Thanks for the reply Ryan. I used Pro/e for years and purposely left just before it died. I have been since using SW for about 5 years and I see the same signs for the same reason. When I took over the class, we used (and still have) SW. I used Teamcenter in the private sector before and saw that SW, as it does with other PLM/PDM systems, did not work well with it. I brought in NX (previously used and awesome) and SE purposely to teach so we can stay ahead of the next CAD market shift. Do you agree?
I have one other area of competition to comment on: Sheet metal. This is apparently the most difficult part of modeling to make easy because of the way the 3D program kurnels work.
SE set out to beat Pro-E in the sheet metal department. I never used Pro-E but I would venture they did that about 10 years ago, but it has been stagnant since. The sheet metal tools in SE are much better than in SW.
The reason I am active on this forum is to learn from others and try to help develop the sheet metal tools for easy use in manufacturing by providing feedback as to the shortcomings of that specific aspect.
I know SE is working on the reverse side of things because I spent some time with the initial reserach team. Because they own imageware, an add on to NX, they have a HUGE step up on everybody else in that area. Imageware is very old school but is the best NURB software (class A surface) in exsitance.
1.) Which is more lucrative to sell? NX or Solid Edge?
2.) Is Solidworks engine kernel running on Siemen's parasolid kernel?
3.) If question 2 is true, then who is Siemen's biggest client now? Would you want to upset your client by taking up more market share?
4.) Do users just want a pure mechanical design CAD package or an all in one CAD pacakage that can do multiple disciples (eg: electrical, reverse engineering, laser scanning, 3D printing with design analysis, carbon footprint analysis, machining cost estimator, GD&T tolerance stackup analysis, PCD board design, static and dynamic FEA) in today market context?
5.) Who can faster market their product? DS SW already have two titles partnered with Geomagic on reverse engineering, Geomagic Capture for SolidWorks and Design X for SolidWorks
6.) Who is more willing to plant seed in the educational sector? The more seeds you plant the better the harvest in the long run. (I haven't have yet to see any educational schools in my region that have a CAD lab with at least 25 to 30 seats of Solid Edge or even to say conducting Solid Edge course.)
7.) Hirability of ready trained engineers who know how to use the tool the moment you hire them.
8.) If your clients and vendors are all using the widely adopted CAD tool, would you want to purposely choose a different CAD tool, risk compatibility and compliance issues with the CAD models?
9.) With all the free or low cost mechanical CAD tool coming into the market, would one with really low budget look into a CAD from branded establishment or company if the need for the tool is just some very basic mechanical design and drafting?
Not sure if question 2 still holds but these are the questions that somehow appear in my mind.
Since no one else is taking the bait from your phishing and I'm just returning from a fishing vacation where the fish weren't really biting either I'll take a chance and bite.
1. You are asking the wrong question. The answer to your question that might come from any VAR should be something like "Whichever solution fits the customer needs and requirements the best. We don't provide a customer solution based solely on the befefit to ourselves."
2. Yes and No. The current desktop versions of Solidworks is based on the Parasolid modeling kernel. The newer Solidworks apps are based on CATIA and ENOVIA components. Both solutions, I believe still utilize D-Cubed solvers.
3. Once again, your question is properly asked but I'll take a stab. Siemens is a monstrous company. Asking who their largest customer is like asking asking Microsoft who their largest customer is. It all depends on which division or product you are talking about. Now, from the tone of your questions you are thinking that licensing of software components makes for big customers. But I would argue that licensing of those components is not nearly as large as you are thinking. Software and services is where the larger margins are. In regards to upsetting your clients by taking more market share I don't think you fully understand how licensing of components like Parasolid and how Parasolid is used by the Siemens PLM products work. For a quick answer its the same. All customers, whether Siemens internal customers like NX or Solid Edge or external customers like Dassault Systems or the many, many other customers that license Parasolid all get the same Parasolid kernel. It's all in how you implement and utilize Parasolid in your own software products that is the differentiators.
4. This truly all depends on your customers' needs and requirements. Some may need a fully integrated solution. Some may only need partial integration and others may rely on non-integrated, multi-company point solutions. It all depends on needs and benefits to the customers.
5. Marketing isn't just advertising. It is a corporate strategy that aids in achieving longterm corporate goals. But I think I understand your concern. Maybe you are asking "Why do we not see as much advertising by Siemens PLM as other software providers?" I'd answer that by saying that is corporate culture question. Siemens PLM has always been more involved in advertising their customers' success than their own. They succeed when their customers succeed.
I'm not sure why you have concerns for working with 3D scanned data. Siemens PLM has many tools to work with this data type and with the newest version of NX can work directly with 3D scanned data.
6. Education programs are all run through Siemens PLM division. There are plenty of colleges that are leveraging Siemens PLM products and even utilize Teamceter for a full fledged PLM/Engineering experience. I won't disagree that it would be great to see more Siemens PLM products in the educational environments. I was fortunate enough to have attended and worked in such an environment. There is a problem with educational environments-- they are notoriously s...l...o...w to adapt or to change.
7. This is statement. But I would argue that most positions are not filled based solely on a persons "ability" to use a specific tool but on their ability to solve problems for the company they are working for. Since history-based modeling has been around for over 20+ if not 30+ years now that process is not that different between software tools. So basing a hiring on a specific tool these days is moot. If the organization is one that values solutions and a persons ability to grow/learn then a specific tool becomes less of a hiring requirement. I know quite a few people that say that are great CAD jockeys with a slew of "certificate" titles backing them up but that couldn't design there way out of a paper bag. They, can't solve the business problems.
8. Choosing any business tool because it is "popular" is not good business practice. You need to look at the things from a business point of view not from popularity contest. Just because a software is popular doens't make it a good fit. Could it be a fit? Sure. But when you look at the bigger business picture and look at your software providers as a partner you need to look at values, company direction and strategies. Once you start looking at those things you will find that popular is...well...just popular and not really the best choice for the company. This same argument holds true for changing out tools within a business. You have to look at all the previously mentioned concerns. Here is a question for you, @Qiuquan, do you as a business owner, stick with a software that is moving in a strategic direction that doesn't provide you with any additional value and may locks you into a specific business partner or do you make a change to business partner that is more open and share strategic values? In my opinion, these are the types of questions you should really be looking at.
9. Free is never free. There is a catch and always will be. You just need to determine if you are willing to take the risks. I believe you are referring to "Makers" market. What I have found is that there are a lot of people with great ideas that would like to get capture their ideas. But there is a big difference between capturing an idea and engineering a product that is safe or meets industry specific compliance.
Best overview I have seen yet. Nice responce.
Dialing in on 3D printing. Thier needs to be a split in software between 3d Scanning and 3D printing. Printing an existing 3D model should be easy. Creating a reverse engineered 3D object is very difficult. Where the line is drawn between the two operations is not easy. If sobody want to make a simple modification to an object to be printed that should be allowed.
If you really want to start with points and end up with a mixture of Primatives, Polygons, Nurbs, and Extrusions......There is no single software that does this well for all aplications. And now you wonder if that should be a simple add in to SE? Not gonna happen.