain economic times,' Autodesk coos sympathetically, it will give away temporary licenses of AutoCAD and other software to those unemployed in the fields of architecture, engineering, and design. (They are also developing a Mac version, two decades after abandoning the platform.) SolidWorks was quick to respond with its subtly titled Engineering Stimulus Package. So if anyone out there has their weekdays free, jumpstart your hardware and design projects for cheap. Legally, too."
It's actually cost effective to freely distribute your software to people who want to learn it.
It's like someone figured out that someone will eventually pay for a license for software you are good at using.
"These uncertain economic times"
I'm tired of hearing it. It's like the PR tool's qualifier for everything.
Bow-ties are cool.
Adobe recently announced a similar program but for software developers:
http://www.jamesward.com/blog/2009/04/03/free-flex-builder-for-unemployed-developers/
-James (Adobe)
I was hoping that they were just giving away short-term licenses to anyone, but apparently if you sign up for the program, you have to be verifiably unemployed. I wonder what method they use to check...
(hmm... Firefox says that "verifiably" isn't a word, but I looked it up, turns out it's a valid adverb form of "verifiable")
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
This actually makes sense. The most important thing for a software company to be successful is to have people who know how to use their software. Which is why student prices and Learning Editions exist. And there have been reports that some laid off workers are starting their own companies, so getting your software into the hands of those people would be a smart move, too.
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
No kidding.
Maybe if people stopped calling these "economic times" "uncertain", then they'd stabilize!
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
nothing like an economic meltdown to make Co's recognize the value of their most important asset: their current and potential customers.
And maybe if they stopped calling these times "economic" all money would disappear!
Sorry.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Visual Studio Express is free (as in beer) by design. Of course, it is a Microsoft product, so you have to be willing to contaminate your workstation with binaries from the Evul Kingdom.
And a 240 day license of the various MS server products is free as well.
Read this sort of thing along the lines of: "Since you're now low on dough and high on time, we're giving you our stuff for free so you dare not move to open source in general and Blender in specific to refocus your skills there, because that little Project is closing in on us in leaps and bounds and frankly is scaring the living piss out of us."
I sold my Lightwave 8.5 Licence (+ books 'n stuff) and forfeighted the right for cheap upgrades of this very neat Hollywood Grade 3D Kit because Blender has gotten so good, there are only very few features missing that LW has, and quite a few that LW (or any other closed source kit) doesn't have. Oh, and btw., Blender 2.5 is coming closer with a complete architectural redo that will boost its developement even further. The 3D market is tough as it is and Blender is a scaring thing to watch for SideFX, AutoDesk, NewTek and the likes, you can believe that. The 3D tool market allways was tough, but these days its even more so - wouldn't wanna swap with any of those companies still asking upwards of 3000 Euros for their software.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Thats why Adobe is so popular. Piracy does build huge user bases and when the younger user base grows up they are already hooked on your brand and will buy a license eventually. Now I'm not saying that everyone will buy a license by quite a few will.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
You may have been marked as funny, but you do deserve a bit of insightful for that.
Perhaps not all of it, but a portion of the 'uncertainty' is due to the fact that everyone is certain that we are in 'uncertain' times. If we stopped pushing that down folks throats, then there might be less panic to keep things stired up.
I'm impressed. Sounds like an easy hand out to potential customers. Smart, and effective I bet.
Not all Solidworks' customers want a hand out. I actually want to pay them for a full license for an Ubuntu port. But they'd rather hand them out to Windows users for free than take my money.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Actually, AutoCAD was the classic example of companies that "just don't get it" when it comes to the Mac.
AutoCAD for the Mac was released back in 1988, I believe. But what they did was port their DOS-based product to the Mac. It didn't work or look like a Mac product (no menubar, windows, or anything like that), it worked and looked just like the DOS product. The company said that they planned to release this version first and then make a "more Mac-like" one later on based upon how well this one sold.
Of course, nobody bought it. If you were already doing CAD work on the Mac using one of AutoCAD's competitors, you certainly weren't going to give it up. If you didn't have any Macs, why would you buy the Mac version when it didn't give you anything you couldn't do with the DOS version? Even better, AutoCAD announced their plan to create a "more Mac-like" version. So most Mac users said, "Cool. We'll wait for that one, thank you."
A few years later, AutoCAD for Mac was dropped because there "just wasn't a big enough market for CAD on the Mac." The reality, though, was that there wasn't a big enough market for DOS ports to the Mac. Mac users expected a Mac interface.
We know how often people typically default. We know how often they typically default during recessions. The only real unknown here is how many of those loans were given to people without documentation. How many of those loans were rated AAA when in reality there was no chance they would be repaid. If those questions are answered, we can return stability to the financial sector. Although it will probably be a stability at a point much lower than some people would like.
Qxe4
We know how often people typically default. We know how often they typically default during recessions. The only real unknown here is how many of those loans were given to people without verification of what they could pay. How many of those loans were rated AAA when in reality there was no chance of being repaid. If those questions are answered, we can return stability to the financial sector. Although it will probably be a stability at a point much lower than some people would like.
Qxe4
The reality, though, was that there wasn't a big enough market for DOS ports to the Mac.
That's for sure.
Mac users expected a Mac interface.
That's mostly true, but the key is that Mac users demand a good UI. If you look at something like Maya, that breaks a lot of Mac UI principles but it's not a complete train wreck like Autocad always was.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I was working in sales and technical support for a CAD/CAM vendor in when Autodesk released Autocad for the Mac, and we took it for a test drive, even signed up to be a Mac dealer.
While you're right that Autocad on the Mac wasn't "Mac enough," that wasn't the main problem -- speed was. Autocad on DOS came with a bunch of "close to the metal" drivers for graphics cards and other resources, and these were, by 1988, written mostly by the hardware manufacturers to a well-defined API. They couldn't do this on the Mac, and as a result the software took 2-4 times as long to do anything on the Mac. CAD systems, at least in those days, weren't used part-time, they were expensive tools for full-time designers (more likely draftspeople). So, the market for Autocad on the Mac ended up being people who would put up with terrible performance for interface compatibility with other applications they were seldom likely to use. Not a huge market.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)