One of the key points is the impression that if you invest at all in Autodesk software, then they reserve the right to change the terms of the license you already paid in full for any reason they see fit. This has just happened to the remaining segment of their users who have been holding out on the permanent license option.
It turns out it is not enough to pressure them into subscription by way of withholding updates or charging maintenance. What Autodesk just did instead was stealthily change their licenses to subscription without notice, which means many, who thought their projects were safe, are now facing a race to transfer their work to another solution before they get locked out.
What it also indicates is that they have no intention to really change their pricing model to stop the rapid advance of Blender (which is good for us actually, more developers and more important todo items getting done). The fact that this is also a rug pull after the payment was made means it could potentially be illegal as well (which is also good news for Blender because the lawsuits could tie up the company and allow Blender to catch up to and surpass Maya and Max in more areas related to 3D).
Finally, it is yet more evidence that the FOSS solutions in the area of 2D image editing and music creation need to step up their game, because if a license is never considered permanent despite it being advertised to be, then we will need the missing pieces come fully into place (as those solutions work well for some purposes yes, but they canāt replace commercial software yet).
Not at all surprising. Autodesk arenāt the first to do this and Iām sure wonāt be the last. Online activation is always the last gotcha when the license servers get shutdown.
Well, I think everybody can agree it should be illegal, unless theyāre as cynic as autodesk executives.
But at the same time, there has clearly been some vague statement somewhere in their EULA all the time which twists it into āthe user explicitly agreed to Autodesk reserving the right to unilaterally change this license agreement any time to their heartās contentā.
Sure, from a common sense point of view this should be illegal, but the thing is, youāve never bought the software anyway, youāve bought a licence, and that has always been said to be revokable.
When you are not the owner of the software and just pay for the right to use it, it can be like when the owner of the game box it and return home declaring the end of the party. He has the right to do it but also the risk to loose friends. Its up to the āfriendsā to tolerate or not such behaviors.
I think it is worse when you buy a piece of hardware and the company kidnaps the drivers deciding in a single update that your lovely cared fully funcional hardware turns into a brick like Meta did with the Rift HMDs.
That behaviors are the ones that make you trust in companies like Wacom (I still can download drivers for old serial port tablets useable for children in school with old computers) and making me not buying any Oculus product again: at any unpredictable time anti-ecollogical tech waste just for Metas caprice.
Thatās awful. I understand businesses needing money but these are big companies that never had financial issues and are milking the customer for all theyāre worth, along with software patents to stifle competition.
I speak about courts, not firms. In Turkey many many courts order says a firm never can change a service against to consumer, even if this writes in the licence text.
hope they dont cancel free fusion 360 because Ispent some time learning it, and I am content with their free version that has the 10 editable projectsā¦ And I do not like plasticity so I would prefer to remain on fusion360ā¦ There is not an alternative for fusion360, freecad is lagging behind too muchā¦ so thats it, we will have to use plasticity from now onā¦
Second, Are Autodesk really that desperate for cash that they need to do this? I thought Max and Maya has been subscription only for a while so only the die hards are still holding onto their perpetual license.
Iām not a fan of cloud/subscription DCC software, and avoid it when I can. But I suspect thereās an EOL issue here. Iāve got a copy of 3DSMax v5 on my shelf, that I bought in 2002. Is it realistic for Autodesk to still supply me a new serial number 21 years later?
Thatās why I āloveā Autodesk and migrated to Blender when its version was still 2.49.
I remember being amazed by the fact I could simulate smoke with a piece of free software of 19 MB while I couldnāt do the same without āaddonsā like fumeFX in that EXPENSIVE version of 3d Studio Max that, at the time, already needed a DVD to install.
I never looked back and never regretted my decision.
Don`t give that autodesk and adobe f*** a new chance. They rule the industry for no reason but money because they have established a sick world and industry.
Actually Yes it is. If companies who create physical goods can stock spare parts for decades then it is not unreasonable for Autodesk to host a server or two for activation of old products. Storing Physical items is more expensive than a couple of servers.
I use autocad in my day job, and they have explicitly stated that you cannot use old licenses with new ones, even if you do save down to an older .dwg format, itās against the terms of the license.
I gave up the fight years ago and switched to their subscriptions, so Iām now paying $5000/year for 3 licenses of autocad. It sucks, but I have to keep production moving. I canāt always ask a vendor to save a file into an old version so that I can open it. Itās a cost of doing business, and itās a bummer, but there arenāt good alternatives, and even if they were, switching 15 years of working files over to a new system is untenable.
There are a lot of companies in a similar boat. Itās almost like ransomware. A shocking amount of companies just pay the ransom. It sucks, but itās cheaper than the alternative. Money is all that matters to companies. Sure, we have to pay $5000/year for autocad, but itās all a tax write off anyway, so itās less of an impact than it seems from an individual stand point.
I assure you, most of the holdout companies that are affected by this decision will just suck it up and pay. I doubt we will see many firms jump ship to blender any time soon. Individuals and freelancers, perhaps, but those have never been autodeskās target audience anyway.
There are common limits on spare parts availability.
Try to find a new EPS torque sensor for a 2009 Honda S2000, or a oil pressure sensor for a 1985 Ferrari 308QV. You wonāt; they are no longer available.
Autodesk provided a serial number years ago; I donāt believe they are under obligation to provide ANOTHER one in perpetuity. At some point, itās the responsibility of the software user to ensure that they maintain their system properly in order to use the provided SR#.
They shouldnāt need to, the one that came with the software in the first place should just still work.
If for some reason it doesnāt, likely due to shutting down license servers, then they should supply a serial number to previous owners that doesnāt need to check with a license server.
If thatās not possible, then supply a āpatchā that removes the need for a license server.
Now sure, that sounds pretty much like a vendor supplied ācrackā, which in a way it is (one of the reason we know itās possible to do), but if Autodesk are that worried about 21 year old software being mass pirated, then Iād say that have much bigger software development problems.
