Instead, I’m curious to examine Anagnost’s claim that neither software generally nor his software specifically are substantial costs to architecture businesses. Indeed, the seventeen signatories to the open letter are all Big Business and I am sure perfectly capable of negotiating some sort of enterprise bargain with Autodesk. Yes, architects are my people, but it’s famously hypocritical of Patrick Schumacher to complain about the cost of software while simultaneously championing unpaid architecture internships. Now I should point out that while I’m hardly rooting for Autodesk, I’m not necessarily cheering on ZHA and co. Surely Anagnost got his decimal point in the wrong place, but even if he did my guess is it wouldn’t have altered his essential conclusion that Autodesk software does not represent a substantial cost for architecture businesses.

It turns out my suspicions were correct, because in 2019 ZHA actually generated revenue of only £56m.

ZHA, of whose 600 employees let’s say 500 are Revit-using architects, would have an annual Revit bill of £1.4m and should therefore be able to generate annual revenue of £222m.

In the UK, an annual Revit subscription costs £2,796.

This claim instantly struck me as dubious: Most memorably it includes the rather snarky claim that for the seventeen original signatories to the open letter, annual Revit licensing fees represented just 0.63% of their 2019 revenues.

In contrast, the rebuttal is much more exciting.

The apology is almost instantly forgettable: platitudes on product development, proclamations of customer care, promises to do better.

Our studio doesn’t use Revit, open letters always strike me as the Chihuahua of lobbying activities (all bark, no bite) and frankly the world has bigger problems on its hands right now.īut my interest was piqued last week when Andrew Anagnost, the CEO of Autodesk, responded with a blog post comprising equal parts apology and rebuttal. The group, including Zaha Hadid Architects, Grimshaw, Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners and other prominent studios, condemned the increasing cost of ownership of Revit, its constantly changing licensing arrangements, and failure to keep pace with product development. Last month, a group of predominantly British architecture studios penned an open letter to Autodesk criticising its poor performance over recent years.

Revit licence cost