[mdlmkr]

Why is the business model for CAD and CAM software so different than other software? With almost all CAD and/or CAM companies, the user has to purchase the software and then pay a “maintenance” or “subscription” fee to get bug fixes, updates and support. There may be other sectors of the software business that share this business model, but I am unaware of their existence.
This business model worked very well when computer aided drafting and computer aided manufacturing software was still in its infancy stage and the landscape of the software in general was constantly in flux. The users wanted the most productivity available. They wanted to keep up with development trends so as not to be left behind their competition. If a business was able to create drawings straight from a solid model, you better believe that their competitors wanted the same functionality. If a machine shop was able to simulate a tool path before creating the G code, a shop that didn’t have that capability was at a disadvantage. Well, the playing field is level. Now what?
With the current releases of most CAD and CAM packages looming an analysis of the new features turns up a pretty paltry list of new features. You can draw pretty much anything in any CAD package and machine pretty much anything in any CAM package. Yes, there are certain differentiators between the packages, but at the end of the day, the CAM package makes your machine cut chips and the CAD package spits out a model to send to marketing/production. So what are we all paying for?
I heard the president of a prominent CAD company give a speech to the company’s user base a couple of years ago. In the speech he said that the company was not going to add any new features to the next release. They were instead going to concentrate on making it “faster and more stable”. This really struck a chord with me. So you are going to make the $10,000 CAD package I bought and have been paying annual fees for…work? What am I paying maintenance for? I have been following the development of a new roughing technology developed by a CAM company for the last five years of so. It is great. But meanwhile, the rest of the software package remains unchanged and unimproved. If I don’t have a use or want to use that part of the software what am I paying subscription service for? So there is the biggest question. WHAT ARE WE PAYING ANNUAL FEES TO THESE COMPANIES FOR?
Support? Stability? - Wouldn’t those two things be standards not features?
New features? – Most of the new features are usually in parts of the product that the majority of users never use.
It is time for a new business model and here it is.

Stop with the updates. A company could decrease the size of their development team by having code jockeys that just concentrate on stabilizing the architecture of the software and not add several new ways to perform an already existing task or tasks that will be utilized by a miniscule numbers of users. With the absence of annual fees (see below) the customers will not be demanding new versions of the software every year. This will give more time to the software company to do R&D.
Do away with Value Added Resellers.
These are companies that sell us the software. They are responsible for training and support. They also take a huge chunk of the money the user puts out for the software. With a product that is mostly legacy options and existing data, there should not be a need for anyone to “add value” to the product. If companies would like to offer training for new users or tech support, that service would be totally separate from the software manufacturer.
Do away with annual fees.
By cutting out much of the expenditures listed above, a company would be able to greatly decrease the price of their software. The price for the base seat of SolidWorks is $3995 I believe. Hasn’t the programming and development already paid for itself a about a million times over? So take out the extraneous features that no one uses i.e.-simulation, flowexpress, dfmexpress, PDM workgroup and such. Sell that package for $1000. This will do two things, increase SolidWorks market share and put a powerful, easy to use CAD product on the market. Another cost cutting measure is to do away with the dozens of file translators. Unigraphics has adopted this strategy. You get the basic translators that SolidWorks would not have to pay royalties for and if you needed an additional one you can purchase it. This is where SolidWorks would have the opportunity to earn money past the $1000 start up price. Give the user the option to add modules to the software for a fee. What percentage of SolidWorks users use sheetmetal? I honestly don’t know, but I would guess 20% or the user base. Pull it out of the product and give the customer the option to add it in.
I use a program very often named Camtasia. Camtasia allows a user to take video and audio recordings of their screen. It is very powerful and works well. A user buys Camtasia for one set price. When a new version comes out, it is up to the user to upgrade. If Camtasia is working for you, don’t upgrade. If the new version has stuff you want, then you get it. The price is reasonable so repurchasing the software is inconvenient, but not a bank account drainer.
Is there more to this issue, of course there is. But something needs to change. What do you guys think?

[HuFlungDung]

This is only a guess on my part, but I think we all benefit from competition between companies.

The older and more established a company gets, the higher the prices tend to become, in general, until finally an upstart competitor looks at those existing products and does exactly what you say: begins a new software with the basics that he thinks is important, and for a budget price.

Then, the users buy that product and use it, but look longingly at the features of the more longer running softwares, whine and complain about it, the startup firm begins a new round of reinventing the wheel to catch up on features, this adds to their costs and so their price begins to creep up.

I think it is a cycle that will never end, or else the future is going to get pretty boring

[mdlmkr]

I am not saying that there should not be competition. Maybe I mis spoke. I love competition. But should we have to keep paying for versions of the software that do not add any new competitive edge? If a company adds some bangzoom feature, great! Put it in the next version of the software and let the customer decide if they want it or not. Instead of charging an annual fee and having your customer base hope that something cool or pertinent to them is in the next release.

[JohnWLMT]

And it's only getting worse.

John