SolidWorks, How about some DIY ?

MoldFlow Express, Used to be inside SolidWorks

...And I thought that the next time we heard from SolidWorks will be with the new V6. But,  perhaps the company may want to milk the old tech.  a little longer before the end of the year?
 

SolidWorks, the popular CAD software maker, recently announced two new product lines that concern  users. The two new product lines, SolidWorks Plastic for plastic flow analysis and SolidWorks Electrical for planning electrical power and control, should enrich the software users in new technology and new capabilities that the competition already have. But, the way it done by SolidWorks, raises questions about the ability of the company, which once enjoyed independence, to continue to develop or acquire new technologies now that  Dassault Systemes  sets the tone.
SolidWorks, which announced a transition to new technology in 2013 based on  Dassault Catia V6, chose to take two existing products from  two 3th party partners , and pack them again under the SolidWorks name. Simpoe and Elecworks, the names behind the two new products, offer complementary products for SolidWorks as well as other software for years now. The SolidWorks announcement is particularly disturbing given the fact that next year they will have a new CAD software based on Catia CGM kernel.
Ppoints to consider :  

•  - Simpoe and Elecworks software are integrated within SolidWorks but, are not suitable for Catia and therefore will not be able to run under the V6, the two programs are not particularly cheap and it's unclear how customers are supposed to maintain the investment with a software that probably will not run with the new SolidWorks V6.

•      While Siemens, Autodesk or PTC have the knowledge to develop complementary software alone or the budget to purchase successful technology and to implement it, Dassault SolidWorks shown it does not have the tools and resources to develop or acquire new technology.  In the past, been given more independence, SolidWorks purchase partners and integrate technologies.  ToolBox  (Simlogic acquisition) , PdmWorks and the Epdm (Conisio acquisition in 2004) and the simulation software SRAC Cosmos are few examples . Seems that SolidWorks didn't learned a lesson from those times when the choice to rely on external technology caused damage. The old Routing environment based on a company that later on acquired by Autodesk, left SolidWorks with out a solution so they rushes to develop an alternative product that never reached the level of the old one. When Autodesk acquired MoldFlow, the MoldFlow Express software that was part of SW, disappeared. Flow analysis is based on a software from NIKA, a company that later acquired by Mentor Graphics, that lacked the interest in continuing to develop it for SolidWorks.

•     What happens if tomorrow Siemens or PTC will decide to purchase Simpoe  ?

if the new SolidWorks direction is to becoming Catia Light, what about those thousands of SolidWorks users who need SolidWorks Strong and cannot be satisfied with an under powered CAD software even when the base is Catia?

Gal

It's time for CAD Apps Store

It's time for CAD Apps Store

The "next generation" whatever, is connected to the cloud.  And while new start-up companies such as Sunglass promising to change the CAD world, Autodesk has already begun to sell various types of cloud services and  has launched a free mechanical simulations (until the end of the year) service and Solidworks is working on new  cloud-based technology system.

Cloud technology goes well with all the smart mobile devices surrounding us today. One of the biggest advantages of mobile smart devices is the collection of various applications and the contents concentrated under application stores such as the Apple Apps store and the Google Play. Complementary applications are not foreign or new to the CAD world. In  some of the programs, the weight of complement applications is particularly strong and has a tremendous competitive advantage. Absolute control of the Autocad software in the areas of architecture and construction in the last two decades is not as many tend to believe, because it was easy copy it in the past. Autocad was the first to give developers a convenient and open development environment and therefore complementary applications offered to hundreds of different organizations and companies who have chosen to host  CAD software with a custom environment and applications were having problems later on move or look over to another program.

 

When SolidWorks came out to the market in 96, influenced by the success of Autodesk with the developers community, it encouraged companies to develop applications to the software environment while providing a powerful API environment and support for developers. SolidWorks prefer the idea  of "one window solution" , when the application  run from the CAD system and act as an integral part of the software without having to leave the program window. The combination of Cosmos software for analysis (Nowadays called simulations) in SolidWorks was brilliant and gave access to more users to the capabilities of finite elements analysis. With modern computing, the model of one software, single window is perceived as outdated and not particularly useful for simulation or any other application that requires a long runtime. With the existing system at SolidWorks today, when the user performs a simple simulation or a render, he loses the ability to use the computer duration of the simulation that take sometimes hours or even a day. The modern hardware environment that allows running multiple applications simultaneously on number of cores, cannot be expressed in the form of "one software, single window. "

Computer technology that exists today is adequate to access a collection of` small applications designed to improve existing tasks running from a single software and autonomous software that require larger computer resources while maintaining the association link between the programs.

Distribution mechanism of complementary applications today (there are hundreds of such to each leading programs), is problematic and as a result they are not accessible to most users. Appliances developers find it difficult to reach customers and lack of convenient distribution platform for applications such as apps store leaves the developer two options, to distribute alone or use one of the major CAD providers dealer network. 

There are distributors or resellers to most of CAD software in every country and region. Distributors are committed to the goals determined by the software companies. Distributor's sales persons are people with the best recognition of the market, the customers, their needs and problems. But, those sales persons are obliged to meet the target requirements of the software vendor. In order to sell a complement product, the salesperson has to spare time to sell software that is not "counted" by the main CAD supplier goals and the amount of resources required for the complement product transaction is often much greater than required to sell the familiar and common CAD software a that the complement should ride on them .

 SolidWorks Corporation, recognizing the benefit they can get by complementary applications, established years ago a partner program that gave rating to application based on the integration to the SolidWorks CAD software. In addition, the company has established and maintained a search platform for applications from its website but, as more companies and applications to join the site it had become less effective. The users cannot download or buy from the website neither can experience and explore those applications. They have to browse the developer  website to understand the essence of the application or what the company has to offer. When the developing company does not have a quick and easy mechanism to reach potential customers and when it must rely on sub-distributors who take over half the proceeds from any sale as commission, prices of the applications are kept very high and in the same time customers also lack a convenient environment for upgrading and recommendations application as is common in Android or iOS.

Model of Android apps stores and Apple's mobile environment is much better. CAD vendors were exposed to the above model when they started to deliver applications to the mobile environment. Dassault was the first one came out four years ago with 3DVIA viewing software of the Iphone environment. Dassault, who chose to ignore the Android environment, try to create a similar Apps store environment to the CAD market but, failed to bring it to the many applications that it distributes.

Business environment based on smart phones cloud solutions and tablets, is developing rapidly and the availability of applications that are cheap and easy to manage is enormous. Apple was the first to learn how to generate revenue from providing the platform for app makers. Cellular companies, like RIM and Nokia how failed to offer good enough Apps Store, are becoming irrelevant very quickly.

Autodesk Company, with the Apps Store Exchange, is the first CAD provider to bring a modern Apps store environment that integrates the mobile application environment with distribution platform for CAD applications in one brilliant site with direct access from the CAD software, ready to the new era of CAD software in the cloud.  With the Apps Store Exchange you select the application and it easily installed.. As happens with mobile applications, convenient interface invites you to explore the existing applications and look for interesting products and capabilities. Autodesk, that claim to over 10,000,0000 users around world, can expect that the Apps Store Exchange catch quickly and will be a role model for the other CAD vendors. This is good news to all CAD users. More accessible to more applications will ensure better solutions, and just like what happened with Apple and Android market, a more sane prices for the applications.

Gal Raz

SolidWorks's Dilemma - How to kill a successful product? Part II

No shortage of challenges to SolidWorks for the coming year.

T-Splines, supplement  to  SolidWorks , Now - at Autodesk stables

My previous post, look at the reasons why SolidWorks company stopped most of the existing software development around 2007 and began to develop new software, SolidWorks v6, scheduled to release at the end of the year 2012.

It seems that in its existing SolidWorks reached an impasse. The software was built around the Parasolid Geometric kernel belongs to the great competitor, "Siemens" (NX and Solid Edge software). In recent years, Siemens started to be selective providing users of Parasolid the new innovative technologies like the "Synchronous Technology " . SolidWorks has found itself in an awkward position. Siemens policy puts it behind all the competitors with no technological solution for a real direct editing of geometry. Reliance on Parasolid prevented the development of appropriate.

Last week, Deelip Menezes published in his acclaimed blog that "… for many years Dassault Systems had been trying to get SolidWorks to stop licensing Parasolid as its modeling kernel from rival Siemens PLM (then UGS) " . Deelip Implying that recent personnel changes in SolidWorks, V.P of development and the founder left, are related to that subject. 

Looking back, loss of independence of SolidWorks in "DS" in recent years has left SW very "poor" on the technology side. A technology company can proceed by self-development and by investment in acquisitions and mergers. Look like from 2007, SolidWorks focus only on developing the new V6 software and almost stop to invest at the current software.

Under Dassault, SolidWorks promote negligible number of acquisitions that could gain more value to the product. Significant recent acquisition was SRAC Cosmos analyses software. Cosmos, which was never considered a major player for FEM simulation, not continued to advance technologically under DS / SW and even abandoned challenging technologies like multiphasic, flow and EMS.  Unwillingness to invest resources in acquisitions, leave SolidWorks less attractive. Autodesk for example, made some major acquisitions in recent years including CFDesign, Algor, MoldFlow , Alias and invest on integrate the technology to the to the whole product line , PTC purchases almost every year some new technologies on various issues and continues to invest in developing modules and existing software.

 
Tsplines software is great example of how SW lost technology to competitors. The company has developed a module for the treatment of complicated geometry of the solid model. The company intends to release an updated module for SolidWorks with Revolutionary surfaces design capabilities. The Acquisition of  Tsplines by Autodesk in late 2011, was one of the most annoying thing to users of SolidWorks. "Why do not you bought them?" Asked a blogger at interview with Bernard Charles, Dassault CEO, "We have these capabilities in Catia" was the response of the CEO. Practice, SolidWorks users do not have access to Catia and not a suitable solution for advance surface manipulations because Tsplines module joins Alias as another powerful tool for Autodesk Inventor and no longer exists for SolidWorks.  

 
Lack of ability or desire to purchase Tsplines before Autodesk put a hand on the technology illustrates the difficulty to continue to develop, innovate and move forward under DS and to avoid becoming a "baby" Catia with limited capabilities. With V6 version, when the geometry Kernel is from Catia, there are no certainty about the borders between the two and how will Dassault prevent SW to cut a share from the pricey flagship software sales.

SolidWorks biggest challenge is how to keep the users, those who continue to pay annual maintenance and expected technological Advantage, Satisfied. After all, they are expected to get new software with a new interface, different file types and more. What will happen to all the applications, macro, patterns, and engineering information? What happens to customers who invest now in Epdm for their engineering information management? Is the software will remain the same format? SolidWorks management software (EPDM) will also change and will be replaced by Enovia software. What does it mean for customers?
Stephen Wolfe covers in a recent article the transition of customers between two Catia generations, V5 to V6. Hint, it is not a piece of cake, and this is about the same geometry kernel while SolidWorks and SW v6 are two completely different worlds.

the 500  = 7 years subscriptions

The commercial side is also interesting . Consider a customer who purchased SolidWorks Premium in 2007. He probably paid about 10,000 Euro + 2,500 Euro for the subscription. The argument that from 2007 SolidWorks adds no significant capabilities gets a stronger meaning for that client. By the time he will get SolidWorks V6 he already pay for seven years, almost 17,500 Euro!  Is it worth it?

Gal Raz

Solidworks's dilemma - how to kill a successful product?

Solidworks's dilemma - how to kill a successful product?  

SolidWorks V6 ?

Part I

Since the the last Solidworks World Conference, the web teeming with responses and interpretations to information released by Dassault / Solidworks about stopping the development of Solidworks software and focusing on whole new program, Solidworks V6. Users claims that development of Solidworks almost stopped and there is no significant progress since the 2007 version , Solidworks confirms focusing on developing entirely new software come out soon.

So why to kill a successful program? Well, there are several good reasons. Some are technical and some political.  The process started several years ago and puts SolidWorks to the greatest challenge in its history.

A. To understand the first reason we have to go back to year 95, the first days of Solidworks Corporation, before the acquisition by the French Dassault Group.  Solidworks start with 

using existing and proven technology to become the first company to deliver  a real MS windows parametric solid software to the market.  Complacency and inertia among the market leaders in those years and especially the Boston area neighbor - PTC, helped  Solidworks to caught the CAD world by surprise and leap in a short time to leading position. In those first years, Solidworks managers claim that they fear only from the next Solidworks, a new startup companies someone is funding now in his own garage to be the next SolidWorks. So, the genes of Solidworks carry a strong desire to be the one to deliver the next technology to the market.

B. Competitors - to succeed quickly and without wasting resources, Solidworks chose, wherever possible, to purchase technologies over  self-development. The foundation of any CAD software built around a core software called geometric kernel.  SolidWorks chose to buy the kernel from Parasolid  and the tools for managing constraints from a company called D-cube. Those two key critical technology software companies were acquired over the years by the competitor Siemens/Unigraphics  (Solid Edge and NX software).  This made discomfort at Solidworks environment especially since it remained the only parametric CAD software that acquires the core kernel. Customers occasionally ask "what happens if Siemens decided to stop selling licenses to Solidworks". The answers from Solidworks become much more hesitant when Siemens announced that the new Synchronous Technology, developed by Parasolid and D-Cube, will not released to Solidworks, leaving Solidworks with no real direct editing capabilities. Continue to rely in future on technology from competitors suddenly became a dangerous gamble.

C.  Dassault Systemes – Since they bought SW, The questions never stooped.  When they will kill Solidworks and make the product it Catia baby  or Catia Light ?  At DS, Solidworks has always been the stepson. Successful but different.  

Today, DS facing increasing challenges. Autodesk has grown alarmingly and they cannot ignore it anymore.  PTC is very successful with its PLM software while Dassault struggling with the new PLM V6 technology.  Chrysler's, the big auto maker and a traditional and important Dassault customer, acquired by Fiat and as a result, switch to Siemens software to line with Fiat's design environment. 

For Dassault it is better to develop a unified identity and more competitive for the whole product lines.

D. The Conflict with Catia software - Dassault two competing software, Solidworks and Catia, both present a similar capabilities. Solidworks has a big advantage in terms of cost and ease of use. Dassault don't like to find Catia users escaping to the lower price SolidWorks.  Embarrassingly, Siemens customer, find it is much easier to share data with SolidWorks software then Catia users.  The desire to break away from Parasolid and Siemens requires that SolidWorks change it  kernel to Catia kernel, CGM. Transition to CGM is problematic and complicated technically (See : Thoughts On SolidWorks V6, CGM And Parasolid ). It is an excellent opportunity to re-development of the whole program through integration Dassault's corporate identity and its modern solutions group V6. 

E.  SolidWorks software is already old - the current generation of Solidworks with us since 95. Solidworks was the first indeed, but today is also the oldest, a Dinosaur in terms of the software world. The software performances and quality Issues in recent years can be attributed to the long history of developments.  After seventeen years with the same technology, sometimes the best thing is simply to start from scratch.

Next :Part II

Gal Raz