![]() ![]() They're going to come horribly unstuck when one of the licensed products they use adopts an Amazon model of customer service: an automated process will detect they've been abusing the system, revoke their license, mark them "persona non grata" in the CRM system and not only does the product stop working, but they're not even able to license it again online (any attempt meets "computer says no") and they can't get through to a human to get their license reinstated.Īnd the first they find out about it is when it flashes up an error on startup: "Your license has been revoked" and then immediately shuts itself down again. They're going to invent scheme after harebrained scheme that allow them to pretend they're following the license rules while in truth doing nothing of the sort. You know how they'll deal with it, of course. Heh, we've all worked for employers like that, and the direction the world is going in is definitely going to get interesting. This is going to be super, super interesting for my replacement. You won't sue Rachel, you'll sue the company, so it should be general.Īs it stands, I think it's abusive, exploiting a loophole that's not been properly regulated yet.Ĭompany was cheap AF, a big reason why I moved on. Let me buy n software licenses in the name of my company, and let me deal with how I want to distribute concurrent use among my employees - they're all but a "part" of the company. "Rachel" is not Rachel, it's Rachel from AirBnB, Rachel from Logitech, Rachel from x-y-z (same physical person, but different legal representation when she changes jobs, and certainly her CAD license won't be valid outside of each company). There are no "named individuals" from the outside of a company, it's all in the name of the company. It makes no sense that a company is sued in its own name as a whole, but software is charged per physical person. What are some of your thoughts on this network licensing changes?Īs an individual, I like named licenses: lets me use the software on any device, it's tied to "me" (user-centric).īut in a company, which has a legal persona, how come the license is "named" after a single physical person (who is NOT legally owning anything, not working in their own name but that of the company.), when the "name" should be that of the company itself? Not to mention how this feels like I am essentially turning in a license which can be shared with more than two people for two licenses limited to one named user. Now this does sound swell when written on paper, but I can't imagine the stress one must have to deal with to prepare for this transition. Meaning, you are receiving two for the same price of one as well as receiving renewal discounts until 2028. On their Terms and conditions, you can trade-in one Multi-user subscription for two standard subscriptions for one named user with similar price. August 7, 2020, Autodesk will no longer sell new, annual subscriptions with multi-user accessĪs we are forced to make this transition, Autodesk provides trade-in offer for Multi-user subscription(network licenses). February 29,2020, Autodesk will no longer renew or sell, two/three-year subscriptions with multi-user access
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |