Change Maintenance & Licensing model to better stimulate innovation

In my opinion, updates to a product that I already own should be available at no extra charge for the life of the product.  When the product was originally purchased, there was an expectation that it worked correctly.  The later M code builds are simply fixing things that should have been working at the initial release, functionality that I've already paid for once.  I would venture that most non-CAD software companies don't charge you for updates to products you already own.

I do like your idea of separating new releases from maintenance.  This would stop this nonsense today where we stay on maintenance but when a new version comes out we don't get access to all the new features (that our maintenance dollars have been paying to develop).  Think Manikin, Flexible Modeling, etc.

I also wish there was some way the user community at large could have more control over the developers.  The product ideas concept is nice in theory, but there needs to be more accountability to actually do something with them from PTC.  Right now the response varies greatly from area to area and product manager to product manager.  If the user community is calling for something (with hundreds of votes), it should take more than just a product manager to shoot it down, even if it is hard to do or involves deep areas of the code that were written 20 years ago (an no one wants to touch).

Microsoft and Intuit both provide updates to their products at no additional charge. If you want a new version, then you pay for it.

If PTC develops a new module and they include it in a repackaging of their packages, then you should get it for free to maintain the status quo. Not all modules are developed with maintenance dollars, some are funded by the company to increase market share with that module add-on. If a new module requires a separate license code, then we should have to pay for it, but maybe get a reduced price.

Another CAD company sends out a list of submitted enhancement requests with a ranking for easy (2) medium (4), large (6), hard (8) and complex (10) to the effort required to implement that request, each company site is given 50 points for each product module for their votes. If you think the complex one is really beneficial to your company you can give it 1 to 5 votes (50 points total). If you like a lot of different enhancements, select them until you have your 50 points. Send the forms back in, the company totals the points and then ranks them. At the annual user group meeting, they review the results and commit to implement the number 1 in each category. It may not be in the next 1 or 2 releases (due to development cycles) but it does get into the code. They also will tell you which other modules they have committed to work on or have completed.

Agreed Tom Uminn‌!  Quite frankly, I don't really know how much accountability there is, so for me greater visibility would be great.  I do like how PTC comments on these boards and seems to care, but again you mention good parts about heavy voting vs. PTC response (perhaps due to those dark areas of the code).

Also agree and want to reaffirm that build updates should be part of maintenance because those are just fixes.

Ben Loosli‌,. I like the idea that the cad company you mentioned (or rather not mentioned) provides the visibility as to how difficult it is to implement.  That is something that I think we the users have no way of knowing.  I know enough about coding that some things sound simple but are very challenging to implement and that the reverse is also true: sometimes complex sounding stuff is easier to implement than originally though.  All we users can do is vote on how much it matters to us without regard to how difficult it would be to actually implement.

Ben Loosli‌, I agree that it makes sense that MS and Inuit provides updates to fix their product when it is found that it is broken (which is analogous to PTC software builds), but what they don't provide for free is the one on one troubleshooting that PTC tech support provides.

It is also worth noting that PTC has a smaller user base than those companies, yet CAD software is arguably much more complicated.  That would seem to require the cost to increase, or the service to decrease.

Oh, and I think it is unfortunate that MS is going to subscription based service for MS Office, for the very reason that they don't have to work as hard to earn our business.  The use would have to pay for the software, even if it doesn't improve.  The only think that may keep them innovating is that it is easier for the user to switch from MS Office to another program than it is for a company to switch CAD companies.

Ben Loosli‌, So are you for the idea, against it, or undecided?  You sound like you are for it, but it doesn't look like you voted...?

Hi all,

This is a very hot topic to talk about the business model.

Some company (not only MS etc...) but direct competitor of PTC have decided to enter the PLM market directly with subscription model and it is all on the cloud.

There is no maintenance or upgade for the end user. They just pay for the service. I think this should solve your question/idea Lawrence.

That same company is also moving to have all on the cloud including their CAD solutions. Once can argue that functionalities are limited etc... but it is only the beginning. Cloud tools will be as powerful as desktop based ones.

PTC is also providing Cloud based solutions (not sure for the CAD software though).

I personally think that we need the current model (ie purchase licence and pay for maintenance if you want) and the subscription model.

However, I prefer the current model as the CTO despite what the Cloud advocate are saying is cheaper than subscription over a few years.

For my company, I calculated that after 3,6years subscription is becoming more expensive (I have done the calculation over 10years which included server upgrades (2 upgrades, once every 5years)), software upgrade (every 3 years), growth of number of users etc...)

I therefore prefer the current model.

Regarding the topic, Is that killing innovation ?  I do not think so. what drives the innovation ?.

Windchill and Creo are only tools for me to help me innovate, in other words my users should not even realize they are using Windchill and Creo, They should simply get on with their work. When I drive a car, I do not think to accelarate, break, change gears (for those driving a manual ), I just drive. The same for my users, I want them to just innovate and not think that they need to check in/out etc....   Kind of tools, you do not even know it is their, that you use it but if you take it away, everything fall apart

Thanks for the comment Chris C, as this is not exactly a simple matter and needs good discussion!

This is a good opportunity to clarify, by stimulating innovation, I mean stimulating innovation of PTC software, not the users innovation.  I agree that software is a tool, and as a tool it can be a better tool or worse tool.  There have been some good improvements (along with some destructive ones) to Creo that have made the tool better to work with so users can better focus on the design (Good Inn: Command Search, Replace component using ref table, etc)  (Destructive: restricted selection on drawing, breaking the show/erase, etc). 

Take your car example, there is a lot of innovation in the car industry.  And if we don't think the next gen car is worth it, we won't buy it so they have to work hard to EARN our business.  Car Mfgs have been doing a lot to make driving safer, more efficient, and even easier.  I for one am thankful that cars as a service (renting) has not yet picked up!

When the entire system is in the cloud, there is a lot of service that is being paid for and can really change the dynamics of a company's IT structure.  However, financially tying the service to new products is what I see as a long term recipe for stifling innovation.  My proposal is something like if PTC doesn't provide sufficient new features to justify upgrading, PTC doesn't get money for a new product.  Currently our own companies have this decision to make but PTC is aloof to it.  We have to decide if the cost of upgrade is worth it to our company, but PTC doesn't.  What is their motivation to innovate?  They know their customers cannot easily switch, even if their product gets to be just above horrible.  That also means it breaks their ability to drum up new business or new money, other than more or less licenses.  If they got paid more for people upgrading, the user companies are rewarding (or not rewarding) PTC for their efforts.

Thanks for also sharing the result of your time cost analysis for licenses at your company!

Hello life is full of coincidence.

I just came back from a meeting with Autodesk who presented their PLM360.

While Autodesk solutions are fragmented and, from my point of view, not yet ready to fully compete with Windchill, There are a lot of good things, very good things.

I think Lawrence, you will call them innovation

I am more than happy to provide some information if this is appropriate to post here.

Best regards