Outside The Box
Random thoughts about AutoCAD, ObjectARX, and the meaning of life.
All Original Content Copyright 2006 - 2008 Owen Wengerd, All Rights Reserved
2009-02-27
Bruce Schneier argues that data is the pollution of the information age, and "just as 100 years ago people ignored pollution in our rush to build the Industrial Age, today we're ignoring data in our rush to build the Information Age."
Software is still surfing the wave of technology revolution. In the tug-of-war between producers and consumers, the producers are still pulling the rope and consumers are just hanging on.
Just as the coal mines, steel mills, and sweat shops of the burgeoning industrial age led to organized labor and labor laws, the consumers of the information age will eventually need to come to grips with the predatory practices of greedy software barons through collective bargaining and regulation.
You've all heard the old software vs. car argument, right? Is buying software like buying a car? Or is it like leasing a car? Or are cars just a bad analogy, because software isn't like cars at all?
Is software really different, or have we just been conditioned to believe that it's different?
The problem is that we're still coming to terms with software, both legally and morally. Software companies have had a clear advantage in this information age frontier, and they have used their advantage to mold the software model to their liking. The software industry has successfully convinced us that software is licensed, not sold, and that because it is licensed, the old rules don't apply.
Indeed, it seems like software license agreements have been around forever. We've accepted them, adapted to them, and basically ignored them. In the meantime, software companies have added more restrictions to their license agreements, lobbied legislators to create new laws that protect the restrictions, and quietly begun building case law in support of the software license regime.
This is the software limbo. How low can we go? When will the laborers of the information age unite and say "enough is enough"?
Software is still surfing the wave of technology revolution. In the tug-of-war between producers and consumers, the producers are still pulling the rope and consumers are just hanging on.
Just as the coal mines, steel mills, and sweat shops of the burgeoning industrial age led to organized labor and labor laws, the consumers of the information age will eventually need to come to grips with the predatory practices of greedy software barons through collective bargaining and regulation.
You've all heard the old software vs. car argument, right? Is buying software like buying a car? Or is it like leasing a car? Or are cars just a bad analogy, because software isn't like cars at all?
Is software really different, or have we just been conditioned to believe that it's different?
The problem is that we're still coming to terms with software, both legally and morally. Software companies have had a clear advantage in this information age frontier, and they have used their advantage to mold the software model to their liking. The software industry has successfully convinced us that software is licensed, not sold, and that because it is licensed, the old rules don't apply.
Indeed, it seems like software license agreements have been around forever. We've accepted them, adapted to them, and basically ignored them. In the meantime, software companies have added more restrictions to their license agreements, lobbied legislators to create new laws that protect the restrictions, and quietly begun building case law in support of the software license regime.
This is the software limbo. How low can we go? When will the laborers of the information age unite and say "enough is enough"?
Labels: CAD Industry, legal
2008-07-29
InfoWorld columnist and legendary consumer advocate Ed Foster died over the weekend. Ed was a tireless crusader for consumer rights in the digital age, and he will certainly be missed. For many years Ed has authored GripeLine, where he called companies and politicians to task for abusive anti-consumer practices.
I've written before about how Ed exposed and publicised shamefully lopsided software license agreements, including Autodesk's and Adobe's. Recently, Ed commented about the May, 2008 Vernor decision (see my ADSK v ODA web site for more information about the Vernor case).
It will be no easy task to fill Ed's shoes. We can be certain, though, that his work must go on.
I've written before about how Ed exposed and publicised shamefully lopsided software license agreements, including Autodesk's and Adobe's. Recently, Ed commented about the May, 2008 Vernor decision (see my ADSK v ODA web site for more information about the Vernor case).
It will be no easy task to fill Ed's shoes. We can be certain, though, that his work must go on.
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, legal
2008-05-22
From the NewsFeed on my ADSK v ODA web site:
"The court today issued an order denying Autodesk's motion to dismiss the charges in the Vernor lawsuit. Normally such a denial is perfunctory and mundane, but in this ruling the court performs a breathtaking analysis of whether the AutoCAD software was a sale or a license, and reaches conclusions that, if not reversed, are certain to change the face of software sales in the USA. Technically, the scope of this order is limited to simply refusing to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the implications of the judge's analysis are almost stunning in their rejection of Autodesk's legal claims. I'm sure you will be hearing much more about this order in the coming weeks, as the entire software industry will certainly take notice of this case."
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, legal
2007-08-17
I've heard the word "brutal" used more than once during conversations with Autodesk employees about the Autodesk sponsored discussion groups. It's true that raw unfiltered feedback can be brutal, and it can also hurt your ego if you happen to be the target of criticism. The trick is to learn how to interpret the feedback. If you can master that skill, that raw feedback is a fast, unbiased, low noise-to-signal-ratio predictor of the future.
I've seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk's original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk's biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped.
This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads ("Dear Carl Bass" and "AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006.
The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new "bonus" tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I'm sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand -- so let's just call it a "venomous reaction".
There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.
I've seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk's original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk's biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped.
This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads ("Dear Carl Bass" and "AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006.
The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new "bonus" tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I'm sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand -- so let's just call it a "venomous reaction".
There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.
Labels: Autodesk, CAD Industry, discussion groups
2007-04-22
Reading the discussion about the reluctance to move to 3D/BIM in the latest issue of upFront.eZine reminded me of the principle of rational ignorance. The principle of rational ignorance applies when the perceived cost of obtaining knowledge is greater than the perceived benefit. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, where individuals rationalize their decision to remain ignorant based on their perception of the (lack of) benefit in the very thing they are ignorant about.
It is interesting to think about the 2D to 3D paradigm shift in terms of shifting the balance in the rational ignorance equation. I think there's also another principle at work here: Newton's Third Law. The harder the collective movers and shakers try to push, the harder the end users resist. Maybe if the software companies stopped pushing so hard, the shift would occur naturally with much less resistance.
By the way, I noticed a familiar theme in the upFront eZine discussion: those resistant to the paradigm shift lament the lost art of drafting and fail to believe that the new paradigm no longer needs artisans. Obviously there are other factors at work here -- factors over which no amount of logic will prevail.
It is interesting to think about the 2D to 3D paradigm shift in terms of shifting the balance in the rational ignorance equation. I think there's also another principle at work here: Newton's Third Law. The harder the collective movers and shakers try to push, the harder the end users resist. Maybe if the software companies stopped pushing so hard, the shift would occur naturally with much less resistance.
By the way, I noticed a familiar theme in the upFront eZine discussion: those resistant to the paradigm shift lament the lost art of drafting and fail to believe that the new paradigm no longer needs artisans. Obviously there are other factors at work here -- factors over which no amount of logic will prevail.
Labels: CAD Industry
2007-03-31
Deelip Menezes asks what got me started on lamenting the sad state of the CAD industry in my previous post. Good question.
It all started with a Fox News story about a French architect's claim to have solved the "Pyramid Secret": http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262981,00.html. The article links to Dassault Systemes' web site: http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/. My snake oil alarm went off when I saw the site. I'll admit I didn't read it, but it looks like a slick marketing ploy. I was irritated that I fell for it. It reminded me of how insideous and incestuous this industry has become, now reaching out to mainstream media in search of new victims.
It all started with a Fox News story about a French architect's claim to have solved the "Pyramid Secret": http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262981,00.html. The article links to Dassault Systemes' web site: http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/. My snake oil alarm went off when I saw the site. I'll admit I didn't read it, but it looks like a slick marketing ploy. I was irritated that I fell for it. It reminded me of how insideous and incestuous this industry has become, now reaching out to mainstream media in search of new victims.
Labels: CAD Industry
In some ways the CAD software industry is a lot like the fashion industry. The movers and shakers are trying to establish new fads that are just recycled from older fads, while guiding the unwashed masses into adopting new trends that have been carefully molded to ensure perpetuation of the system. Meanwhile the up and comers try desperately to get a share of the action, while an entire industry of hangers-on tries to eke out a living from the scraps left behind by the big players.
It's a tired old symphony played on the world stage, with pretty much the same players today as twenty years ago. The same seamstresses making the same old faux fluff, dressing it up a bit, draping it over a new model, and parading it down the same old runways.
Bah! I'm going outside, maybe that'll cheer me up.
It's a tired old symphony played on the world stage, with pretty much the same players today as twenty years ago. The same seamstresses making the same old faux fluff, dressing it up a bit, draping it over a new model, and parading it down the same old runways.
Bah! I'm going outside, maybe that'll cheer me up.
Labels: CAD Industry
About Me
- Name: Owen Wengerd
- Location: Apple Creek, Ohio, United States
I'm a starving artist specializing in the programming genre. I work in my home office, where I am the owner and sole proprietor of ManuSoft as well as the President and chief software artist of CADLock, Inc.
Syndication
Archive
December 2006January 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
September 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
March 2010
Recent Comments
skatterbrainz:A very interesting view indeed. I would agree completely, except for the aspect of open source and Creative Commons. Not a comparison, per se, but rather an alternative. In many situations, consumers don't have a choice due to requirements lock-in (features, compatability) as well as expertise (average person's ability to install, configure and maintain a fully open source environment).
@ February 27, 2009 4:37:00 PM EST
Owen Wengerd:I would argue that open source is not generally a viable alternative to commercial software. Certainly in some markets, open source alternatives can provide push-back against an overbearing software industry, but I think a healthy software economy must be based on a legal framework under which both closed source and open source products can be commercially viable.
@ March 1, 2009 6:50:00 PM EST
:Very good post.
@ August 19, 2007 9:19:00 AM EDT
:"..the unwashed masses." I wash every day.
The downside to having a ravenous fan base is you have a ravenous fan base.
@ September 10, 2007 4:56:00 PM EDT
:I have read the original upFront.eZine article and all of the comments. I have to agree with the fact that most people with an Associate Degree (or higher) in CAD drafting are worthless when it comes to knowing how a building goes together, much less a set of drawings. Giving one of these people a 3D CAD software package will be just a waste of time and money.
You have to excuse me because I think anyone who gets a degree in CAD drafting has just wasted their time and money. I will agree that training is needed to use this type of tool properly. CAD it is a tool, not the end all to architectural design and development. The reason that draftsman feel drafting is an art is that it is a universal language. CAD allows me to write that language faster.
However, a good 3D/BIM software package in the hands of an architect or senior draftsperson that understands how a building goes together and how the software works is a thing of beauty.
@ September 6, 2007 2:58:00 PM EDT
skatterbrainz:I couldn't agree more. Very well stated and concise. I ran across your blog from a link on Michael Riddle's blog site. I've bookmarked both.
@ April 2, 2007 9:49:00 PM EDT
Deelip Menezes:Hey, what got you started?
@ March 31, 2007 12:04:00 PM EDT