Ok, so it is time to stir the pot. Life is all too quite so I figure it would be good to liven things up a bit.
Firstly, let me say this, My company is on subscription and we certainly CAN see the benefit of the subscription system. Saying that though, lets look at what has happened over the last two years.
We had a core Revit staff of 5, with some support staff on contract as required. All of our machines have standalone licenses and are on subscription.
Well, with the whole GFC and the construction industry nose diving, we like most had to reduce our expenses and believe it or not, the highest expense is wages.
What this does then is leave some of our machines sitting, doing nothing and as such, relevant subscriptions might not have been maintained and therefore let to lapse. Yes, this would have been a considered decision.
We are now faced with the issue of regaining some projects that were on hold and the need for these machines and licenses are once again required.
But wait, what we would now have to do is pay a late fee and for the lapsed subscription and the new subscription so what we are facing is AU$550 Late fee + AU$1075 for the lapsed Subs and $1075 for the new subs, per license.
Ok this is the policy of Autodesk, I understand that. I also understand that it is a part of the T&C's.
What I am curious about is what others are planning to do when they can manage to increase their staff after the lean times and if they are faced with a financial hit to re-activate the dormant licenses.
The last thing you would like to do is pay out on licenses you have previously paid for but due to financial constraints you have had to let lapse.
Lets not forget that if the licenses are allowed to lapse too long (I think it is over 1 year), the late fee applies and you will then be required to pay 50% of a new purchase + the subscription.
My debate is not if this is fair, these are the conditions we use the software. My curiosity lies in what others are going to do if they are faced with this issue?
*had to edit. I re-read this post and realised that I was implying that we had let licenses lapse, this is not the case.
Firstly, let me say this, My company is on subscription and we certainly CAN see the benefit of the subscription system. Saying that though, lets look at what has happened over the last two years.
We had a core Revit staff of 5, with some support staff on contract as required. All of our machines have standalone licenses and are on subscription.
Well, with the whole GFC and the construction industry nose diving, we like most had to reduce our expenses and believe it or not, the highest expense is wages.
What this does then is leave some of our machines sitting, doing nothing and as such, relevant subscriptions might not have been maintained and therefore let to lapse. Yes, this would have been a considered decision.
We are now faced with the issue of regaining some projects that were on hold and the need for these machines and licenses are once again required.
But wait, what we would now have to do is pay a late fee and for the lapsed subscription and the new subscription so what we are facing is AU$550 Late fee + AU$1075 for the lapsed Subs and $1075 for the new subs, per license.
Ok this is the policy of Autodesk, I understand that. I also understand that it is a part of the T&C's.
What I am curious about is what others are planning to do when they can manage to increase their staff after the lean times and if they are faced with a financial hit to re-activate the dormant licenses.
The last thing you would like to do is pay out on licenses you have previously paid for but due to financial constraints you have had to let lapse.
Lets not forget that if the licenses are allowed to lapse too long (I think it is over 1 year), the late fee applies and you will then be required to pay 50% of a new purchase + the subscription.
My debate is not if this is fair, these are the conditions we use the software. My curiosity lies in what others are going to do if they are faced with this issue?
*had to edit. I re-read this post and realised that I was implying that we had let licenses lapse, this is not the case.
Comment