Parametric Technology lost a fifth of the

[mgnt8]

[url]http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/2007/07/06/parametric- stock-drop-markets-equity-cx_cg_0706markets18.html [/url]


"Parametric is now attractive as a takeover candidate either for a competitor seeking a quick way to expand, or a financial buyer such as a private-equity firm. The latter typically take troubled companies off the public market, address the problems by cutting unprofitable operations and unsuccessful managers, and selling them back to investors a few years later."


all you 'PTC sucks' people, who or what do you supposeis on its way out?

 

[damormino]

For our company, the straw that may break the camel's back is PTC's decision to drop support for Linux. PTC won more than a dozen seats of design and manufacturing software away from UGS (now Siemens-UGS) when our company made the switch from Windows desktops to Linux desktops. But PTC's lack of commitment to Linux threatens the staying power of this win. What's worse, PTC claims that its position on Linux is due to lack of demand for Linux. But the truth is that PTC never really supported Linux well enough to make it a workable solution for many companies. In fact, they never even tried. Many of the "pieces" of Pro/E that are really supplied by other vendors. Many of these lack support for Linux - which PTC claims is beyond PTC's control. But more than one vendor has stated the adding support for Linux would be relatively simple and straightforward. The real reason they never added support for Linux is simply that PTC never asked.
The reason all this is important is that it demonstrates PTC's lack of commitment to anything beyond the immediate short-term. PTC's goals are driven by quarter-to-quarter performance goals, rather that focusing on what will make the company successful in 3, 5, 7 years and beyond. Guiding a technology company by short-term goals is generally a recipe for failure.
This would be a good time for PTC to focus on technical competency rather than increasing short-term profitability. PTC technologies are often very disjointed. Bringing more technology in-house and empowering product development with long-term vision is in order. PTC has the most developed community in the industry. Empowering Pro/E users would be very beneficial. PTC has tried to make money off of every component they possibly can. This has deterred community-driven developments by limiting access to components that can help advance Pro/E and PTC's technologies themselves.
In short PTC needs to focus less on selling existing products and focus more on developing the product(s) of the future.

 

[oneil]

For our company, the straw that may break the camel's
back is PTC's decision to drop support for Linux. PTC won more
than a dozen seats of design and manufacturing software away from UGS
(now Siemens-UGS) when our company made the switch from Windows
desktops to Linux desktops. But PTC's lack of commitment to Linux
threatens the staying power of this win.

If you want best results choice Sun Solaris OS that is availlble now
for Intel processors (free of charge, you can download it from
www.sun.com). Historically Sun is the main development platform
for PTC so you can expect most tested Pro/E here.

 

[jelston]

In short PTC needs to focus less on selling existing products and focus more on developing the product(s) of the future.

I respectfully disagree, i thinkPTCSHOULD focus more on existing products. It seemsthat they are more interested in "pretty"functions rather than practical functions. PTC should, IMHO, concentrate on making a solid base product, because believe or not, like it or not their main competitor has.
Edited by: jelston

 

[damormino]

PTC should....concentrate on making a solid base product, because....their main competitor has.

jelston,

You make an excellent point. But I am curious who PTC's main competitor as. If it's SolidWorks, then you point seems very well founded. But I believe PTC would like to say that their competitors are Dassault (with CATIA, not SolidWorks), and Siemens-UGS (with NX). The difference is that Dassault and Siemens-UGS are PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) companies, not solid model design software companies. Also CATIA and NX are "high-end" where as SolidWorks is "mid-range".

I may be jumping to conclusions here, I am thinking this is part of PTC's conundrum. So how do you see it? Who is Pro/E's main competitor?

 

[looslib]

The industry used to put CATIA, UG/NX and Pro/E as high-end systems. Then PTC ran an ad in an industry magazine that compared Wildfire with SolidWorks. PTClowered themselves to the mid-range system category.


PTC (with Wildfire) is no different than Dassault (with CATIA), and Siemens-UGS (with NX). They are pushing the PLM/PDM space very hard. At the PTC/User meeting in June, the biggest announcement was the release of Windchill 9. Then in the fine print it syas that Windchill 9 won't be available until the beginning of the fourth quarter. Announcing the release of a product 3-4 months before its actual release is BS marketing.


As to your "not solid model design software companies", all three of them started in this space and have grown to realize that the control of the information makes more money than creating the data in the first place.

 

[damormino]

looslib,
You make excellent points. I agree that PTC's most direct competitors are CATIA and NX. But I think many users see Pro/E's "main competitor" as SolidWorks only because so many have move from Pro/E to SolidWorks. At least that's what I think jelston was saying. And your right that PTC lower itself into the mid-range by creating comparisons to SolidWorks. But SolidWorks sort of forced that.
Now we just need to figure out how to get PTC back on its feet so it can realize its potential.

 

[damormino]

One thing I've noticed reading these forums is the perception that PTC spends too much on sales and marketing and not enough on product development. Further, it appears they've looked to product development and product support whenever they need to implement cost-cutting measures. They've reduce support for operating systems. And they've apparently outsourced technical support Dubai.

1. PTC should reinvest and commit to its product development. This is really the core of their business. Add functionality to base modeling, assembly, drafting, and CAM offerings in Wildfire and enhance and update the user interface.
2. Bring tech support back home. Tech support should be tightly integrated within the company. Tech support should be encouraged and empowered to interact with product developers. This helps the developers understand how the product is being used for real-world applications. It really improves the product through an almost organic, automatic development process.
3. Get off the "Windows-only" kick. Pro/E has strengths running on Solaris. Pro/E should run on OS/X and Linux (like Siemens-UGS NX). That's how NX got the design win over PTC at Apple. There are hundreds of subcontractors to Apple in Asia ready to follow Apples lead and move to NX. In Europe, Linux is gaining momentum where it is being used for engineering design in the aircraft industry. PTC is already losing these accounts. Making Pro/E a Windows-only application gives it one more thing to have common with SolidWorks.
4. PTC should make more programming tools free instead of trying to make money on them. If Pro/Toolkit were included, people would be able to create useful add-ons and extensions for Pro/E. PTC could host these on its website. This would give Pro/E an added value for their product for virtually no cost.
5. PTC should implement their cost-cutting measures on the sales and marketing side. They should reduce their sales force. I am not suggesting they lay off all the sale people. Just the ones who make false claims about Pro/E and those who sell Pro/E to customers as if they were selling a used car. That shouldn't be too many Pro/E salespeople, should it?
6. PTC should require that all their sales people actually know how to use the software. Further, they should employ people in these positions who have some experience in the field. Whether they be a ex-drafter, machinist/toolmaker, engineering professor, or designer, they have a better rapport with prospective customers if they share something in common. If the salesperson shows that they have some insight or understanding into the engineering and manufacturing process, rather than just what they learned at the PTC sales training seminar, the customer will be much more comfortable with the prospect of purchasing the software.
7. PTC should banish PowerPoint presentations as sales tools. I can't tell you how many engineering man-hours we wasted seeing slides showing the "PLM Circle of Life" or whatever it's supposed to be. And I am not sure we need to see maps of the world showing all the PTC locations. Nor do we need pictures and logos of high-profile companies who use Pro/E like Ping and Toyota Racing. It's pretty common knowledge that they get the software for free. It means little. Instead of Power Point slides, lets see the software work. It shouldn't take weeks to plan a presentation. PTC should be able to model my existing part on the spot. That's how to win over customers.

 

[looslib]

Just one comment to your #3. Apple has been a long time UG/NX customer, as far back as beforePro/E 1.0came out. UGS ported NX to OS X to keep the business from Apple and its suppliers. NX5 is only the first public release of NX on OS X. I have heard that NX4 was used internally at Apple to prove that OS X could support the level of computing that a product like NX requires.

 

[mgnt8]

PTC needs to increase their sales & marketing, not decrease it. That's how they got into trouble in the first place. They haven't sold enough licenses & renewed enough maintenance agreements. With all the talk about PLM's & paradigms, getting people to pay for maintenance is still the most important thing. Merketing is the true area where Solidworks is overtaking PTC.


Don't forget Dassault owns CATIA & Solidworks so PTC has to competewith them on both so-called high end & low end. Although, now it seems Solidworks is reaching for the high end with increased functionality & CATIA is reaching for the low end targeting SMB's. It's like Dassault has owns McDonalds & Wendy's & placed them on the same block.


What I'm confused about is some recent aquisitions. I don't know what Arbortext is, but it seems like a stretch from the core products.

 

[prohammy]

What I'm confused about is some recent aquisitions. I don't know what Arbortext is, but it seems like a stretch from the core products.

The above is usually a sure sign that there is a VP/CEO who is only interested in portfolio expansion (his/her bonuses being a major driving force). Drift from core products also keeps your investors quite happy, as markets usually applaud this type of business activity. The down side is that after such expansions there is usually a consolidation period (which if you are also issuing profit warnings) which can leave you open to aquistions and merger activity from VC organisations....i.e. the sharks start to circle


Kev

 

[damormino]

Marketing is the true area where Solidworks is overtaking PTC.

Wrong. Users are choosing SolidWorks over Pro/E because they prefer it. Not because they see more ads for SolidWorks. If PTC focused on improving Pro/E, their users wouldn't be moving to SolidWorks. Note that maintenance renewals are down. That means Pro/E users are not renewing their maintenance. That's because many are moving to different packages. Do you really thing it's because SolidWorks has better marketing? No. Pro/E is losing it's competitive edge. PTC is losing it's lead in technical compentency. Focusing more on marketing and less on product development will only hasten Pro/E's demise.

 

[AHA-D]

Damormino, I don't think you're entirely right. Solidworks has an excellent marketing machine and seems to be in the picture all the time. SW came to the market in the same time Intergraph/Unigraphics was developing Solid Edge. If you compare both programs you can even see that SW has been closely watching the SE interface. Users working with both claim that SW is always lacking behind and offering less stability. So SW isn't the best deal around. It is precisely their marketing machine that makes companies take a look at SW for an alternative while Solid Edge is unknown to most. If you look around for reviews you'll find enough evidence in this direction. Even to the point where Solid Edge has been resumed as "the best package you won't buy".


That said there is a huge difference in the way you handle both programs. If I were to describe it short I'd said that ProE is entirely written by programmers. It is functionally alright but it is not the way one prefers to work.


Alex

 

[damormino]

Excellent point AHA-D. You are correct that SolidWorks beat SolidEdge mostly on better marketing. Your are also correct that Pro/E and SolidWorks (or SolidEdge) are different.
I still can not help but think that marketing is not the solution for Pro/E. I think PTC does do a lot of marketing. But a lot of that involves making false promises, because Pro/E lacks both usability and functionality. That's why I still think the answer lies mostly with better product development. But you are very correct that their needs to be a shift in the way Pro/E is designed to interface with and function for users. There are so many things that make Pro/E better than SolidWork (or SolidEdge). But that is marred by so many things that Pro/E does poorly. Many of these deficiencies with Pro/E could be overcome with better product development. I just hope PTC realizes that before it is too late.

 

[jelston]

There are so many things that make Pro/E better than SolidWork (or SolidEdge). But that is marred by so many things that Pro/E does poorly. Many of these deficiencies with Pro/E could be overcome with better product development. I just hope PTC realizes that before it is too late.

One aw sh!t completely neutralizes 10 atta-boys, so PTC is prolly in the hole right now.

 

[mgnt8]

Pro/E lacks both usability and functionality.

Examples? I was just thinking the other day after running thru WF 4.0 that Pro/E is better & easier than ever. I must be missing something that is clearer to you.

 

[jelston]

Pro/E lacks both usability and functionality.

Examples? I was just thinking the other day after running thru WF 4.0 that Pro/E is better & easier than ever. I must be missing something that is clearer to you.

I'm only in WF 3 but:


-the bom balloons NEVER work


-if i pick the front view, u would think the other SIX are default


-file management without a file management program is a pain


-still ain't figured out why view manipulation requires two hands. Three mouse buttons, three types of manipulation, just click one button for each type of manipulation and drag. The more i can multi-task the better





Just of the top of my head
Edited by: jelston

 

[mgnt8]

You are correct in pointing out there is room for improvment with pro/e features & functionality. There's always room for improvement. My only question is it $100 million worth of room because that's what PTC needs right now. I can't help but suspect they can't design & develop out of this corner. Neither can they aquire. Back to what got them here.

 

[jelston]

I think they need more practical real world, engineering input, simply said.

 

[damormino]

-file management without a file management program is a pain

File management is a pain because PTC makes it that way - on purpose. As others have pointed out, PTC thinks (or thought) that they can make more money on PLM than they can on design/modeling. The more Pro/E users they can get to buy Wildfire, the more money they will make. But many users - especially smaller ones, do not need PLM right away. A simpler file-based or version management would be fine for them. But that would break PTC's business model. So they don't make it easy not to use Windchill. And as a result, people who do not need Windchill initially, look toward products like SolidWorks.

What is really interesting is that PTC's strategy is based on "locking in" the customer to PTC's complete PLM solution. But this backfires when people make the initial choice to go with SolidWorks. Once they choose SolidWorks initially, PTC gets sort of "locked out" of that company.

Here is an idea that I really like:

PTC should make more programming tools free instead of trying to make
money on them. If Pro/Toolkit were included, people would be able to
create useful add-ons and extensions for Pro/E. PTC could host these
on its website. This would give Pro/E an added value for their product
for virtually no cost.

I guarantee you that the Pro/E community would create one more more simple file management solutions that would work very well for either file/directory-based storage, or storage in an free content management system like CVS or Subversion. That would eliminate the gripe about lack of file management from many people's lists.