Technology in Architectural Practice

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

Rudolph,
Very interesting approach. I am curious to learn more about the practice areas you specialize in and the level of complexity of the projects you typically work on.
For context, it would also be helpful to understand whether your firm operates at a small, medium, or large scale, as many solutions tend to vary based on those factors.
Looking forward to hearing more.

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

I do a lot of residential and some commercial. 

Most of my work is with existing structures so a fair amount of time is spent up front documenting and modeling the existing structure.

Once I have that BIM model, I can literally build it once before ground is broken.

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

Rudolph,
Very interesting approach. I am curious to learn more about the practice areas you specialize in and the level of complexity of the projects you typically work on.
For context, it would also be helpful to understand whether your firm operates at a small, medium, or large scale, as many solutions tend to vary based on those factors.
Looking forward to hearing more.

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

I do a lot of residential and some commercial. 

Most of my work is with existing structures so a fair amount of time is spent up front documenting and modeling the existing structure.

Once I have that BIM model, I can literally build it once before ground is broken.

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

Rudolph,
Very interesting approach. I am curious to learn more about the practice areas you specialize in and the level of complexity of the projects you typically work on.
For context, it would also be helpful to understand whether your firm operates at a small, medium, or large scale, as many solutions tend to vary based on those factors.
Looking forward to hearing more.

I do a lot of residential and some commercial. 

Most of my work is with existing structures so a fair amount of time is spent up front documenting and modeling the existing structure.

Once I have that BIM model, I can literally build it once before ground is broken.

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

Rudolph,
Very interesting approach. I am curious to learn more about the practice areas you specialize in and the level of complexity of the projects you typically work on.
For context, it would also be helpful to understand whether your firm operates at a small, medium, or large scale, as many solutions tend to vary based on those factors.
Looking forward to hearing more.

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

Subscription only licensing is predatory. The vendor can double, triple, or whatever raise the price, and you as a customer don't have time to pivot. The tools you rely on to pursue your craft, can be shut down by someone else's business plan.

As a one person firm, it's all too easy to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I walked away from Autodesk when they discontinued their maintenance licensing plan. They would no longer allow upgrading and maintaining of a perpetual license, it was subscription only. I never traded in my perpetual licenses and can still use the software I paid for. 

However, I have since moved on to VectorWorks and went with the service select licensing option. As long as I renew, I get upgrades, and my current version of software will not time out.

They have since dropped allowing new customers to participate in Service Select. If they go the path of Autodesk and cut it off for existing customers, then I'll have to do whatever's necessary to keep my tools from timing out.

I'm looking at FreeCAD and Bonsai Bim for Blender as my next move if necessary. Both of those software are in development and need work. They're open source and developed my volunteers, so further development may be a few years. Maybe I can become proficient enough in Python and can help the development of the tools I need. 

I think you have a point.  Previously, our studio would buy licenses to a software tool and install that program on a shared computer.  This was helpful for programs that are ideal to do a certain task, but not something that is needed everyday (ie: Photoshop is great when you are rendering design concepts, but useless during construction documentation).  As, Adobe in this case, moved to a one license for one user model and their EULA forbids the sharing of that user account with multiple people, studios are faced with the choice of;
1. Spending way more than they need to for a tool that is critical when needed, but otherwise not needed the rest of the year.
2. Limiting who can do certain tasks with dedicated licenses to the software
3. Changing their workflow to find ways do reduce dependency on otherwise ideal tools.

The other huge issue I am concerned about, and would like to see more on what the AIA can help with, is the Monopolization of workflows in our industry by single companies.  Revit has become synonymous with BIM, but is not the only BIM authoring platform available.  Yet time and time again, we are seeing contracts that require the use of "Revit" and not "BIM" to deliver a project.  Furthermore, the progress to OpenBIM which would allow for true interoperability between BIM programs, seems to be stalled with smaller developers working to make their software more flexible while larger developers see no incentive to do so.  This forces studios to have to adopt multiple tools and licenses to do the same thing.  Our studio uses Archicad, and work on Macs, but we have been pushed by clients and other architects to use Revit on projects which means not only buying licenses for the software, but also investing in new PCs it can be installed on.

PDFs are not better.  Bluebeam is the clear giant in the AEC industry, but abandoned their development of Revue for Mac.  So we are left searching for other solutions (which we have found a wonderful alternative with Drawboard PDF for anyone else in the same boat).  When we are confronted with a client that requires that a Bluebeam session be used to review and comment on drawings, we are again scrambled to purchase licenses to a tool we don't commonly use and find computers that it can be installed on.

I think as an industry, we should push back against the proprietary nature of these software developers that are trying to make it so that ONLY their suite of tools can be used by a project team to work together.  There needs to be more interoperability between software so that the tools of our choice can be used to create our designs rather than being limited to the tools that simply allow us to work together.  

Additionally, to the original comment, it is becoming unsustainable to maintain software costs due to the wide array of tools that are required to exchange ideas with our collaborators.

Great question! I look forward to the conversation.

Mark,
It is great to see you exploring different options. I am also curious to hear how your peers within the firm are approaching adoption and what kind of traction you are seeing across the team.

I think you have a point.  Previously, our studio would buy licenses to a software tool and install that program on a shared computer.  This was helpful for programs that are ideal to do a certain task, but not something that is needed everyday (ie: Photoshop is great when you are rendering design concepts, but useless during construction documentation).  As, Adobe in this case, moved to a one license for one user model and their EULA forbids the sharing of that user account with multiple people, studios are faced with the choice of;
1. Spending way more than they need to for a tool that is critical when needed, but otherwise not needed the rest of the year.
2. Limiting who can do certain tasks with dedicated licenses to the software
3. Changing their workflow to find ways do reduce dependency on otherwise ideal tools.

The other huge issue I am concerned about, and would like to see more on what the AIA can help with, is the Monopolization of workflows in our industry by single companies.  Revit has become synonymous with BIM, but is not the only BIM authoring platform available.  Yet time and time again, we are seeing contracts that require the use of "Revit" and not "BIM" to deliver a project.  Furthermore, the progress to OpenBIM which would allow for true interoperability between BIM programs, seems to be stalled with smaller developers working to make their software more flexible while larger developers see no incentive to do so.  This forces studios to have to adopt multiple tools and licenses to do the same thing.  Our studio uses Archicad, and work on Macs, but we have been pushed by clients and other architects to use Revit on projects which means not only buying licenses for the software, but also investing in new PCs it can be installed on.

PDFs are not better.  Bluebeam is the clear giant in the AEC industry, but abandoned their development of Revue for Mac.  So we are left searching for other solutions (which we have found a wonderful alternative with Drawboard PDF for anyone else in the same boat).  When we are confronted with a client that requires that a Bluebeam session be used to review and comment on drawings, we are again scrambled to purchase licenses to a tool we don't commonly use and find computers that it can be installed on.

I think as an industry, we should push back against the proprietary nature of these software developers that are trying to make it so that ONLY their suite of tools can be used by a project team to work together.  There needs to be more interoperability between software so that the tools of our choice can be used to create our designs rather than being limited to the tools that simply allow us to work together.  

Additionally, to the original comment, it is becoming unsustainable to maintain software costs due to the wide array of tools that are required to exchange ideas with our collaborators.

Great question! I look forward to the conversation.

Thesla, there are some learning curve pains, but most people catch on pretty quickly.  It can be a lot to ask of someone who has been doing things a certain way in a particular program for most of their career to suddenly have to use a new tool to do that work.  So I focus a lot on finding parallel work so people can find the way to work in the new program and do the same things they are use to.   I do hear the frustration though from people who spent most of their career learning how do use a tool to do a specific task, and then having to relearn how to do that task with something new.  

I guess that would be even more frustrating, hearing from some of the responders to this post, who are switching programs to avoid the increasing cost of subscriptions.  With how much work we have put into templates, library parts, and standards, I couldn't imagine what it would cost us to switch to a new program.  I think that gives a lot of leverage to the software developers because it is not easy to just switch to a new software if you are not happy with your current on, or if the price goes up.  That may be part of the answer to your original question.  At what point does the cost to maintain your subscriptions outweigh the cost to adopt a new program?  For small firms and single practitioners, that cost delta might not be that great but for medium to large firms it can be an enormous investment to change.  

Mark,
It is great to see you exploring different options. I am also curious to hear how your peers within the firm are approaching adoption and what kind of traction you are seeing across the team.

I think you have a point.  Previously, our studio would buy licenses to a software tool and install that program on a shared computer.  This was helpful for programs that are ideal to do a certain task, but not something that is needed everyday (ie: Photoshop is great when you are rendering design concepts, but useless during construction documentation).  As, Adobe in this case, moved to a one license for one user model and their EULA forbids the sharing of that user account with multiple people, studios are faced with the choice of;
1. Spending way more than they need to for a tool that is critical when needed, but otherwise not needed the rest of the year.
2. Limiting who can do certain tasks with dedicated licenses to the software
3. Changing their workflow to find ways do reduce dependency on otherwise ideal tools.

The other huge issue I am concerned about, and would like to see more on what the AIA can help with, is the Monopolization of workflows in our industry by single companies.  Revit has become synonymous with BIM, but is not the only BIM authoring platform available.  Yet time and time again, we are seeing contracts that require the use of "Revit" and not "BIM" to deliver a project.  Furthermore, the progress to OpenBIM which would allow for true interoperability between BIM programs, seems to be stalled with smaller developers working to make their software more flexible while larger developers see no incentive to do so.  This forces studios to have to adopt multiple tools and licenses to do the same thing.  Our studio uses Archicad, and work on Macs, but we have been pushed by clients and other architects to use Revit on projects which means not only buying licenses for the software, but also investing in new PCs it can be installed on.

PDFs are not better.  Bluebeam is the clear giant in the AEC industry, but abandoned their development of Revue for Mac.  So we are left searching for other solutions (which we have found a wonderful alternative with Drawboard PDF for anyone else in the same boat).  When we are confronted with a client that requires that a Bluebeam session be used to review and comment on drawings, we are again scrambled to purchase licenses to a tool we don't commonly use and find computers that it can be installed on.

I think as an industry, we should push back against the proprietary nature of these software developers that are trying to make it so that ONLY their suite of tools can be used by a project team to work together.  There needs to be more interoperability between software so that the tools of our choice can be used to create our designs rather than being limited to the tools that simply allow us to work together.  

Additionally, to the original comment, it is becoming unsustainable to maintain software costs due to the wide array of tools that are required to exchange ideas with our collaborators.

Great question! I look forward to the conversation.

Thesla, there are some learning curve pains, but most people catch on pretty quickly.  It can be a lot to ask of someone who has been doing things a certain way in a particular program for most of their career to suddenly have to use a new tool to do that work.  So I focus a lot on finding parallel work so people can find the way to work in the new program and do the same things they are use to.   I do hear the frustration though from people who spent most of their career learning how do use a tool to do a specific task, and then having to relearn how to do that task with something new.  

I guess that would be even more frustrating, hearing from some of the responders to this post, who are switching programs to avoid the increasing cost of subscriptions.  With how much work we have put into templates, library parts, and standards, I couldn't imagine what it would cost us to switch to a new program.  I think that gives a lot of leverage to the software developers because it is not easy to just switch to a new software if you are not happy with your current on, or if the price goes up.  That may be part of the answer to your original question.  At what point does the cost to maintain your subscriptions outweigh the cost to adopt a new program?  For small firms and single practitioners, that cost delta might not be that great but for medium to large firms it can be an enormous investment to change.  

Mark,
It is great to see you exploring different options. I am also curious to hear how your peers within the firm are approaching adoption and what kind of traction you are seeing across the team.

I think you have a point.  Previously, our studio would buy licenses to a software tool and install that program on a shared computer.  This was helpful for programs that are ideal to do a certain task, but not something that is needed everyday (ie: Photoshop is great when you are rendering design concepts, but useless during construction documentation).  As, Adobe in this case, moved to a one license for one user model and their EULA forbids the sharing of that user account with multiple people, studios are faced with the choice of;
1. Spending way more than they need to for a tool that is critical when needed, but otherwise not needed the rest of the year.
2. Limiting who can do certain tasks with dedicated licenses to the software
3. Changing their workflow to find ways do reduce dependency on otherwise ideal tools.

The other huge issue I am concerned about, and would like to see more on what the AIA can help with, is the Monopolization of workflows in our industry by single companies.  Revit has become synonymous with BIM, but is not the only BIM authoring platform available.  Yet time and time again, we are seeing contracts that require the use of "Revit" and not "BIM" to deliver a project.  Furthermore, the progress to OpenBIM which would allow for true interoperability between BIM programs, seems to be stalled with smaller developers working to make their software more flexible while larger developers see no incentive to do so.  This forces studios to have to adopt multiple tools and licenses to do the same thing.  Our studio uses Archicad, and work on Macs, but we have been pushed by clients and other architects to use Revit on projects which means not only buying licenses for the software, but also investing in new PCs it can be installed on.

PDFs are not better.  Bluebeam is the clear giant in the AEC industry, but abandoned their development of Revue for Mac.  So we are left searching for other solutions (which we have found a wonderful alternative with Drawboard PDF for anyone else in the same boat).  When we are confronted with a client that requires that a Bluebeam session be used to review and comment on drawings, we are again scrambled to purchase licenses to a tool we don't commonly use and find computers that it can be installed on.

I think as an industry, we should push back against the proprietary nature of these software developers that are trying to make it so that ONLY their suite of tools can be used by a project team to work together.  There needs to be more interoperability between software so that the tools of our choice can be used to create our designs rather than being limited to the tools that simply allow us to work together.  

Additionally, to the original comment, it is becoming unsustainable to maintain software costs due to the wide array of tools that are required to exchange ideas with our collaborators.

Great question! I look forward to the conversation.

I think you have a point.  Previously, our studio would buy licenses to a software tool and install that program on a shared computer.  This was helpful for programs that are ideal to do a certain task, but not something that is needed everyday (ie: Photoshop is great when you are rendering design concepts, but useless during construction documentation).  As, Adobe in this case, moved to a one license for one user model and their EULA forbids the sharing of that user account with multiple people, studios are faced with the choice of;
1. Spending way more than they need to for a tool that is critical when needed, but otherwise not needed the rest of the year.
2. Limiting who can do certain tasks with dedicated licenses to the software
3. Changing their workflow to find ways do reduce dependency on otherwise ideal tools.

The other huge issue I am concerned about, and would like to see more on what the AIA can help with, is the Monopolization of workflows in our industry by single companies.  Revit has become synonymous with BIM, but is not the only BIM authoring platform available.  Yet time and time again, we are seeing contracts that require the use of "Revit" and not "BIM" to deliver a project.  Furthermore, the progress to OpenBIM which would allow for true interoperability between BIM programs, seems to be stalled with smaller developers working to make their software more flexible while larger developers see no incentive to do so.  This forces studios to have to adopt multiple tools and licenses to do the same thing.  Our studio uses Archicad, and work on Macs, but we have been pushed by clients and other architects to use Revit on projects which means not only buying licenses for the software, but also investing in new PCs it can be installed on.

PDFs are not better.  Bluebeam is the clear giant in the AEC industry, but abandoned their development of Revue for Mac.  So we are left searching for other solutions (which we have found a wonderful alternative with Drawboard PDF for anyone else in the same boat).  When we are confronted with a client that requires that a Bluebeam session be used to review and comment on drawings, we are again scrambled to purchase licenses to a tool we don't commonly use and find computers that it can be installed on.

I think as an industry, we should push back against the proprietary nature of these software developers that are trying to make it so that ONLY their suite of tools can be used by a project team to work together.  There needs to be more interoperability between software so that the tools of our choice can be used to create our designs rather than being limited to the tools that simply allow us to work together.  

Additionally, to the original comment, it is becoming unsustainable to maintain software costs due to the wide array of tools that are required to exchange ideas with our collaborators.

Great question! I look forward to the conversation.

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

Haha William, if it is anything like the "CAD" tool that we had to use on the ARE exams than count me out 😆.

I do wonder if there could be a standard, similar to an ASTM standard from our specs, that can be developed by the AIA and required to be met by any software developer that wants to work with AIA member firms.  I think that could be a good vessel for things like how programs handle IFC files, or standards for user interfaces so that it doesn't take 3 months just to figure out where the line tools are. That way moving to a new program either when changing jobs, or trying out a new option, won't require such a steep learning curve.

not sure exactly what that might look like, but I'm not sure I see any other levers since they have us by the pocket books.

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

Haha William, if it is anything like the "CAD" tool that we had to use on the ARE exams than count me out 😆.

I do wonder if there could be a standard, similar to an ASTM standard from our specs, that can be developed by the AIA and required to be met by any software developer that wants to work with AIA member firms.  I think that could be a good vessel for things like how programs handle IFC files, or standards for user interfaces so that it doesn't take 3 months just to figure out where the line tools are. That way moving to a new program either when changing jobs, or trying out a new option, won't require such a steep learning curve.

not sure exactly what that might look like, but I'm not sure I see any other levers since they have us by the pocket books.

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

There are efforts underway.

openBIM - buildingSMART International

There is an Arch/BIM workspace in FreeCAD, but I feel it needs more development...

FreeCAD: Your own 3D parametric modeler

And BonsaiBIM. They confess to be in Alpha stage...

Bonsai

If you want to see something happen, please contribute to these efforts. 

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

There are efforts underway.

openBIM - buildingSMART International

There is an Arch/BIM workspace in FreeCAD, but I feel it needs more development...

FreeCAD: Your own 3D parametric modeler

And BonsaiBIM. They confess to be in Alpha stage...

Bonsai

If you want to see something happen, please contribute to these efforts. 

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

Rudy and Mark are hitting the nail on the head here. We are completely at the mercy of proprietary ecosystems that treat our workflows like hostage situations. So, hear me out: What if we stop funding these software monopolies and instead pool our collective, caffeinated genius to build our own open-source, AIA-backed design platform? Free for everyone to use, hack, and improve. Yes, it means we'd actually have to agree on standard layers and workflow logic-which might trigger an existential crisis for half the profession-but imagine the beautiful, democratic chaos of an entire industry fueled by open-source code and pure spite. Janene, we can bake 'impeccable customer service' right into the source code. Who's signing up for the beta?

I think there are several interrelated topics at play here. The move to subscription only and named user licensing models has been addressed already. Interoperability for those not on the mainstream [industry dominant] platforms (and those of us who have to work with those who choose to not use mainstream platforms) is another. But a third topic that I've run into a lot recently is lack of transparency in pricing, and the inability to plan/budget multiple years into the future, which can help inform your overall IT strategy. Say what you want about Autodesk's actual prices, but at least they openly share their MSRPs and even publish pricing guidance for a number of years into the future, so your only real variable then is quantity. Recently I've dealt with 2 vendors who don't publish any MSRP, have recently made exorbitant price increases, and will not tell you future pricing plans. Then, with a wink, they'll tell you you're getting a deal because the arbitrary price they came up with is X amount higher that what they're presently asking for. It would be useful for the AIA TAP to develop a focus group with the intent to survey industry software and publish a report on 'business friendliness' of software vendors, perhaps with an accompanying list software by domain-type to make it clear to AIA members what they are getting themselves into in doing business with these vendors and what alternatives might exist.

I think there are several interrelated topics at play here. The move to subscription only and named user licensing models has been addressed already. Interoperability for those not on the mainstream [industry dominant] platforms (and those of us who have to work with those who choose to not use mainstream platforms) is another. But a third topic that I've run into a lot recently is lack of transparency in pricing, and the inability to plan/budget multiple years into the future, which can help inform your overall IT strategy. Say what you want about Autodesk's actual prices, but at least they openly share their MSRPs and even publish pricing guidance for a number of years into the future, so your only real variable then is quantity. Recently I've dealt with 2 vendors who don't publish any MSRP, have recently made exorbitant price increases, and will not tell you future pricing plans. Then, with a wink, they'll tell you you're getting a deal because the arbitrary price they came up with is X amount higher that what they're presently asking for. It would be useful for the AIA TAP to develop a focus group with the intent to survey industry software and publish a report on 'business friendliness' of software vendors, perhaps with an accompanying list software by domain-type to make it clear to AIA members what they are getting themselves into in doing business with these vendors and what alternatives might exist.