[jaybird22]

I had a demo this week and would be lying if I said everything went well. The software sells itself, so that's not the big issue. The issue is, I get very ticked off when they say the cost for Standard version is $4000.

Truth is, it is $4000 if all you want is the CD.

I've never up until now, known a software company to not provide upgrades or support for their software for the first year as part of the purchase. Not Solidworks. In order to enter into the maintenance program without penalty, I was told I needed to purchase it at the time I purchased the software. ($1295 I think) So, really the software is $5295, but wait, there's more.

I can't imagine anyone jumping into Solidworks without a quick, basic, training package. That's another $1200 and something, so now the original purchase is up to roughly $6500.

Solidworks is still a very powerful program, but why pull stuff like this and give people a bad impression of how your company operates?????? I don't get it.

I'm old school. I don't believe in games. I would have far more respect if I was told the entry level package was $6500 including training, but it could be heavily discounted if I opted out of the training and didn't intend to purchase the maintenance program. Then I would have a better idea of what I was going to spend before calling someone in for a 2hr demo. $2500 more than I expected effects the budget numbers for sure.

Take a manager that recommends the purchase of Solidworks to his boss saying it's $4000, and then gets blind sided for the extra $2500 when they come in for the demo. What's he going to look like? He's going to feel like an azz after pitching the $4000 price tag.

Oh well, I guess it is what it is. I just get frustrated with all the game playing that goes on these days. I guess the old way of being honest and upfront with people is becoming a thing of the past!

Sorry about the rant.

[CNC Lurker]

I agree, if a software has bugs, you shouldn't have to pay for the bug fixes, (they call them service packs).

The bait-and-switch marketing is a bit sleazy.

[giz]

Some people would rather have the option to avoid paying for services they don't intend to use or need. Extending the example, why do they even bother offering a Standard, Professional, Premium, Simulation, or Flow package? Why not sell one module for $15k call it good?

A large number of companies only update their software every few years. It's a huge savings for them to only renew maintenance when they are ready to upgrade.

I know Autodesk Inventor does not include first year maintenance in their pricing. My guess is that other SW competitors do not either.

Personally I'm happy I can buy a laptop at Best Buy for $500, for example, without being forced to purchase the same laptop with "free" extended warranty for $650.

[jaybird22]

I would have far more respect if I was told the entry level package was $6500 including training, but it could be heavily discounted if I opted out of the training and didn't intend to purchase the maintenance program.

I agree with you Giz. If you take note of the above quote taken from my original post, I adressed your exact concern.

What I don't care for is being lead to believe that $4000 is the cost of changing over to Solidworks, only to later find out I need to spend another $2500 to obtain a maintenance (update) package for the first year of ownership and some basic training.

I'm not saying it isn't worth $6500. I'm saying it's a pain to call, get a quote, put a budget together, arrange for a demo, and then find out you're a little over 60% under budgeted. That's what damages the respect I have for a company I'm considering doing business with for years to come.

[JerryFlyGuy]

There is no question, SolidWorks has it 'figured out' in that they get you on the hook. I've had this same conversation w/ my reseller, it does stink that they will not give you the SP's on the software w/ the original year of sale.

The upside of the $1295 maint is that you get all of this years SP's, as well as the first release of the software next year [2012].

As far as training is concerned, I see that as a 'just' cost. If I wanted to own an airplane but didn't want to pay for the lessons to learn to fly it.. is that the fault of Cessna for not including them when they sell me the plane.. not really.

To not include the first year service packs does stink however. Gets under my skin when I think about it. The upside of it is that, they all do it. At least all the upper level CAD companies [AutoDesk, Solidworks etc] all use this same sales model.

I use the subscription and have for 9yrs in that I've paid for the software several times over but I've also had 9 new editions in the process. It's changed ALOT since 2002.


Fwiw

[BurrMan]

Thats funny.. I'm backwards.. I dont like to be told that the software costs 7K, then when I say "oh thats too exspensive for me", the guy on the phone starts to tell me how it really doesnt cost THAT much to purchase it... (We were just adding in a bunch of stuff you didnt need at first....) lol

I guess the main point could be when spending 5000 on anything, spend a bit of time researching it.

[mcphill]

I'm with Burr on this one. Tell me the cost of just the software. That said, if you make a pricing inquiry, they should "offer" the option cost numbers for the logical "upgrades" of maintenance and training.

I do personally agree maintenance should be included. It is "wrong" that bugs are not fixed for free.

As for training, SolidWorks has a fantastic tutorial program built in. You can do that on your own, self-paced, and be off and designing pretty well once you are done. There are also lots of books and online training opportunities that cost much less than what SolidWorks offers - look up SolidProfessor, a great site/program.

[CNC Lurker]

$4,000 Solidworks install cd
$1,295 Solidworks fixes for their software
= $5,295 for a product that works
(not including taxes)

SW 2011 was a pretty good release, but there have been some that were painfully bugged. That is why some companies do not install the new version of SW until the first or even third service pack. Our policy was we couldn't install a new version until the second SP, but we had to install it before that because we needed to work on a client's files. The cost of downtime because of screwy software can get very expensive.

[jaybird22]

I can go along with the training part not being included now that we've talked some. Every new machine tool (CNC) I have purchased has come with training for one operator to get it up and running, so maybe I just expected the same with the software.

I'm willing to back up on that, but I'm not ready to say a software company shouldn't stand behind and upgrade their product for the first year, and after that, if someone wants a service agreement great, if not, they go on their way.

My problem is, as a mold making/molding shop, I have to be able to import and work with what ever a customer sends me, so I have to stay current because SWs isn't backward compatible.

The other issue I have is, my vendor has right in the quotation that SW's is supported for one release back and after that, you're no longer able to get support. So what that tells me is, if I don't purchase the maintenance agreement, I can potentially loose support for my software a month after purchase if they come out with 2 service packs, back to back? Or even worse, if I purchase the software, and a known bug surfaces a month after, I'm required to have purchased the maintenance package in order to get that bug corrected? Sorry, I just don't agree......

[mcphill]

SolidWorks "is" backwards compatible, just not if you need the feature tree. You can save a file in a newer version of SolidWorks as IGES, STP, X_T (and many other compatible formats) just fine. That file is able to be opened in any old version of SolidWorks.

Granted, this is fine if you want to just CAM the file, or add to existing geometry but not very well if you want to modify existing geometry. If you are "just" making molds from the geometry, though, the export and import method works just fine.

FWIW, I think the lack of native file backward compatibility sucks, but they are in the business to make money, and that is one great strategy to drive a continuous stream of income.

Are you buy chance (or do you know) a student? If so, pricing drops like a rock. Taking any classes at a community college?...

[jaybird22]

Great idea McPhill on the CC.

Re: Backward compatible.

Converting to another format to take the file into a program isn't backward compatibility. Converting to IGES, STP and such for "just making molds" or "just camming" is a huge problem. The molds I make are production injection molds, they aren't for casting parts in my garage. Many of the mold tolerances for "just camming" are +\- .0002, so even a minor deviation can be costly to repair. That's my entire reason for looking into SWs. The conversions you talk about aren't clean. They look ok on the screen, but they're full of imperfections.

Reworking a new mold to correct geometry that wasn't converted properly is extremely costly and it isn't something that's quoted into the job. It can easily eat up the profit made from building the mold.

Sorry if that sounded like I was being pissy, that wasn't my intent. I appreciate your help and comments in this thread. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

[giz]

The subscription gives you a lot more than just "service packs and fixes."

It also gives you live technical support with your VAR. And I'm not just talking about bug reports. Have a question on a how to use a particular feature (or if a feature even exists)? You can call and ask. Having trouble creating a drawing view exactly how you envision it or importing a non-standard file type? Send in your files and someone will help you. Want guidance on how to setup a vault or make your workflow more efficient? You can call and someone will help you do that.

Having that kind of service available at any hour of your workday is worth a lot more than the cost for those who choose to take advantage of it.

[giz]

The other issue I have is, my vendor has right in the quotation that SW's is supported for one release back and after that, you're no longer able to get support.

Who is your reseller? That is definitely not a SolidWorks policy.

Fact is that there are very few bugs that are considered "critical" or that severely hamper workflow. The vast majority of bugs are some combination of the following:

1. Won't be encountered by most users
2. Have simple workarounds (or zero effect on productivity)
3. Are not actual bugs

Considering most large companies DO NOT immediately upgrade either service packs or versions, despite being able to, should be an indicator that they are not truly necessary.

[mcphill]

No problem describing your situation. If your precision is that good, though, I would imagine that you are charging enough that buying a seat of SolidWorks would be of minimal consequence...

[jaybird22]

Sorry Giz, I knew that information was in the packet with the quotation, but after looking for it, it's not on the actual reseller's quotation. It's in the Solidworks brochure attached to it titled "Solidworks Subscription Service Program." Under "Support for Previous Versions" the exact paragraph reads:

While on subscription, you are welcome to continue to run and receive support on the one release prior to the current Solidworks release. This policy minimizes production delays and eases your transition to the latest release. Service packs are provided for this release for critical issues reported with the software."

I don't want to see this get out of hand and end up looking like an azz. Can I please say that I'm not trying to fault SWs for a poor product, or trying to say it's not worth the cost.

I had two complaints at the start of this thread. The training issue was put to rest with a little discussion.

Requiring the purchase of a maintenance program for the first year of owning the software is the part I thought was in poor taste. I would expect to purchase the maintenance program on or before the one year anniversary of the purchase, but paying for it at the time of purchase, or pay a $500 penalty plus the maintenance fee to join the program a year later doesn't give one a good feeling.

I don't know if I will ever change my mind on that issue, so maybe I need to agree to disagree.

mcphill, I do work to tight tolerances on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean I'm sitting on a fortune and can toss money away. I build small single cavity molds. I'm a one man shop and 30% of my profit goes to Uncle Sam just like the rest of the shops out there. I can tell you for sure, that I'm not in any position to be throwing money away. That's why I'm researching all I can before I make my purchase.

[camguy]

From my experience with SolidWorks is that the price they quote either for Standard, Professional or Premium includes the license and the maintenance for 1 year for first time buyers. Then every year you pay the maintenance fee, you will get new releases and updates. This is standard procedure for most of the CAD/CAM software companies.

[giz]

Sorry Giz, I knew that information was in the packet with the quotation, but after looking for it, it's not on the actual reseller's quotation. It's in the Solidworks brochure attached to it titled "Solidworks Subscription Service Program." Under "Support for Previous Versions" the exact paragraph reads:



I don't want to see this get out of hand and end up looking like an azz. Can I please say that I'm not trying to fault SWs for a poor product, or trying to say it's not worth the cost.

I had two complaints at the start of this thread. The training issue was put to rest with a little discussion.

Requiring the purchase of a maintenance program for the first year of owning the software is the part I thought was in poor taste. I would expect to purchase the maintenance program on or before the one year anniversary of the purchase, but paying for it at the time of purchase, or pay a $500 penalty plus the maintenance fee to join the program a year later doesn't give one a good feeling.

I don't know if I will ever change my mind on that issue, so maybe I need to agree to disagree.

mcphill, I do work to tight tolerances on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean I'm sitting on a fortune and can toss money away. I build small single cavity molds. I'm a one man shop and 30% of my profit goes to Uncle Sam just like the rest of the shops out there. I can tell you for sure, that I'm not in any position to be throwing money away. That's why I'm researching all I can before I make my purchase.

I take that quote as meaning they won't release further service packs beyond one version previous. They certainly will offer support beyond that (a product goes into "Extended Support" after it's last SP is released), but you won't see "fixes." Only a very small number of support cases need a released fix... most just need someone knowledgeable of common issues.

Resellers handle 98% of the support anyway, and we'll do whatever we can to help someone out regardless of the version they are running. I do about 100 support cases a week and I can only think of 1 in the last 6 months that turned out to be an open bug with no workaround. That brings me back to my point that the majority of value subscription services is not in service pack releases - it's in live support.

[jaybird22]

Well spoken Giz. Just to be clear, I never questioned the cost of the service contract.

[BurrMan]

Converting to another format to take the file into a program isn't backward compatibility. Converting to IGES, STP and such for "just making molds" or "just camming" is a huge problem. The molds I make are production injection molds, they aren't for casting parts in my garage. Many of the mold tolerances for "just camming" are +\- .0002, so even a minor deviation can be costly to repair. That's my entire reason for looking into SWs. The conversions you talk about aren't clean. They look ok on the screen, but they're full of imperfections.

Reworking a new mold to correct geometry that wasn't converted properly is extremely costly and it isn't something that's quoted into the job. It can easily eat up the profit made from building the mold..

Saving your part as a "STP" is an industry standard format created for moving parts around..It's not something that "Garage people" use and that "Professionals" shy away from...

The only thing that is lost is native program functionality. Like solidworks specific features, or, the functionality that solidworks uses from the parasolid modeling kernel to tell you that you model is properly produced (to whatever specs you have solidworks setup for) that then dont translate over to an industry standard format like STP...

So you are saying that solidworks cant translate STP files properly??? I think this would be a HUGE blow for them.......

But your point of it is not "backwards compatabiity" is a true point.. It's just a means to an end.. But a decision to "Not include" this type of compatability is not a money grab by dessault.. The cost in stability and performance would be a deal breaker on the program.. You cant progress and change major areas of the workflow/method and keep the old stuff intact.. You would be perpetually stuck with SW 2004 with just a bunch of stuff added on top of whatever that system was back then...

[jaybird22]

Converting to IGES, STP and such for "just making molds" or "just camming" is a huge problem. The molds I make are production injection molds, they aren't for casting parts in my garage.

I didn't mean to suggest stp or iges files were for unprofessionals, or garage projects. I thought it was clear that I was directing my comment to the previous post where someone referred to converting files would be fine for "just camming" or "just making molds" as he put it, like there was less accuracy needed for camming and making molds. Many people that aren't exposed to production quality injection molds see the examples of people casting parts at home and jump to the conclusion that molds don't need to be very precise. The point I was trying to make was, "Just camming" and making molds like I do needs a great deal of accuracy at times, and the conversion process isn't always perfectly clean.

I beg to differ with some of what you said. Solidworks doesn't convert these files perfectly, but I don't think any software does. It's just the nature of the beast, it's not only a Solidworks issue. For example: During my demo, I had the Tech import a Solidworks file sent to me by a customer with a current version of Solidworks. Because I don't have Solidworks yet, the customer used his Solidworks to send me the file in both stp and iges format. When the Tech imported and converted it back into Solidworks, there were over 50 errors throughout the model. Nothing visible on the screen without zooming in, but little imperfections all the same. I was told by the Tech himself that converting the files to another format is a bad idea and should be avoided if possible on complex parts. Like I said, I don't think any software converts between formats perfectly though.