This has echoes of that whole 'Publication of a Public Roadmap' saga, written all over it.
We all remember how it was like pulling teeth getting them to publish some semblance of a useful, informative Roadmap somewhat in keeping with what is now effectively the Industry standard in customer interaction.
And also how stark in difference between that joke of a first draft RoadMap they threw out, particularly in comparison to what was already available and public from their Nemetschek "sister" companies in Allplan and Vectorworks Roadmaps that were (And still remain) Lightyears ahead of what they were supposedly giving us.
I even remember some of us practically BEGGING them to just copy whatever template the Vectorworks folks were using and just replace "Vectorworks" references with "ArchiCAD" references instead, and in lieu of reinventing the wheel from scratch if it was too much work to do one from the ground up on their end.
Now we're right back here again and they can't even seem to handle this shift to 'Subscription-only' as smoothly as those other guys seem to have done on their ends.
It's like they live on an entirely other planet completely.
@rm wrote:
I believe it’s naive to think GS is going to take the comments of a few very concerned users here on this forum about this topic. Me and perhaps some of you are small 1 - 3 person practices. Though GS was built by this loyal base up to the late 1990’s, GS now caters to the big firms and their needs.
If you wish to be heard, I would suggest posting calm, well reasoned concerns on LinkedIn. This is where a much broader architectural community will read these messages. I believe it would force a response - good or bad - from GS.
Why post this thread then if they really feel that way about us and our concerns, and why bother presenting the opportunity to ask questions and present yourself as available to address them?
And by the way, I'm not saying you're wrong at all.
Quite the opposite.
You're almost certainly absolutely correct in that assessment if any of our dealings with Graphisoft over the last 2 decades plus with them has taught us where their priorities now lie nowadays.
I'm just amazed at the cynicism on their part. in choosing to do so, knowing well they don't really intend nor care to address anything or engage in any form.
The only part I differ with you is in the belief that expressing any concerns in any other manner elsewhere, like on LinkedIn or some other forum is likely to be any more effective.
We now know that even the much vaunted "Insiders" user groups, the (originally) closed Beta-Testing groups and the "Key Client"-type gatherings where likewise pretty ineffective and ineffectual in ever getting them to hear things from the customer side and our point of view, so what difference would another forum and another tone of expression make?
The decision for this shift was already set in stone way prior to this announcement.
Everything else is just padding to soften the landing.
It's just a question of, "for whom?"
It doesn't seem to be for us.
Once upon a time, not that long long ago, we were assured that Graphisoft do indeed read user concerns and questions on this forum - even though it might not be directly but through a collated form, and even though they may not respond to them in real time or otherwise......or at all...... (......sort of like we used to be taught how God hears prayers in in sunday school at church growing up. Fitting really, if you think about it).
So if those oldheads were not lying to us, then Graphisoft have read each and every one of these comments, and their silence should be answer enough for anyone still concerned.
@rm wrote:
The logic for posting elsewhere, ie LinkedIn, potential new ArchiCAD clients are likely to be reading about the competition as well. The last thing GS needs right now, giving they recently ousted Huw Roberts, is a sentiment that GS is not listening to its loyal long term clients.
But a bigger picture point, how can they continue with year over year increases of over 20% for SSA members when that exceeds cost of living increases 3-5x depending on your location. That to me is one of the most important issue here.
Methinks it's hard to maintain that facade when the every people they've long-relied on to perpetuate the perception that they do listen,...(i.e. those same long-term loyal customers), -.,.....through word-of-mouth and direct contact with industry colleagues - are the same ones they're busy giving the short shrift to right now with this episode.
With regards to your second point, I believe others deduced that the whole reasoning behind that would be to (eventually) force SSA folks into switching over to subscription of their own volition eventually.
Basically a de facto forced subscription without them having to actually do the forcing directly.
But with year-over-year 20+% increases on SSA fees, aren't they still going to be de facto "forcing" people to subscription, anyway.
I'm not really sure I'm aware of any small-to-medium firms that can sustain that sort of annual cost increase on any of their line expenditure items on a yearly basis over a long-term.
Still looking?
