Deelip.com

To say that CAD vendors are far more excited about CAD on the cloud than their users would be an understatement. In fact, the more excitement the vendors show, the more skeptical their users get. Frankly, I am not surprised. The image of large corporations finding new ways to squeeze more from customers is quite easy to imagine in the capitalist world that we live in.

The many technical and logistical challenges to putting CAD on the cloud are known far too well. But probably the main challenge for CAD vendors would be to get users to adopt it. And for that the CAD vendors would need to give their users a very good reason to move to the cloud. I believe the most critical reason is cost.

During my interview with SolidWorks CEO Jeff Ray at SolidWorks world 2010, he said, “Why should you need to buy a power plant to power your house when you can simply plug your appliances into a socket which is connected to a power plant located elsewhere. You should only pay for what you use.” I found this statement quite interesting because Jeff is implying that his customers are currently paying for a whole lot of stuff that they do not use or need. This is precisely what a lot of his customers have been complaining about for a long time now.

In fact, I totally agree with his Jeff’s line of thinking. That’s why at SYCODE we have split our products down to a very low level. We could have easily had a single SolidWorks Data Exchange add-in product that imports and exports all the file formats that we support. Instead we have split our data exchange technolgies into 28 SolidWorks add-ins, each one of which imports or exports a single file format. We believe that a customer should pay for and get only that part of a technology that he needs. Of course, if a customer wants more than one technology, then we offer him a package where he ends up paying way lesser than the cost of the individual products put together. So if CAD on the cloud is actually going to achieve this, it will indeed be a very good thing.

Another important factor is the cost of hardware. And this is really a matter of implementation. At SolidWorks World 2010 we were shown SolidWorks V6 running on a netbook. In my discussion with Autodesk CEO Carl Bass he suggested making use of the computational power of the device to offer a better user experience or even to make CAD on the cloud feasible. I find this interesting as well because this means that a part of the application will be installed locally and the other part will be in the server. So I imagine for a better user experience, the user would need to use a more powerful device. The same thing goes for increased usability. For example you will obviously not be able to do the same things running Inventor on an iPhone as opposed to running it on a workstation notebook. So if CAD on the cloud is implemented in such a way that user still finds the need of spending a great deal of money on more powerful hardware, then the benefit of cloud computing as far as hardware cost is concerned will go down the drain.

Right now the information being put out by CAD vendors getting all excited about the cloud is extremely sketchy. Nobody is giving any specific information about the real cost savings for the user. I think this is because they have not yet reached a stage where they can figure it out themselves. Of course, the CAD vendors may have “guestimated” a few numbers before embarking on something as large as cloud computing. But the fact that they are not going public with their numbers goes to show that they are not confident enough on their accuracy. Frankly, I am not surprised because everything seems to be up in the clouds right now (pun intended).

This is just the beginning. The technical and logistical problems will be sorted out over time. No doubt about that. But I believe that the fundamental reason why users will or will not adopt CAD on the cloud will continue to be the same – money. The direct and indirect cost of CAD on the cloud is going to decide whether this concept works or fails. Or rather, whether it is adopted or not. All other factors like ease of use, ease of data sharing, increased storage, greater automation, better mobility and all the other advantages that we keep hearing about cloud computing will amount to nothing if CAD vendors are not able to deliver significant cost savings to their users.

Let me emphasize this. The cost savings has to be significant, not marginal. Users do not even use the latest version of a product until a few service packs have been released. That is how skeptical or resistant to change they are. Most of my customers are using a version of their CAD system two or three years old. As the wise man says, “It it ain’t broke, don’t fix it“.

This afternoon I get on a plane to Maui in Hawaii. I was there last April and cannot wait to get back there again. The last time I was in Maui for just a couple of days and enjoyed every bit of it (see “Hawaii on a Harley“). This time I will be staying for a full week. I am actually going there for work to meet my business partner in Print3D Corporation Ron Barranco who lives there.

I absolutely love Hawaii, not only because the people there have booze for breakfast. But because the place is a lot like Goa, my home state in India and a world famous tourist destination. The climate and vegetation is almost the same. The only major differences I find are that the roads are much better, the cars are much faster and the people are a lot richer in Hawaii. I guess that’s why people call Goa the Hawaii of India. We even have a beach in Goa called Hawaii.

@CADJunky sent me a tweet saying “Pls don’t put picures of Hawaii on your blog it just isn’t fair “. The sadist in me absolutely wants to continue this travelog in Hawaii. But don’t count on it.

Today I got the following email with the subject “A word from a follower”:

Hello Deelip,

I have been following your blog rigorously for quite a few months now, and I must say, I AM counting seriously on your blog entries now! For me it’s been working as a great single stop, most up to date source of information for the latest happenings in CAD industry. Not only that, but I find it way more interesting than just reading those dry hundreds of daily/weekly reports from [snip] or anything like those.

It’s great to see someone sharing so much of information! About the words you exchange with industry developers, the conferences and also a glimpse of your personal life!

I just stopped by to thank you for sharing all this information and your experiences with me, and tens of followers of your blogs here. Thank you very much indeed!

Anup Vader

I am glad some find this blog useful. I started it as a hobby and now it’s gone completely out of control. But I am not complaining. I enjoy writing this stuff. I am actually finding it hard to believe that I have written 542 posts and readers lave left 2,019 comments.

Today Roopinder Tara from TenLinks took me on a day long trip to Napa Valley. We had lunch at a famous restaurant called Bouchon in a beautiful town called Yountville. After lunch, we headed to do some wine tasting at the Robert Mondavi Winery, one of the largest wineries in Napa Valley. We drove around to other wineries and finally headed to Roopinder’s place for dinner.

I simply loved the pure and fresh air in the wine country. Here are some pictures. Click the images for larger views.

Gotta love these fancy number plates

Not sure what this naked woman was doing in the Robert Mondavi’s winery. Decided to join her anyways.

Tasting wine with Roopinder

After the Bay Cruise, I thought about taking a city tour by bus or cable car. Instead I decided to simply walk because the weather was so great. So I fished out my map and started walking. Now San Francisco is built on hills. So walking can be quite a challenge. But I believe walking around a city gives you a much better sense of the place rather than taking a bus tour and stopping at pretty tourist points. Here are some pictures. Click the images for larger views.

San Francisco has streets that run right across the city while negotiating the hills. Pretty unique. I have never some across a city like this before.

An old man shooting hoops.

This street is so steep that the side walk is actually one huge staircase.

The Transamerica Pyramid, the tallest building in San Francisco. I asked if they let tourists up to get a view of the city. Too bad they don’t.

Not sure what this is.

While planning my US trip, my host, Jim Quanci, suggested that stay back for a couple of days more in San Francisco and look around the beautiful city. I am glad I agreed to do that. Yesterday I took the Bay Cruise. I chose the one which goes under the Golden Gate Bridge and around Alcatraz. Here are some pictures. Click the images for larger views.

Under the Golden Gate

Alcatraz Island

I have been so busy blogging about SolidWorks World 2010 and my Autodesk Visit that my travelog has been neglected. I will try and catch up.

My wonderful host, Jim Quanci, has been driving me around San Francisco and showing me some interesting stuff. A couple of days ago we drove to the Golden Gate bridge, an engineering marvel. Here are a couple of pictures. Click the images for larger views.

Jim and I at the foot of the Golden Gate

The view from one of the hills close to the Golden Gate

Jim gave me a pretty good rundown about the history surrounding the Golden Gate as well as the other bridges around San Francisco. This Wikipedia page has all that information and more. However, I learned some pretty morbid, but interesting, stuff about the bridge from Jim.

Like all bridges, the Golden Gate is a pretty attractive place to commit suicide. They have about one every two weeks. There are cameras on the bridge that keep track of people who are thinking of putting an end to their misery. But as you can imagine, they are not very effective. Here is another interesting statistic. A larger number of people prefer to jump from the side facing the Bay as opposed to the side facing the Pacific ocean. I am sure some shrink will or has already come up with an explanation for that.

Jim also tells me that there is a debate going on whether to spend 50 million on creating a suicide barrier that would prevent people from jumping off. Personally, I think the idea may not be the best way to go about solving the problem. It’s not like the Golden Gate is the only place to commit suicide. Moreover, I think the $50 million could be better used to provide more help to people who think that they have no hope left.

Given below are links to posts covering my visit to Autodesk along with a brief description of each:

Autodesk Visit – Meeting with Carl Bass: My discussion with Carl Bass about SolidWorks V6, cloud computing, Inventor, AutoCAD, its clones, the ODA and his “Looney Bin”.

Autodesk Visit – Gallery Tour: A tour of the Autodesk Gallery with Brian Mathews as my guide.

Autodesk Visit – Interview with Guillermo Melantoni: My interview with Guillermo Melantoni regarding the direction in which AutoCAD is headed.

Autodesk Visit – Interview with Kevin Schneider: My interview with Kevin Schneider about SolidWorks V6, cloud computing, Inventor LT, backward version compatibility and Inventor Fusion.

Disclosure: Jim Quanci, Director of the Autodesk Developer Network, insisted that I stayed with him instead of a hotel. Jim really took good care of me and showed me around San Francisco. He is an excellent host and could easily put a professional tour guide to shame

Kevin Schneider is responsible for Inventor Fusion among other things. He is one of many Autodesk employees that I have corresponded by email and phone for years but have never met in person. And this continues to be the case because I interviewed him through one of those fancy Cisco TelePresence systems.

Click image for larger view

The only things we could not do was shake hands and exchange business cards. But apart from that it was as if he was sitting right opposite me. This is part of our conversation:

Deelip: What do you make of SolidWorks V6?
Kevin: Well, our competition is simply chasing the work that we have done. We have been saying all along that the parametrics and history are important to the user and their integrity must be maintained. From the face of it, it looks like they are trying to do the same thing.

Deelip: How about Inventor on the cloud?
Kevin: As you can imagine, putting something like Inventor on the cloud can easily become a complicated task. Having said that, the benefits of cloud computing are just too huge to ignore. We are working along those lines.

Deelip: Why is Inventor LT available in select countries only?
Kevin: I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that question. I am sure Autodesk PR will be able to get the answer for you or connect you with someone who can provide you with an answer.

Deelip: Recently, a SolidWorks product manager admitted that backward version compatibility was more of a business problem and less of a technical problem. Is that the case with Inventor as well?
Kevin: In our case, it is a technical problem. We added two new features to Inventor 2010 which cannot be saved to an Inventor 2009 file.

Deelip: Are you happy with the way the press covered Inventor Fusion?
Kevin: I am happy with the vast majority of coverage that Inventor Fusion received. As a CAD vendor, I will obviously want all the press about my product to be good. But as you can imagine, that cannot always be the case.

Deelip: Do you think a $97 Alibre Design will be a problem for Inventor or Inventor LT.
Kevin: Inventor LT was free on Autodesk Labs for two years. Even after that, a large number of users paid money to buy a license when it came out of Labs. This goes to show the kind of value that investment in terms of cost and time that our customers are willing put into our products, whether they may be free or otherwise.

Deelip: What was the logic in shipping the Inventor Fusion Technology Preview 2 in two parts – a standalone product and an add-in?
Kevin: We wanted our users to be able to install and uninstall Fusion easily at any time. Moreover, we did not want Fusion to affect the production environment of our users.

Deelip: Will Inventor Fusion Technology Preview 3 be shipped in two parts?
Kevin: Yes, it will.

Deelip: I raised this issue about packaging on this blog earlier. Because Fusion is a different application, the Change Manager needs to figure out multiple changes at one go as opposed to one at a time, like the way it will eventually work. This causes the Change Manager to fail a significant number of times. I am questioning the wisdom of giving a software to people to test in a form that it will not be when eventually delivered. Not only will the feedback you receive be negative due the Change Manager not being able to handle multiple changes at one time, but it will also be inaccurate since users will report failures when in reality the Change Manager actually works if it has to figure things sequentially.
Kevin: Yes, you have a point there.

Deelip: May I suggest something?
Kevin: Sure. I would love to hear it.

Deelip: When I was testing my theory of the Change Manager failing for multiple changes I used to keep Inventor as well as Fusion open side by side. After each change, I used to save out the file from Fusion and open it in Inventor for the Change Manager to kick in. Then I used to save the file in Inventor and open it in Fusion and repeat the whole process for every change. I found that doing this resulted in a way higher chance of the Change Manager succeeding because this is typically the workflow that the system would use anyways. So my idea is to simply try and automate this task for the user. Let the user have both applications open. When the user makes a change in Fusion, automatically start the Change Manager in Inventor and send the data back to Fusion after the change has been factored in the feature tree. This way users testing Fusion will correctly report failures and you will get high quality feedback that you can work with.
Kevin: I think this is a great idea. I think it is possible to do this and we will consider it.

Guillermo Melantoni is an AutoCAD Product Manager entrusted with the job of getting more and more 3D features into AutoCAD. He has a blog called “What A Mesh!” where he writes about the new 3D features being added to AutoCAD. I have corresponded with Guillermo in the past by email but have never met him before. I specifically asked to meet Guillermo because I wanted to ask him some very pointed questions. Here is part of our conversation:

Deelip: It was refreshing to see 3D features added to AutoCAD 2010. I am curious to know whether you intend to add analysis features as well.
Guillermo: We have no such plans. There is a lot that can need to be done in 3D.

Deelip: True. But everything modeled in 3D needs to be analyzed before it can be built. Be it a building, a mechanical part or anything else. Now that you are adding more 3D features to AutoCAD, you are only a step away from analysis. Are you saying that you will stop at geometry creation only?
Guillermo: AutoCAD is more of a generic application. For specialized needs we have other products.

Deelip: That’s like saying that AutoCAD is a stepping stone to other products and by itself cannot complete a job.
Guillermo: Not exactly. AutoCAD is quite capable and is used in a variety of industries. Generic applications like AutoCAD are great at flexibility but are not that good at specifics. Similarly, specialized applications like Inventor for MCAD are great at specifics but are not that good at flexibility.

Deelip: Help me understand something here. Autodesk has developed/acquired analysis technologies and have integrated them in its products. But you are saying that you have no plans of adding the same to AutoCAD. So for the next 5 or 10 years are we going to see more ways of geometry creation and nothing else. I find this odd. Pardon me for continuing this line of questioning. But there is a reason for it. There is a view that AutoCAD has reached a point where nothing substantial can be added to it anymore. When you added 2D parametrics, constraints and more 3D features in AutoCAD 2010, you actually opened up a whole new new range of possibilities for AutoCAD. But from what you are saying it seems to me that you are stopping short of taking AutoCAD all the way, when technically I do not see any reason why it cannot be done. For example, why don’t you add FEA analysis to AutoCAD Mechanical? Users of AutoCAD Mechanical can use the 3D features of AutoCAD to design mechanical parts in 3D and then analyze their designs as well. Isn’t that what Digital Prototyping is all about? To me it looks like AutoCAD is being kept outside the sphere of Digital Prototyping.
Guillermo: We have users spread across various industries. We also have specialized products for those industries. But there is a significant amount of users for which the basic AutoCAD features are sufficient. AutoCAD serves that particular class of users perfectly.

Frankly, I am not convinced that this is the right direction. We spoke about other things as well and was shown the new stuff that is being added in AutoCAD 2011. As an ADN member I have access to this stuff but cannot talk about it. Same goes when I put on my press hat as well.

Personally, I get the feeling that AutoCAD is not being pushed enough. I would like to see more stuff added to AutoCAD but not only limited to geometry creation and editing. Giving me a new way to change the color of a layer is a good thing. But that is just more of the same. I would hate to see AutoCAD being treated as some kind of a companion software to be used with something else that actually gets the job done.

There are numerous way to take AutoCAD to another level. What may be lacking is the will. I have used analysis as just one example. There may be other stuff that can be added to AutoCAD. If you are an AutoCAD user I would love to hear what you have to say.