Talk:Autodesk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
I disagree with Jpgordon's removal of my comments, which he removed entirely and simply described as "removed Garbargio." My comments of the PR drivel (though I've noticed some of it has since been removed) and my comment on the "Last Days of Autodesk" documents stands. I've got just as much right t comment on this entry as you. You've got no right to strip stuff out just because you don't like it, and my comment stands: This is one of the sloppiest, most unprofessional wiki entries I've ever seen. Jpgordon, reinstate my original comments and you have no right to remove my comments, particularly since they raised valid points and didn't break Wiki rules. [05:10, 13 Dec 2006 UTC)
I want to edit this extensively, but I'm not sure most of the information belongs here at all (rather, it belongs in the AutoCAD article.) And some of the information here is incorrect anyway. The characterization of the original AutoCAD as "mediocre" is at the very least POV. The versions where DOS and Unix support were dropped are wrong. I don't know when Autodesk started "working closely with Microsoft", but it was later than R15. The expression "basement-CAD" is rather peculiar.
But as I said, this information really should be in the AutoCAD article. If it isn't going to go there, it needs a ton of editing here. Jpgordon 04:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not an Autodesk customer, employee, or stockholder, nor have I ever been any of those types (although I was a HOOPS customer and Autodesk bought Ithaca Software). Anyway, I was under the impression that a key to Autodesk's early success had to do with their distribution model, where the product was sold by Autocad dealers and it was easy for people to become Autocad dealers. I don't mean to make that sound like some kind of pyramid scheme; I just thought it was interesting. Thomas144
- It is interesting. It would be worth adding that to the article, though I don't know that it was easy to become an AutoCAD dealer; I seem to recall that the dealers were expected to provide a certain level of support for their customers, so some training or AutoCAD experience was required. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Darn right. It was something like the Compaq model of marketing, in which the company gave tech support to the dealers, who were supposed to do the customer support. I think the two companies adopted the model pretty much independently; Compaq was no famous industry giant in 1982. For Autodesk it was, clearly, a way of avoiding huge support costs, paying the dealers for that job by giving them larg eprofit margins and a natural restriction of competition by the requirement of technical dedication. (Haven't lost my sensitivity to anti-trust questions even yet; hence the heavy-handed memphasis how it was not an improper restraint of trade.) Dandrake 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History section
The history section is in desperate need of work. Parts of it are utter garbage. For example, the company's ultimate goal was to achieve a major software brand (AutoCAD) running upon IBM's recently born PC platform. "Ultimate"? When? Says who? A lot of the history can be gleaned from The Autodesk Files[1]. I'd do it myself but I'm too intimately involved, having worked there for a decade. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've trimmed the history section a bit to get rid of some of the heavily POV stuff. However I've just taken out what was clearly very negative spin on their history, I've not added in more accurate and sourcable information yet. Someone really needs to go through using the reference above to put in the actual historical information. --Tnomad 10:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Josh. Good to hear from you. So what's wrong with editing when you have actual knowledge? It's not exactly a vanity article, after all. Of course, I know two reasons:
- If you contribute something you know, it's Original Research; or, worse yet, Anecdotal. Must stick to stuff that somebody else has published, so we know it's true.
- The real problem: hard not to get involved and feel proprietary about the article. That's why I don't contribute to Wikipedia any more, beyond random little corrections like the one to this article -- and I'm not even gonna provide the easy Autodesk File refs to back up my point. Hoping I'll resist revisiting this and the AutoCAD article too soon. Dandrake 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
