Software bundles - stack’em high and sell’em low

28 March 2011

Process type: Design

Stack it high and sell it low’ is one way of shifting software. Following the success of bundles like Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, CAD vendors are following suit. Martyn Day wonders if you can get too much of a good thing

I have recently decided to get healthier and one of the new edicts of Martyn Day 2.0 is to eat a lot less meat. Therefore I have been thinking non-stop about hamburgers, as one would.

I am old enough to remember when a hamburger would fit within the palm of my hand, nowadays it seems the super-size culture has gone into overdrive with many burgers being the size of my face, and as stacked as a game of garden Jenga.

It seems the logic to beat the competition, is simply offer more, a lot more, because bigger is better. Or is it? With recent CAD releases, I couldn’t help thinking that the same methodology is now deeply embedded in our little world of design software.

Autodesk has just launched its 2012 products and the big new thing is product suites. Coming in three sizes; Standard, Premium and Ultimate, it’s possible to get a whole load of design software at discounts up to 65%.

The Ultimate version contains the following products: AutoCAD Mechanical, Showcase, Sketchbook Designer, Vault, Mudbox, Inventor Professional, 3ds Max, Alias Designer and Fusion. That’s a whopping nine professional level packages to savour, many of which are on our ‘lust’ list. However, can you imagine the training required to be proficient enough to extract the maximum value of this £9,600 gourmet serving of design tools? And with software skills, if you don’t use it, you lose it.

While Autodesk is now undoubtedly offering the biggest designer ‘burger’ out there, other vendors have long offered bundles, such as SolidWorks, which has Premium, Professional and standard flavours of its modelling, simulation, sustainability and data management products. There is also the Velocity Series bundle from Siemens PLM that provides Solid Edge, Teamcenter Express CAM Express and Femap.

On the one hand, we have never had it so good with mature, industry-proven solutions available at a great bundle price, but as this trend appears to be on the up, I wonder if there will be a point where much of what is added becomes roughage to try and justify the purchase or ongoing subscription price. I think I’d term it ‘bloatware’.

Pros and cons

I do feel like I am looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth when raising this issue but with an increasing trend of bundling, vendors bypass the need to actually ‘sell’ each piece of their software jigsaw. No longer does the software’s benefit need to be justified as everything is ‘in the box’. By creating big bundles at a massive discount you price-coerce purchases but don’t necessarily ensure usage.

Internally at DEVELOP3D we have been debating this for a while now. Al Dean recently said to me that there’s a huge disconnect between the sales of a bundle and adoption of the technology they contain. Al had just conducted a survey to find out more on usage and while not complete yet, the indications are that there’s a significant industry problem.

We are finding that there’s a sizable group of users that have simulation tools but don’t actually use them! The reasons given fall into three categories a) don’t have the experience or are not qualified enough to use them, b) haven’t been trained or c) simply ‘don’t need them’. This has prompted much head scratching in the office and will be food for thought for those vendors trying to sell simulation tools.

CAD vendors should not rely on their customers’ eyes being bigger than their stomachs

Bundles are awfully attractive because significant discounts always are. For the vendors, they get to ‘add value’ to their products to either better compete or feel like they are delivering something in return for subscription revenue - the rise of which now dominates the income landscape of CAD software developers.

By bundling in previously standalone products vendors can a) stave off possible penetration into their user-bases from competitors b) claim wide adoption of a technology by merely shipping it in the box and c) potentially become more influential of customer’s processes.

For customers, big bundles can increase the cost of training and may lead to future increase in subscription payments and, as we have discovered, engineers may never get around to using the more advanced features.

There are also downsides for the vendors to consider. There is no question that the added product complexity of bundling can, and has, caused instability in major releases, as the developers struggle to update huge amounts of code each year. Also when it becomes time to completely rewrite the code for the next generation of design products, it will be harder to maintain data compatibility or offer as much functionality as the previous generation’s last release.

Appternitive

Meanwhile, seemingly in a galaxy far away the complete opposite to bundling is happening.

In tablet computing and on mobile devices small, cheap, lightweight applications, like AutoCAD WS, are all the rage. These ‘Apps’ don’t really link to one another, tend to perform one task well and need no training. Users can just dip in and out, use the software and never give it two thoughts.

While tablets and app culture are quickly emerging, other potential changes in the way we use computing could have significant impact. Apparently every application in design is moving to ‘the cloud’, with different licensing and open access via the web. We may ultimately see the end of these big bundles as ‘on-demand’ is the antithesis of today’s bundle culture.

Conclusion

There are going to be many customers that are delighted with their super-sized product suites, and will attempt to make the most possible from their investment and will not mind paying for the additional training to do that.

However, I feel that the majority will use only a ‘soupçon’ of increasingly advanced bundled capabilities. CAD vendors should not rely on their customers’ eyes being bigger than their stomachs; unfortunately for me, when it comes to burgers, it’s often the other way around.

What do you think of bundles? Do you have one and how much of it do you use?

Comments on this article:

Bundles seem like a good idea on paper, but not in reality. For years we got by with Quark Xpress and Photoshop and Freehand. Then Adobe introduced the Creative Suite, with the upgrade cost from Photoshop more or less the same - so we upgraded to CS standard. A few years later we started to dabble in Flash so we upgraded to CS Premium. Bottom line is we still mainly use Photoshop, Indesign (and Quark) and Illustrator. But Adobe did a sneaky thing by making the Extended capability in photoshop only accessible if you had the Premium suite! So we still have Premium and never use Dreamweaver or Flash much.

Now in the CAD world we use SolidWorks Professional, but what I really want is CircuitWorks and maybe the occasional FEA use in SolidWorks Premium - but it is a big hike in price. Oddly enough I have been looking at Alias Design recently and this new package looks interesting on paper until you find out that the apps are locked to a single machine. What sort of uber geek knows how to drive that app set to its full extent? Few.

Personally I would far prefer to buy and install just the apps I need, or to rent apps on a project by project basis. Bundles would be more useful if you could use the different apps on different machines - how about a small office bundle? That is about as likely as a British University not charging £9000 a year fees!!

Posted by Kevin Quigley on Monday 28 2011 at 11:43 PM

When I was writing this I was looking for an analogy but failed to come up with one in time. Then it struck me on the way over to Portland on Sunday.

A man walks into a car showroom looking to buy a new pick up truck. Sees the one he wants but is t old that a small extra price seven other modes of transport are thrown in: a helicopter, some rollerblades, a formula one car, a ten ton truck, an orange space hopper, a yacht and a motorcycle. Wow! No brainer, the problem is without training the helicopter, truck F1, motorcycle and yacht all require training and qualifications. grin

Posted by Martyn Day on Tuesday 29 2011 at 12:05 PM

Martyn - I think you need to get over your jetlag and get some sleep grin

Posted by Greg Corke on Tuesday 29 2011 at 12:09 PM

The problem with your analogy is that you could put all your other vehicles on eBay and make a tidy profit. You can’t do that with software.

Posted by Greg Corke on Tuesday 29 2011 at 12:13 PM

I neglected to say all vehicles used the same ignition key. So you couldn’t flog them!

Posted by Martyn day on Tuesday 29 2011 at 02:43 PM

My take on bundling is that it would be nice to be able to pick what you need from a list of options with predetermined pricing. I have FEA in Solid Edge that I never use but I do have to pay for it as it is part of the “Classic” level of software. I would far rather have a choice between say FEA or CAM which would allow me something of actual use which CAM is and FEA is not.

Posted by Dave Ault on Wednesday 30 2011 at 01:31 AM

Leave a comment

Enter the word you see below:

Latest D3D jobs

CNC Programmers/Machinists

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:20:37 +0000

Design Engineer

Fri, 18 May 2012 17:26:56 +0000

Design Engineer

Fri, 18 May 2012 17:26:48 +0000

Senior Product Designer, Salisbury

Fri, 18 May 2012 16:04:04 +0000






Tags for
this article