Design Software Giants Target the Unemployed 204
avishere writes "People are losing their jobs, but for some execs the economic meltdown seems like the perfect time to get their software into the hands of those who can't afford their multi-thousand-dollar price tags. Software giants Autodesk and SolidWorks have each latched onto the worst-economic-disaster-since-the-Great-Depression meme and released free versions of their flagship computer-aided-design brands before their potential users are forced to sell their laptops on Craigslist. 'In these uncertain economic times,' Autodesk coos sympathetically, it will give away temporary licenses of AutoCAD and other software to those unemployed in the fields of architecture, engineering, and design. (They are also developing a Mac version, two decades after abandoning the platform.) SolidWorks was quick to respond with its subtly titled Engineering Stimulus Package. So if anyone out there has their weekdays free, jumpstart your hardware and design projects for cheap. Legally, too."
Adobe has a similar program for developers (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe recently announced a similar program but for software developers:
http://www.jamesward.com/blog/2009/04/03/free-flex-builder-for-unemployed-developers/ [jamesward.com]
-James (Adobe)
I looked... (Score:4, Informative)
I was hoping that they were just giving away short-term licenses to anyone, but apparently if you sign up for the program, you have to be verifiably unemployed. I wonder what method they use to check...
(hmm... Firefox says that "verifiably" isn't a word, but I looked it up, turns out it's a valid adverb form [thefreedictionary.com] of "verifiable")
SolidWorks (Score:1, Informative)
SolidWorks is a package; IIRC, it is the cousin product to Dassault Systemes' (under license by IBM) CATIA. It is not a "company" as far as I know. Much like 3DSMAX is owned by Discreet. Also, SolidWorks is not the "Flagship" product. ;) That would be CATIA. :D
I'd MUCH rather see free licenses for Catia V5, than Solidworks any day. SolidWorks is OK, but you can do WAAAY more with a "Full" seat of Catia. (Everything from avionics, to radar waveguides; there's a workbench for it in Catia.)
Re:And for software engineers? (Score:3, Informative)
And a 240 day license of the various MS server products is free as well.
Re:how about that (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually cost effective to freely distribute your software to people who want to learn it.
It's like someone figured out that someone will eventually pay for a license for software you are good at using.
That may well be, but here I am with an Ubuntu machine and I'm willing to pay for another full Solidworks license if they will release for this platform. They _could_ be making money off me, but they'd rather give the software away for free then let me pay them for a Linux port. Luckily, SW 2006 runs fine in Virtual Box, and I can open it's window alone, without having the whole XP desktop visible.
Re:how about that (Score:5, Informative)
Autodesk have been thought to do this for years already on the warez scene.
Autodesk are thought to have released their own cracks...
I don't know the validity of your statement, but I do know that they are quick to send their lawyers out if they think you are profiting with a pirated copy of their software.
I set up a website about 7 years ago when I was working for myself as a mechanical design engineer. The website showed some examples of my work created in AutoCAD, among other software packages. A few months after it went live I received a very threatening certified letter from a group of lawyers representing AutoCAD saying that they had no record of my company purchasing a license for AutoCAD. At that time I did not own a legitimate copy of AutoCAD. I wrote a letter back stating that the examples were created using a legitimate copy, that I was not currently using AutoCAD and that I would remove any references to it on my website if they wished. They then said that was cool and never pursued it again.
Re:May I just say... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, AutoCAD was the classic example of companies that "just don't get it" when it comes to the Mac.
AutoCAD for the Mac was released back in 1988, I believe. But what they did was port their DOS-based product to the Mac. It didn't work or look like a Mac product (no menubar, windows, or anything like that), it worked and looked just like the DOS product. The company said that they planned to release this version first and then make a "more Mac-like" one later on based upon how well this one sold.
Of course, nobody bought it. If you were already doing CAD work on the Mac using one of AutoCAD's competitors, you certainly weren't going to give it up. If you didn't have any Macs, why would you buy the Mac version when it didn't give you anything you couldn't do with the DOS version? Even better, AutoCAD announced their plan to create a "more Mac-like" version. So most Mac users said, "Cool. We'll wait for that one, thank you."
A few years later, AutoCAD for Mac was dropped because there "just wasn't a big enough market for CAD on the Mac." The reality, though, was that there wasn't a big enough market for DOS ports to the Mac. Mac users expected a Mac interface.
Re:May I just say... (Score:3, Informative)
I was working in sales and technical support for a CAD/CAM vendor in when Autodesk released Autocad for the Mac, and we took it for a test drive, even signed up to be a Mac dealer.
While you're right that Autocad on the Mac wasn't "Mac enough," that wasn't the main problem -- speed was. Autocad on DOS came with a bunch of "close to the metal" drivers for graphics cards and other resources, and these were, by 1988, written mostly by the hardware manufacturers to a well-defined API. They couldn't do this on the Mac, and as a result the software took 2-4 times as long to do anything on the Mac. CAD systems, at least in those days, weren't used part-time, they were expensive tools for full-time designers (more likely draftspeople). So, the market for Autocad on the Mac ended up being people who would put up with terrible performance for interface compatibility with other applications they were seldom likely to use. Not a huge market.