PTC Buys CoCreate

CoCreate's "Important Customer Announcement" reads:

"PTC recognizes that there is a broad range of accepted modeling approaches in the industry. By adding CoCreate solutions to its product portfolio, PTC will become the first and only vendor in the market to offer a full complement of design solutions."

First and only, eh? Not for long, I'd say.

Like I said earlier, "As the thrust towards non-parametric modeling gathers momentum, the big companies with strict parametric modeling systems will want to offer their customers a non-parametric solution as well. As always, when faced with a "make or buy" decision the easier and faster way out is to buy."

I wonder who is going to be next.

This or That

Ralph Grabowski on UpFront.eZine: "When I run some rough numbers, I can see why SpaceClaim needed a second round of financing. 63 employees x $100K each = $6.3 million expense; 500 licenses x $1700 = $0.85 million income; burn rate = $6.3m - 0.85m = $5.45 million."

Al Dean on MCAD Online: "Sales are moving ahead and I’m told are ahead of first year projections."

I think it is quite obvious that one of them has not got it right.

Attack of the Clones

In an earlier article ("The Future of AutoCAD Clones") I laid out a scenerio whereby companies adopting 3D could turn to AutoCAD clones to fulfill their 2D needs. This brings about an interesting question. The clones have been around for many years now and companies get into the mood of cutting costs from the time they are formed. So why are the clones still languishing where they are?

I believe there are many reasons for this. The main reason is the FUD (Fear Uncertainity Doubt) campaign unleashed by Autodesk aginst the enemy, namely the IntelliCAD Technology Consortium (ITC), the OpenDesign Alliance (ODA) and both their members. And you know what? If you look at it as closely as I have, you will begin to realise that Autodesk is not entirely wrong.

The IntelliCAD 6 platform is rather "weak" as compared to that of AutoCAD, even several versions earlier. The IntelliCAD 6 platform is built using SDS (Solutions Development System), a clone of Autodesk's ADS (AutoCAD Development System). ADS became history many years ago when Autodesk came up with ObjectARX, a far advanced platform which took AutoCAD to a whole new level. The AutoCAD verticals are actually a bunch of ObjectARX plug-ins working inside AutoCAD. Since ObjectARX applications share the same memory space as AutoCAD, they work much faster and better than those using ADS technology. This makes AutoCAD far more powerful and scalable, capable of handling large amounts of data very efficiently.

On the other hand, IntelliCAD is still crawling on the SDS platform. Crashes are not uncommon. Large drawings take forever to load and refresh. We have all been led to believe (by Autodesk) that the cause for this undesirable behaviour can be traced to the reverse engineered DWG format from the ODA. DWG is only a file format which stores data. It has very little to do with the internal architecture of IntelliCAD. Sure there may be cases when corrputed files crash IntelliCAD, but that happens with AutoCAD as well.

I believe the problem lies in the recipe, not just a particular ingredient. SDS has been written in C, a language which reigned during the times of the 486 computer. I am not aware of any modern day CAD system whose platform is written in C. The nature and volume of data that modern day CAD systems are expected to handle, and the speed at which they are expected to do so, is just not manageable by an antique platform such as SDS. Something is bound to misfire and it often does.

Earlier in May, I had written about the New IntelliCAD. Since then I have had the chance to work with the ODA's DRX, a clone of AutoCAD's ObjectARX. Just like how ObjectARX revolutionalized AutoCAD, DRX is all set to do the same to IntelliCAD. Whether it actually does is a different question. Using DRX, developers will be able to create verticals similar to those of AutoCAD. This opens up a whole new world of possibilities and opportunities.

Graebert has gone one step further and is working on an ARX of their own which is source code compatible with AutoCAD's ObjectARX. This has profound implications. Although DRX is a clone of ObjectARX, an AutoCAD developer still needs to port his ObjectARX code and make adjustments (sometimes major) so that it can compile with DRX. At SYCODE, we write plug-ins for AutoCAD as well as the new IntelliCAD. We need to maintain two sets of source code for the same kind of plug-in. But with Graebert's ARX, an AutoCAD developer can use his existing ObjectARX code as it is, compile it with their ARX libraries and presto, an AutoCAD plug-in becomes an IntelliCAD plug-in. Why is this important, you may ask. Very often an AutoCAD user is unable to dump AutoCAD for IntelliCAD because a third party plug-in that he relies on is not available for IntelliCAD. In such an event, Graebert's ARX SDK becomes the magic potion that allows the developer to convert an AutoCAD plug-in into an IntelliCAD plug-in in a minute, literally. Wilfried Graebert tells me that they are not quite there yet, but they eventually will.

But there appear to be a few issues the clones need to sort out before they launch their attack. While developing SYCODE's range of IntelliCAD plug-ins, I was in touch with a few of them, on a technical front as well as a business front. From what I gather they do not appear to be working along the same direction and some have no idea what the others are up to. That's understandable because they are not only fighting Autodesk, but competing among themselves as well. However, to take on the might of Autodesk, a little more organization and unity could come in handy.

Good technology can make good products, but only good marketing can sell them. I expect Autodesk to kick its FUD campaign into higher gear after the new IntelliCAD is released. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of law suits spring up. The clones need to come out with a united strategy to counter this.

And most of all, the clones badly need to shake off their image of being an inferior and cheap (the other meaning) product. And this will be extremely difficult to do in the first release, when the dam of bugs and goof ups always breaks open.

I believe the attack will start at the start of 2008.

Is Trial Software an Effective Marketing Tool?

There are people who believe that offering free trials is not the best way to market software. Rather, sitting with a prospective customer, face-to-face or over the web, is the best way to do it. Then there are others, the vast majority, who believe otherwise. Although I belong to the majority, I do believe that there are some cases when a trial may not be the best way to go about marketing a software. This issue is not as simple as it appears to be.

The key is to understand two things: (1) the software product, and (2) the target audience. Companies whose software products which are highly specialized, and hence not easy to understand and use, will almost always need to have personal interaction with a prospective customer. In such cases, due to the nature of the product, the target audience is usually small and it becomes feasible for a company to give personal attention to each prospective customer.

For a product which is designed to be used by the masses, personal attention to each and every prospective customer becomes impossible. In such cases, it is wise for a company to use its limited resources efficiently. I believe the best approach is to give personal attention to major accounts, big companies that have the need and purchasing power for a large number of licenses, and offer free trial software targeted to the rest. This way you get the best of both worlds. I know it sounds unfair, but trying to give personal attention to everyone just does not make good business sense.

Take SpaceClaim for example, a company which till recently did not offer a free trial of their software. Their marketing strategy revolves around their belief that there are approximately 5 million people involved in 3D product design and only 1/5th of them are exposed to existing CAD software. Their product is targeted at the remaining 4/5th. How exactly SpaceClaim intended to give personal attention to the 4 million people is beyond the limits of my comprehension.

What is often forgotten is the cost of giving personal attention. My NetMeeting Webinar with SpaceClaim lasted more than an hour with two people giving the demo, a guy from marketing and an applications engineer. There is a cost to all of this which eventually gets added to the price of the product. The more you spend on personalising the experience, the more unafforable your product becomes.

A common argument for having personal interaction is that the prospective customer's questions will be answered immediately. Lets analyze this a little. I have had many such personal briefings over the web. When I ask a question to the person giving the demo, the reply has often been, "I don't know. I will get back to you on this." Later, he consults someone in the company and sends me an email with the replies to my questions. This cannot be very different from me downloading a trial, playing around with it and contacting the company's support helpdesk with my questions. At SYCODE, we get numerous emails everyday from people who have tried our software and need clarifications. We reply to them the very same day, sometimes instantly. And since they can try our software with their data and at their own time, their questions are much more thought out and sensible.

And then, of course, there are people like me who will just not spend a dime, unless they have checked and cross-checked whether the software works as desired, and that too with their data. Nothing short of a free trial will make them dish out the dough. I am not sure whether these kind of people form a majority, but they are certainly a big group.

Matt Writes and Confuses

Yesterday Ralph Grabowski wrote his views on free software. Matt Lombard's used his comment to take a dig at trial software. He said, "The best way to learn something is to sit with someone who knows it so you can ask questions. Self teaching generally doesn't amount to anything more than playing."

And today Matt's blog ("Matt Writes") has a post letting us know that he has created a 150 minute video training course on SolidWorks. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this video course self learning. I doubt Matt or anyone else is going to sit with the person playing the video to answer his questions.

There is reason why we software developers add step by step tutorials, sample files, videos, etc. into our trial software. People who choose not to use them and prefer to "sit with someone to ask questions" are missing the point of it all.

I only hope that the people who are thinking of paying Matt for his training course do not share his views.

And by the way, although Matt questions the effectiveness of trial software he urges you to download a sample lesson from his video course. I wonder why.

A Different Kind of Trial

"I'd also like to see an ongoing trial program that doesn't end on 11/27."

I sat upright when I read this on the SpaceClaim blog. Does this mean that after 27th November there will be no trial download and it will all return back to square one?

I have heard of a time-limited trial. This is the first time I have come across a time-limited time-limited trial.

SpaceClaim Finally Gets It

After managing to get (only) about 100 customers in the first seven months, SpaceClaim is finally letting the cat out of the bag. Howie Markson, Sr. Director, Marketing at SpaceClaim Corp, tells me that they are now letting anyone download a time limited trial of their new version, SpaceClaim Proessional 2007+. It is actually a Release Candidate which expires on 27th November, 2007. You can register here.

SpaceClaim Corp. considers itself as a "leading provider of CAD-neutral modification solutions to the extended product development team". The keyword here is "modification", which implies that the target company already has a CAD system that has "created" their models. In my opinion, spending $1700 a year for a software license for a downstream engineer or marketing executive to make "modifications" to the models "created" by designers may be a bit steep for most companies. And it turns worse when you cannot even try the software with your own models, unless you dish out the cash first.

SpaceClaim Professional 2007 is a kick-ass product. I have seen this new version. It kicks even bigger ass. I have yet to see a more intuitive and easy to use CAD system. As I suspected earlier, keeping it under wraps did not do them much of a service.

I believe it will not be long before they come up with a cheaper stripped down version. $1700 a year for a tool to "modify" 3D models is just too much. Actually it adds up to $2000, thats $300 more for the 3D Data Exchange Package, without which SpaceClaim cannot read Parasolid, ACIS, CATIA V4, Pro/Engineer, NX, Inventor and SolidWorks. For CATIA V5 it is an additional $500. Without the Data Exchange Package SpaceClaim is quite limited in what they call a "multi-CAD environment", where it is trying to find its place.

The Future Of AutoCAD Clones

The people who make AutoCAD clones must be seeing a brighter future for AutoCAD than Autodesk itself does. I had earlier wondered (Getting Out Of AutoCAD's Shadow) why these people spent their time and resources copying the things being added to AutoCAD in every new release instead of innovating and offering something different, and probably better. While I still believe that their valuable time and resources can better utilized, I am beginning to see why their efforts may make good business sense in the not-so-distant future.

As I see it, the future of CAD will definately have a place for 2D, not as a start point, like how it is used today by many companies, but as one of the many end results of 3D. Designs will begin in 3D and be edited by different people till they are finalized. Thereafter these 3D models will be used in other disciplines such as (FEA, CFD, 4D animation, etc.) as well as to create 2D drawings and prints to be used downstream. The new solid modeling systems that spring up every now and then will only help designers move to 3D, but some people downstream will always need 2D. An engineer on the shopfloor will always be comfortable with a drawing on paper which he can fold or roll up while he is working. A surveyor or architect roaming in the sun will always be comfortable with a 2D contour plan of the land he is studying.

I recently completed the construction of my house. After firing my incompetent architect, I personally modelled the structure in 3D using Rhinoceros, but took it back to AutoCAD to generate plan, elevation and section drawings. I know I could do the same in Rhino, but I felt more comfortable using AutoCAD for 2D. Although I have 2D/3D file viewing software on my iPAQ PDA phone, I did not use it when I was on the construction site. I tried, but it was too cumbersome. I went back to AutoCAD, took large prints on tracing paper, created blueprints and gave them to everyone on site to use, including myself. I realized that there are times when you simply must look at a big sheet of paper. Zooming and paning about a small PDA screen just won't do.

As companies make the switch from 2D to 3D, they will start spending more on 3D software and AutoCAD will take a back seat. At that time, companies are going to question AutoCAD's high subscription cost. Right now, AutoCAD does everything for them so they do not mind the cost involved. But when they realize that they only need a tool that can read, write and plot DWG files and probably do minor modifications, they will start looking at other options, the AutoCAD clones.

A company having many seats of AutoCAD recently contacted us about a plug-in for DWGeditor, an AutoCAD clone that SolidWorks offers free with their software. They wanted to make the switch to SolidWorks but an AutoCAD plug-in critical to their workflow was preventing them. A similar plug-in was not available for DWGeditor. We offerred them the solution they needed and I guess by now they must have dumped AutoCAD for DWGeditor. As long as they were using AutoCAD as their main CAD application, they didn't mind paying the high price. But when DWG became just one of the many downstream processes, the equation changed. A cheaper DWG (in this case free) did their job just fine.

It may very well be that AutoCAD clones have a bright future ahead. Only time will tell.

Business @ The Speed Of Thought

I have been reading a book called "Business @ The Speed Of Thought" by Bill Gates. In this book, Gates describes how the internet is going to (or already has) changed the way business is conducted. He gives various examples of companies that have used the internet and e-commerce to their advantage, including his own company, which is probably the greatest proponent of e-commerce. It's a great book and has been worth spending my time on.

Somebody else from Microsoft has been taking my time these past few days. Somebody from the Microsoft India office calling me to ask when I will be making a payment that I am supposed to make. The reason I haven't made that payment yet is because I simply have not found the time to go to my bank and make a demand draft of the required amount and courier it to Microsoft. If you have been following the press releases coming out from SYCODE recently you will get an idea of how busy we have been.

But wait. Why demand draft? Doesn't Microsoft accept online payment though credit card? Not this particular office. I have paid the Microsoft Singapore office using my credit card earlier, but cannot do the same on this particular instance. Why? I have absolutely no idea.

If a tiny company like SYCODE offers payment by credit card and PayPal among a host of other options, I think we must be doing business much "faster" than Microsoft. If you know Bill Gates, please do me a favor and let him know that there are still some areas where Microsoft does not do business @ the speed of thought.

Autodesk Takes Philippine Company To Task

"After conducting surveillance operations based on intelligence reports that an Ortigas-based company was using unauthorized copies of the software, the NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] acquired a search warrant from Judge Reynaldo Ros of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 33. The seized computers where the fake Autocad software were installed have an estimated value of about P5.5 million."

Details here.

And some people think that by agreeing to the Autodesk EULA, Autodesk officials will one day barge into their office, turn it upside down and rob their valuable data, all in the name of checking for softare piracy.

Alias + Inventor

Ralph Grabowski's report in upFront.eZine (I like the way he spells that) regarding Autodesk's plan to include Alias in the Inventor package got some Rhino users talking on the Rhino newsgroup. I found some of the comments pretty amusing.

"Please let them do it, the outcome would probably look like a solid elephant, wings like a bird...pretty handsome...but most useless"

"Alias + Inventor = Zero Sum. Maybe they do this so they can consolidate their phone support to a single person so there only one number you can leave a message to?"

"Or maybe it's a way to inflate the sales numbers of Inventor. Buy Alias and get Inventor free or vice versa. We use Mechanical Desktop, so we have Inventor too, even though we never installed it. On paper though, it's a few more seats of Inventor sold."

"As Alias can be found in most car manufacturers studios, they'll start bragging 'Inventor now in most car companies'"

The last two comments are worth pondering upon. As Ralph pointed out "A frustration of Autodesk's is that they don't do cars". I don't believe Autodesk wants to simply brag about Inventor licenses sold in the automotive segment. I guess they are more interested in getting car manufacturers to actually use Inventor and join this Digital Prototyping thing that they have started.

I don't think they will be including Alias in the Inventor package. In all probability the plan is to include Inventor with Alias.

Making Google Accountable

I have lamented on this blog on more than one occassion (here, here and here) about Google's attitude towards software piracy activities being carried out on its servers.

I was pleased to read this.

"The recommendation of an Indian parliamentary committee threatens to change the wording in proposed legislation that would hold Google and other service providers accountable for content traversing their system.

What is relevant here is that when [the] platform is abused for transmission of allegedly obscene and objectionable contents, the intermediaries/service providers should not be absolved of responsibility."

About bloody time.

SpaceClaim Blog

SpaceClaim has a blog written by Joe Lichtenberg, an independent consultant, who is being paid by SpaceClaim to write the blog, among other things. Who said you cannot make money from blogging?

His first post explains why he thinks SpaceClaim is not another CAD system. I totally agree. What I find difficult to digest is his view that SpaceClaim was not built to "create" models. Rather, it was designed to "modify" existing models. Yes, I know this in line with the marketing noise they are making about the "extended development team". But I don't think they need to be so modest. I already know how good SpaceClaim is at "modifying" models. I would love to know why SpaceClaim is not that good at "creating" them.

Joe also believes that a cost of $1,700 a year is "reasonable" for SpaceClaim to be "just another tool in your toolbox". I guess that explains why SpaceClaim does not offer a trial download. It looks like they are not interested in having every Tom, Dick and Harry as a customer. Just the people who think that spending close to a couple of grand a year for a fancy "modifying" tool is "reasonable".

Don't get me wrong. I am all praise for their software. Just that I have my doubts on certain other things.

Dassault Systemes Acquires Seemage

... and I hope they do not gag 3D Mojo. It's interesting to know what companies think about their rivals. It gets more interesting when they say it on their blog.