Oh, AutoDesk…you have such a way with words. Honestly, I would rather learn to design in OpenSCAD than send AutoDesk a single penny.

  • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if you have $1001 in annual revenue, you have to pay $680? So if your business has a running cost of %50, you need to go into the red by $180 to continue running your business?

    Someone over in marketing is an idiot.

    • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody making $1000 in revenue is buying it, but yes that’s what they’re saying. However, that’d be a business expense and you’d get to deduct taxes for it. Still not amazing but yeah.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d not really be getting that much back from a deduction. You’d need over 68% of your revenue to be taxed before it would even start to matter at lower revenue amounts.

    • Overzeetop@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree it’s a silly breakpoint, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and I’m sure they feel that a 70/30 split is completely reasonable. Besides, a Fusion license is practically coins-in-the-couch compared to their architectural licensing fees. I’m sure they feel like they’re doing us a favor by pricing Fusion so low.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just so weird to go from “free for personal and low Commercial use”, up to “we want 68% of your revenue.”

        They could easily have made it a sliding scale, or gone with profit instead of revenue.