Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Autodesk + Instructables: For Makers?

Posted by timothy on from the interesting-bedfellows dept.

ptorrone writes "MAKE magazine has published an in-depth look at what the recent acquisition of Instructables by Autodesk means for makers and the DIY movement. MAKE suggests it wasn't about getting the millions of members or projects at Instructables or upselling Autodesk tools. Instead, the acquisition was more about creating many Instructable-like communities around Autodesk's new free and trial tools including their 3D printing site and service, Autodesk123D."

19 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. It would be worse... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are three companies that would be worse than Autodesk in this role:

    1. DSS.
    2. Altium.
    3. Microsoft.

    I mean, of all things, Autodesk? The guys who make poorly designed, expensive CAD program that only keeps its market dominance because of its semi-documented, closed file format? One that ported its engine to OSX but "forgot" to bring any of the modules that make their software in any way useful?

    That never ever touched Linux (and is worse than Solidworks with Wine)? That abandoned all Unix ports of their software many, many versions ago? (well, Pro/Engineer and CATIA bested them by abandoning an existing Linux port, apparently just to spite users).

    That never did, nor ever promised to give a fuck about any "community" other than corporate managers who make purchasing decisions?

    That never ever open sourced anything?

    That thinks, anyone sane would use crippled "free" tools specifically made to frustrate the user, to do design of anything that matters?

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:It would be worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Altium? They're not bad guys compared to (shudder) Cadence. You want poorly documented closed source bizarre GUIs with proprietary scripting languages? Cadence! Any Cadence employees reading this: fuck you.

    2. Re:It would be worse... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      You're right about the corporate-orientated business plan though. But what do you expect when their main clients are architects and planners? They market to the segment that buys their software. Don't shoot them for that.

      You mean, they market to the only segment that can afford their software because it's overpriced? Ex: Altium, who destroyed the whole hobbyist EDA software market by buying up everything from it, and only selling it in one over-expensive, bundle.

      "Bring their modules" to the Mac... implies you're a bitter Mac-head who'd LIKE to run AutoCAD if you could... maybe you should have bought a few components which would have cost half what your Mac cost and assembled them yourself, then you could have the same toys as me, no?

      I probably could care less about OSX and all software that runs on it, but that won't be much.

      OSX port could indicate that company is committed to cross-platform development, what usually means sane file formats and modularity. What would, in its turn, mean Linux port being feasible (that I DO care about), and possibility of standardized interfaces and protocols usable by other software (what would be VERY HELPFUL with some project I know, that involves 3D, architecture, mechanical design and simulation).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:It would be worse... by VanGarrett · · Score: 2

      Being a draftsman, I have to disagree with you. I've never seen another CAD application that had so much polish. It's extremely customizable in the user interface, as well as in function, yet it's also very, very stable. Sure, you might be able to find a car you wouldn't mind driving for less than the price of AutoCAD, but the typical use for it, is on projects that pay several tens of thousands of dollars, maybe even hundreds of thousands. If you're in a business that needs CAD work done, AutoCAD is well worth the investment.

      --
      Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
    4. Re:It would be worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I remember using PSPICE/CaptureCIS/whatever in school. It was powerful, but it hated us all. Sometimes it would just do something random that no one would be able to explain, other times you'd have to perform some ritual to get it to simulate your circuit without shitting a brick. My favorites, though, were the Donuts of Doom, which it would stick in your schematic where it thought you had a problem.

    5. Re:It would be worse... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember finding a video for my painting instructor and being shocked that it cost $500 for a DVDR copy with no right to back it up and being told that that's more or less just what films for schools cost.

      Same sort of thing with AutoCAD, it is expensive, expensive enough that it's not affordable for anybody that isn't working in the industry. But, if you're drawing up plans for a multimillion dollar project, the cost is a pittance comparatively speaking compared with the other costs involved. And ultimately as long as everybody else is using that software that's what you'll get.

      Not that it makes it right mind you, but that is how that works. I'm skeptical that this is a good thing ultimately for the folks that use the site.

    6. Re:It would be worse... by fermion · · Score: 2
      Autodesk Autocad was designed to replace the drafting board. It was released at a time when only a few firms had what would be called personal computers. It was never a mass market application. It was a vertical market application for professionals, those that needed reliability and support. To sell they had to mimic the drafting table and tools so that users could easily transition. This means a 2d interface that is unfamiliar to those that entered school after 1990 or so.

      It took about 10 years for the idea of 3d modeling to take root. This makes sense, computer can render 3d, so why draw a 2d object when you can draw a 3d object and then have the computer render the traditional 2d shapes. For precise mechanical drawings, this is not so easy to do, and Solidworks does it well. But that is not to say Autodesk does not do it well. Autodesk is now a legacy company with the most experience of serving the drafting industry, and that give it some legs.

      One has to remember how expensive Unix was in the 80s compared to a DOS machine. Autocad was not a toy. One did not buy it to add to an already acquired computer. One acquired a computer to run Autodesk software. One still does. The average PC does not do it. I use my Macbook Pro.

      Autodesk has what I would consider one of the most attractive program for students, hobbiest, and schools. The complete line of Autodesk products can be had for not a huge amount of money, and for students no money. The only better value is Google Sketchup, which for some is free. Obviously this is not philanthropy on either part. Companies want the future engineers to come to college knowing a software package, so the college will license the product, and commercial firms will license the product.

      The community to be built is more like linkedin rather than facebook. Targeted not to the masses but to future professionals. It is the same think that Solidworks is doing with First. That is community of robot builders that will form a clique well into early professional life and will insure Solidworks sales.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:It would be worse... by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Autocad is fundamentally a 2-D drawing program, with some 3-D capabilities spackled on top. It excels at 2-D line drawings, like those found in architectural plans (plat view, elevation, etc.) It struggles with 3-D solids, as they are a serious afterthought - move a drilled hole for me, please. Solidworks is 3-D at it's core, so it's a bit clunky to manage 2-D drawings that aren't derived from 3-D sources. You're burdened with the 3-D support overhead when doing a 2-D only drawing.

      Autocad is a claw hammer. Solidworks is a ball-pein hammer. They can both "hammer," but each is better for a particular job. You should choose the appropriate tool depending on the objective. Do you need to pull nails, or shape sheet metal? (sorry, no car analogies today.)

      I've been using Autocad since about 1985 ... back when the UI had to be toggled between the text command window and the graphics display window. I also currently use Solidworks.

    8. Re:It would be worse... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Their software, not things they bought. AutoCAD ran on Unix before they microsof-ified its interfaces.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  2. Resistance is Divine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Autodesk continues their 'Innovation through Acquisition' stormtrooper march.

    March 31, 1997 Softdesk Inc.
    May 6, 1998 Genius CAD-Software G.m.b.H.
    March 16, 1999 Discreet Logic Inc.
    April 22, 1999 VISION Solutions
    January 24, 2001 Gentry Systems
    September 24, 2001Buzzsaw
    February 21, 2002 Revit Technology CorporationAugust 6, 2002 CAiCE Software Corporation
    December 18, 2002 truEInnovations, IncMarch 4, 2003 Linius Technologies, Inc
    February 24, 2004 MechSoft, Inc.
    March 2005 COMPASS systems GmbH
    May 10, 2004 Unreal Pictures
    June 10, 2004 AVEVA
    December 17, 2004 CAD ISV
    June 16, 2005 Colorfront Ltd.
    July 6, 2005 c-plan
    August 22, 2005 Solid Dynamics, SA
    October 17, 2005 Alias Inc. (Maya Wavefront .OBJ File format)
    August 6, 2007 Skymatter Inc (Mudbox)
    August 9, 2007 NavisWorks, Inc.
    August 20, 2007 Opticore AB
    August 28, 2007 PlassoTech (CAE)
    November 25, 2007 RobobatMay 1, 2008 Moldflow Corporation
    May 7, 2008 Kynogon SA and REALVIZ SAJune 26, 2008 Square One Research (Ecotect)
    October 23, 2008 Avid's Softimage, Co.
    December 17, 2008 ALGOR, Inc.
    December 2009 VisualTAO (PlanPlatform)
    February 17, 2011 Blue Ridge Numerics, Inc.

    So long Instructables... It was nice knowing you...

    1. Re:Resistance is Divine... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as capitalism encourages this, it will continue. Don't blame the child, blame the parent.

      I would also like to add that they retain the teams and platforms - gosh they still have seperate 3DS MAX and Maya teams! I'd like you to use those finely-honed research skills to compare and contrast this with, say, IBM, or M$...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  3. Communities? by EdIII · · Score: 2

    Since I actually know a couple of 3rd party software developers for Autodesk with UIDS under 1,000... I remain highly skeptical of Autodesk's commitment towards any community.

    From what I remember Autodesk "absorbed" a lot of people's hard work into their own software and said the developers legally had no recourse. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but from what I remember, one of my friends was making good money with their 3rd party software and then all of the sudden it was gone.

    So if Autodesk totally screwed over its entire development community years back, what makes you think they have a real commitment towards supporting anybody but themselves?

    1. Re:Communities? by TrnsltLife · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure it's a Facebook to their MySpace, but since this came up on Slashdot, I'm plugging my new site: CommentHow.com. The site still in its infancy, but where all the viewing options are available to everyone, logged in or not. (Commenting and posting articles requires a login of course.)

      All content will be public domain, Creative Commons Attribution, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, meaning everything can be remixed. That's why every article has a "Copy this Article" button, letting users base their how-to article off someone else's. That lets them extend it, translate it into their own language, or localize it to the needs and materials of their local context.

      Also, Comment/How doesn't limit you to English, which has been a problem for some of the users of Instructables. Pick from any of Earth's almost 7000 languages to browse or post in. (Of course, most of these don't have content in them yet.)

  4. Hypocritical by pjfontillas · · Score: 2

    Getting people to use free and trial versions of their Autodesk software isn't part of a plan for them to upsell? And they're not going to make Instructable-like communities by obtaining members and projects from Instructables? Ok... I'll bite. What other things do they have planned, MAKE?

    --
    Life. Is. Good.
  5. it means the first attack has begun by decora · · Score: 2

    autodesk is about as anti-open anything as you can get. they are 100% against any kind of open standard for anything.

    combine that with the power of patent lawsuits, and you can pretty much kiss free 3d-printing goodbye in the United States.

    their plan is to make you pay for every single last triangle in your STL file, claiming they somehow invented triangles.

  6. Clear now: A common open CAD data structure needed by beachdog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This report of the sale of Instructables to Autodesk makes it clear to me that the free software community needs a common drawing data structure and a set of user drawing interchange utilities.

    The world of free drafting and CAD doesn't have the many little component drawings available to the users of AutoCAD proprietary drafting software. From the previous poster's comments, AutoDesk is unlikely to make any user data files or data structure information more available in the future.

    I just finished spending 2 months reviewing many of the free CAD programs. I am looking for programs and applications to design a solar water heater installation, a radio antenna, a fractal made out of wire, an electrical circuit and a wagon. Is there anything yet to match sheets of quad paper, a .5 mm mechanical pencil and a HP-48 calculator and some assorted handbooks?

    What AutoDesk seems to have, that is never released by AutoDesk, is the Autocad user drawing data structure and the little drawings of ready to use components.

    What is missing from PythonCAD, Qcad, Blender, and Varkon is libraries of little drawings called "components". (An interesting program is the Beta prototype "Fritzing" for designing Arduino breadboards. Fritzing is all about placing components and drawing wires between the components. It has a delightful simple data structure for doing this.)

    The whole world of CAD or mechanical drafting programs is wrapped up in incompatible islands of proprietary user drawing data structures. It seems to spring from business based engineers who want to be paid directly for every single use of their engineering knowledge.

    Since it is partly free and it does run on Linux (with Wine), I like Google Sketchup. The drawing app is genius, the user data structure is proprietary and the data can be exported only using the $500 professional version of Sketchup. I wish they would publish their user data structure.

    It would be both fun and a first class challenge to write conversion utilities to convert files from Sketchup to Blender, from Sketchup to PythonCAD and Qcad. From the CAD programs back and forth to SAGE and Xnec2c. Here is an interesting problem in doing user data structure conversions: When doing the file conversion, you need a way to not throw away data that one program uses and another doesn't. One way is to provide for internal comments within the user application data structure for each drawing application. And figure out how to keep each comment together with some active point within the data structure.

  7. What Autodesk is up to by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Autodesk already has a deal with TechShop - if you're a TechShop member, you can get a 6-month free license for Autodesk Inventor, their high-end CAD package. The intent is to increase the pool of people who know how to design and make things. Those are the people who use Autodesk products.

    Inventor takes weeks to learn, but is worth it if you're doing serious mechanical design. It's the attention to detail, like having a library of about 75,000 standard parts like bolts, nuts ("would you like a lockwasher with that?"), and bearings. The parts aren't just pictures; the system has strength and wear data for them, and can do the engineering calculations for a bolted joint or a bearing. It can handle moving parts, nested subassemblies, finite element analysis, wiring harness layout, piping - all those things which are a giant pain in real world design.

    123D is a toy-level Autodesk Inventor. The 3D and graphic visualization tools are there, but not the engineering calculations or the big parts libraries. Some parts from those libraries are distributed free with 123D, but without the engineering data. It's easier to use than Inventor, but it's definitely a CAD program,not a drawing program. It seems to be designed to get people thinking about mechanical design in the way it's done professionally. That makes sense from Autodesk's perspective.

  8. Re:Clear now: A common open CAD data structure nee by kop · · Score: 2

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Sketchup+to+Blender
    Done!

  9. FreeCAD is 3D, more like Inventor or SolidWorks by dbc · · Score: 2

    see http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/free-cad/index.php?title=Main_Page