• Cover story ‘Contract killers’ – most architects overlook software small print, but today’s EULAs are redefining ownership, data rights and AI use — shifting power from users to vendors.
  _
• From pixels to prompts: How Chaos is blending AI with traditional viz, rethinking how architects explore, present and refine ideas
  _
• Autodesk shows its AI hand: Autodesk has presented live, production-ready tools, giving customers a clear view of how AI could soon reshape workflows
  _
• Autodesk Forma is finally expanding beyond its early-stage design roots with a brand-new product – Forma Building Design –  focused on detailed design

It’s available to view now, free, along with all our back issues.

Subscribe to the digital edition free + all the latest AEC technology news in your inbox, or take out a print subscription for $49 per year (free to UK AEC professionals).

The post AEC Magazine September / October 2025 appeared first on AEC Magazine.

The first time I used AutoCAD professionally was about 37 years ago. At the time I knew a licence cost thousands of pounds and was protected by a hardware dongle, which plugged into the back of the PC.

The company I worked for had been made aware by its dealer that the dongle was the proof of purchase and if stolen it would cost the same amount to replace, so we were encouraged to have it insured. This was probably the first time I read a EULA and had that weird feeling of having bought something without actually owning it. Instead, we had just paid for the right to use the software.

Back then, the main concern was piracy. Vendors were less worried about what you did with your drawings and more worried about stopping you from copying the software itself. That’s why early EULAs, and the hardware dongles that enforced them, focused entirely on access.

The contract was clear: you hadn’t bought the software, you had bought permission to use it, and that right could be revoked if you broke the rules.

Find this article plus many more in the September / October 2025 Edition of AEC Magazine

Subscribe FREE here

As computing spread through the 1980s and 1990s, so did the mechanisms of digital rights management (DRM). Dongles gave way to serial numbers, activation codes and eventually online licence checks tied to your machine or network. Each step made it harder to install the software without permission, but the scope was narrow. The EULA told you how many copies of the software you could run, what hardware it could be installed on, and that you could not reverse-engineer it.

What it didn’t do was tell you what you could or could not do with your own work. Your drawings, models and outputs were your business. The protection was wrapped tightly around the software, not around the data created with it. That boundary is what has changed today.

The rising power of the EULA

As software moved from standalone desktop products to subscription and cloud delivery, the scope of EULAs began to widen. No longer tied to a single boxed copy or physical medium, licences became fluid, covering not just installation but how services could be accessed, updated and even terminated.

The legal fine print shifted from simple usage restrictions to broad behavioural rules, often with the caveat that terms could be changed unilaterally by the vendor.

At first the transition was subtle. Subscription agreements introduced automatic renewals, service-level clauses and restrictions on transferring licences. Cloud services were layered in terms around uptime, data storage, and security responsibilities. What once was a static contract at the point of sale evolved into a living document, updated whenever the vendor saw fit. And in the last five to seven years, we have seen more frequent updates.

Software firms now have an extraordinary new power: the ability to reshape the customer relationship through the EULA itself. Where early agreements were about protecting intellectual property against piracy, modern ones increasingly function as business strategy tools. They dictate not just who can access the software, but how customers interact with their data, APIs, and even with third-party developers. The fine print was no longer just about access control; it became a mechanism of control.

EULAs are no longer obscure boilerplate legalese, tucked at the end of an installer. They have become the front line in a new battle, not over software piracy, but over who controls the data, workflows, and ecosystems that shape the future of design

Profound changes

The most striking shift in recent years is that EULAs have moved beyond software access and into the realm of customer data. What you produce with the tools (models, drawings, schedules, and outputs) has become strategically valuable to the software developers – as valuable as the software itself. Vendors now see customer data as fuel for things like analytics, training, and new AI services. The contract language has followed and there are varying degrees of land grab going on.

This year alone we have seen two firms – Midjourney and D5 Render – attempt to change their EULAs to automatically lay claim to perpetual rights access and use customer created data (mainly AI renderings), as well as the right to pass on lawsuits if any of those images infringe copyright and are subsequently used by the software vendor to train its AI models.

Many of the pure-play AI firms will lay claim to your first born given half a chance.

D5 Render provided a response to this article to clarify its position on customer data rights including details on ownership of content, training data and liability published below.

Autodesk

Closer to home, Autodesk provides another example. Its current Terms of Use, which serves as the primary agreement for subscription and cloud users, includes a clause which prohibits training AI systems on data or models created with its software. An earlier draft of this article suggested the restriction was recent, but Autodesk has since clarified that it dates back to 2018.

On a strict reading, this clause implies that even if you create designs entirely in-house, you may not be allowed to use your own data to train and develop your own AI models. If correct, Autodesk could hold the right to decide if, when, or how your data can be used for such purposes.

As we are on the cusp of an AI revolution, this is a profound change. Historically, your files were yours: a Revit model or AutoCAD drawing was protected only by your own governance. Now the licence agreement could potentially dictate not only how the software runs, but also how you can use the fruits of your own labour.

Autodesk’s licensing language creates a subtle but important tension between ownership and control. In its Terms of Use (which serves as the effective EULA for all subscription and cloud customers), Autodesk reassures customers with familiar phrases such as “You own Your Work” and “Your Content remains yours.”

On the surface, this means that the models, drawings, and other outputs you create belong to you, not Autodesk. However, deeper in the Terms of Use and the accompanying Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), the scope of what you can do with that work becomes more constrained — particularly in relation to AI or derivative use cases.

Talking with May Winfield, global director of commercial, legal and digital risks for global engineering consultancy Buro Happold, she suggests this goes further: Autodesk’s Acceptable Use Policy’s purported restrictions on customer outputs may even conflict with copyright laws in certain jurisdictions, where authors automatically own their creations unless they expressly transfer or license those rights. The question becomes: if copyright law guarantees authorship, but Autodesk contractually limits permitted uses, which prevails?

In these documents, Autodesk introduces the term “Output,” meaning any file or result generated using its software. The AUP states that customers must not use “any Offering or related Output in connection with the training of any machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithm, software, or system.” In practice, this means that even though Autodesk concedes ownership of your designs, it may contractually restrict you from applying them in one of the most strategically valuable ways: training your own AI models.

I know many of the more progressive AEC firms that attend our NXT BLD event are training their own in-house AI based on their Revit models, Revit derived DWGs and PDFs. With no caveats or carve outs for customers, they potentially now have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their data. As worded, the broad use of the word ‘output’ could theoretically even apply to an Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) file exported from Revit, as it’s an output from Autodesk’s product stack, which could mean you are not even allowed to train AI on an open standard!

Legally, the company has not taken your intellectual property; instead, it may have ring-fenced its permitted uses, in a very specific way. This creates what I’d characterise as a “legal DRM moat” around customer data.

Autodesk potentially positions itself as the arbiter of how your data can be exploited, leaving you in possession of your files but without full freedom to decide their fate. The fine print ensures Autodesk maintains leverage over emerging AI workflows, even while telling customers their data still belongs to them. And the one place where this restriction doesn’t apply is within Autodesk’s cloud ecosystem, now called Autodesk Platform Services (APS). Only last month at Autodesk University, Autodesk was showing the AI training of data within the Autodesk Cloud.

Autodesk provided a response to this article, published below.

For clarity, several edits have since been made to this article.

Knock-on risks for consultants

Winfield also points out that Autodesk’s broad claims over “outputs” may have knock-on consequences for customer–client agreements. Most design and consultancy contracts require the consultant to warrant that deliverables are original and fully owned by them. If a vendor asserts ownership rights through its licence terms, that warranty could be undermined. The risk goes further: consultancy agreements often contain indemnities, requiring the designer to protect the client against copyright breaches or claims. If a software vendor were to allege ownership or misuse under its EULA, a client might look to recover damages from the consultant. This creates a potential double exposure — liability to the vendor, and liability to the client.

Possible reasons

The rationale behind this clause is open to interpretation. Autodesk maintains that its intent is to protect intellectual property and ensure AI use occurs within secure, governed environments. Some industry observers worry that the breadth could inadvertently chill legitimate customer innovation, despite Autodesk’s stated intent.

Others have speculated that such clauses could serve to pre-empt potential misuse of design data by large AI firms. However, Autodesk’s 2018 publication date predates the current wave of generative AI, suggesting the clause was originally framed more broadly as an IP-protection measure, challenging Autodesk’s hold on its customers. 2018 is a long time before these major AI players were a potential threat.

The short solution to this would be for Autodesk to refine the language in its Terms of Use and not have such an implied broad restriction on customers creating their own trained AIs on their own design data, irrespective of the software that produced it.

There is a lot of daylight between what Autodesk claims to be its intent and the plain language of what is written. If the intent is to stop reverse engineering of Autodesk AI IP, then why not state that clearly?

The reverse engineering of its products and services is covered quite extensively in section 13 Autodesk Proprietary Rights in its General Terms. Machine Learning, AI, data harvesting and API, are all in addition to this.

When Nathan Miller, a digital design strategist and developer from Proving Ground, discovered these limitations, he ran a a series of posts on Linkedin. Prior to this none of the AEC firms we had spoken with for this article had any insight into this, despite the Terms of Service being published seven years ago.

While it was certainly a topic hotly commented on, the only Autodesk-related person to add their thoughts to the LinkedIn posts was Aaron Wagner of reseller Arkance. He commented:

“I don’t think the common interpretation is accurate to the spirit of that clause. Your data is your data and the way you use it is under your own discretion. Of course, you should always seek legal counsel to refine any grey areas.

“This statement to me reads that the clause is from a standpoint of Autodesk wanting to protect its products from being reverse engineered and hold themselves free of liability of sharing private information, but model element authors can still freely use AI/ML to study their own data / designs and improve them.”

Buro Happold’s Winfield gave her perspective, “Contract interpretation is generally not impacted by spirit of a clause – if the drafting is clear, it is not changed by the assertion of a different intention? Unless there are contradictions in other clauses and copyright law then it all needs to be read together and squared up to be interpreted in a workable way? It may be the “outputs” in the clause needs to qualify / clarify its intentions, if different from the seemingly clear drafting of read alone?”

The interpretation that this was a sweeping restriction on AI training using any output from Autodesk software has not gone unnoticed by major customers. Autodesk already has a reputation for running compliance audits and issuing fines when licence breaches are discovered, so the presence of this clause in an updated, binding contract has raised alarm.

The fear was simple: if the restriction exists, it can be enforced. Several design IT directors have already told their boards that, on a strict reading of Autodesk’s updated terms, their firms are probably now out of compliance – not for piracy, but for training their own AI models, on their own project data.

Some of the commenters on Miller’s original LinkedIn post, reported that they raised the issue with Autodesk execs in meetings. By and large these execs had not heard of the EULA changes and said they would go find out more information.

Other vendors

Looking around at what other firms have done here, their EULAs include clauses about AI training of data, but it always appears to be in relation to protecting IP or reverse engineering commercial software – not broad prohibitions.

Adobe has explicit rules around its Firefly generative AI features and the company’s Generative AI User Guidelines forbid customers from using any Firefly-generated output to train other AI or machine learning models. However, in product-specific terms, Adobe defines “Input” and “Output” as your content and extends the same protections to both.

Graphisoft has so far left customer data largely unconstrained in terms of AI use. Bentley Systems sits somewhere in between, allowing AI outputs for your use but prohibiting their use in building competing AI systems. The standard Allplan EULA / licence terms do not appear to contain blanket prohibitions on using output for AI training.

Meanwhile, Autodesk’s wording has no caveats or carve out for customers’ data just what appears to be a blanket restriction on AI training using outputs from its software, combined with an exception for its own cloud ecosystem. This appears to effectively grant the company a monopoly over how design data can fuel AI. Customers are free to create, but if they wish to train internal AI on their own project history, the contract could shut the door — unless that training happens inside Autodesk’s APS environment. The effect is to funnel innovation into Autodesk’s platform, where the company retains commercial leverage.

This mirrors tactics used in other industries. Social media platforms, for example, restrict third-party scraping to ensure AI training occurs only within their walls – although in that instance the third party would be using data it does not own.

If licence agreements prevent firms from using their own outputs to train AI, they forfeit the ability to build unique, in-house intelligence from their past projects

In finance, regulators have intervened to stop institutions from controlling both infrastructure and the datasets flowing through them. Europe’s Digital Markets Act directly targets such gatekeeping, while US antitrust agencies are scrutinising restrictive contract terms that entrench platform dominance.

For the AEC sector, the potential impact of the restrictions in Autodesk’s Acceptable Use Policy is clear: it risks concentrating AI innovation inside Autodesk’s ecosystem, raising barriers for independent development and narrowing customer choice.

Proving is difficult

How Autodesk might enforce an AI training ban is an open question. Traditional licence audits can detect unlicensed installs or overuse. Meanwhile, proving that a customer has trained an AI on Autodesk outputs is way more complex. But Autodesk file formats (DWG, RVT, etc.) do contain unique structural fingerprints that could, in theory, be detected in a trained model’s weights or outputs – for example, if an AI consistently reproduces proprietary layering systems, metadata tags, or parametric structures unique to Autodesk tools.

Autodesk could also monitor API usage patterns: large-scale systematic exports or conversions may signal that datasets are being harvested for training. Another possible avenue is watermarking — embedding invisible markers in outputs that survive export and could later be detected.

APIs, APS and developers

Autodesk is also making significant changes to other areas of its business – changes that could have a big impact on those that develop or use complementary software tools. Autodesk’s API and Autodesk Platform Services (APS) ecosystem has long been central to the company’s success, enabling customers and commercial third parties to extend tools like Autodesk Revit and Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC).

But what was once a relatively open environment is now being reshaped into a monetised, tightly governed platform — with serious implications for customers and developers.

Nathan Miller of Proving Ground points out that virtually every practice he has worked with relies on opensource scripts, third-party add-ins, or in-house extensions. These are the utilities that make Autodesk’s software truly productive. By introducing broad restrictions and fresh monetisation barriers, Autodesk risks eroding the very ecosystem that helped drive its dominance.

The most visible change is the shift of APS into a metered, consumption-based service. Previously bundled into subscriptions, APIs will now incur line-item costs for common tasks such as model translations, batch automations and dashboard integrations.

A capped free tier remains, but high value services like Model Derivative, Automation and Reality Capture will now be billed per use. For firms, this means operational budgets must now account for API spend, with the risk of projects stalling mid-delivery if quotas are exceeded or unexpected charges triggered.

Autodesk has also tightened authentication rules. All integrations must be registered with APS and use Autodesk-controlled OAuth scopes. These scopes, which define the exact permissions an app has, can be added, redefined or retired by Autodesk — improving security, but also centralising control over what kinds of applications are permitted.

Perhaps the most profound change is not technical, but contractual. Firms can still create internal tools for their own use. But turning those into commercial products — or even sharing them with peers — now requires Autodesk’s explicit approval. The line between “internal tool” and “commercial app” is no longer a matter of technology but of contract law. Innovation, once free to circulate, is now fenced in.

This changing landscape for software development is not unique to Autodesk. Dassault Systèmes (DS), which is strong in product design, manufacturing, automotive, and aerospace, has sparked controversy by revising its agreements with third party developers for its Solidworks MCAD software. DS is demanding developers hand over 10% of their turnover along with detailed financial disclosures. Small firms fear such terms could make their businesses unviable.

Across the CAD/BIM sector, ecosystems are being re-engineered into revenue streams. What were once open pipelines of user-driven innovation are narrowing into gated conduits, designed less to empower customers than to deliver shareholder returns.

Why all this matters

The stakes are high for both customers and developers. For customers, the greatest risk is losing meaningful control over their design history. Project files, BIM models and CAD data are no longer just records of completed work; they are the foundation for future AI-driven workflows. If licence agreements prevent firms from using their own outputs to train AI, they forfeit the ability to build unique, in-house intelligence from their past projects. The value of their data, arguably their most strategic asset, is redirected into the vendor’s ecosystem. The result is growing dependence: firms must rely on vendor tools, AI models and pricing, with fewer options to innovate independently or move their data elsewhere.

For software developers, the risks are equally severe. Independent vendors and in-house innovators who once built add-ons or utilities to extend core CAD/BIM platforms now face new costs and restrictions. Revenue-sharing models, such as Dassault Systèmes’ 10% royalty scheme, threaten commercial viability, especially for smaller firms. When API use is metered and distribution fenced in by contract, ecosystems shrink. Innovation slows, customer choice narrows, and vendor lock-in grows.

AI is the existential threat vendors don’t want to admit. Smarter systems could slash the number of licences needed on a project, deliver software on demand, and let firms build private knowledge vaults more valuable than off-the-shelf tools. Vendors see the danger: EULAs are now their defensive moat, crafted to block customers from using their own data to fuel AI. The fine print isn’t just about compliance — it’s about making sure disruption happens on the vendor’s terms, not those of the customer.

This trajectory is not inevitable. Customers and developers can push back. Large firms, government bodies and consortia hold leverage through procurement. They can demand carve-outs that preserve ownership of outputs and guarantee the right to train AI. Developers, too, can resist punitive revenue-sharing schemes and press for fairer terms. Only collective action will ensure innovation remains in the hands of the wider AEC community, not locked in vendor boardrooms.

The tightening of EULAs and developer agreements is not happening in a vacuum. In Europe, new regulations like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Data Act could directly challenge these practices. The DMA targets “gatekeepers” that restrict competition, while the Data Act enshrines customer rights to access and use data they generate, including for AI training. Clauses restricting firms from training AI on their own outputs may sit uncomfortably with these principles.

In the US, antitrust law is less settled but moving in the same direction. The FTC has signalled increased scrutiny of contract terms that suppress competition, and restrictions such as Autodesk’s AI-output restriction or Solidworks’ 10% developer royalty could draw attention.

For customers and developers, this creates negotiating leverage. Large firms, government clients, and consortia can push for carve-outs citing regulatory rights, while developers may resist punitive revenue-sharing as disproportionate. Yet smaller players face a harder reality: challenging vendors risks losing access to platforms that underpin longstanding businesses.

A Bill of Rights?

With so many software firms busily updating their business models, EULAs and terms, the one group here that is standing still and taking the full force of this wave are customers. A constructive way forward could be the creation of a Bill of Rights for AEC Software customers — a simple but powerful framework that customers could insist their vendors sign up to and be held accountable against. The goal is not to hobble innovation, but to ensure it happens on a foundation of fairness and trust. Knowing this month’s ‘we have updated our EULA’ will not transgress some core concepts.

At its heart we’re suggesting five core principles:

Data Ownership – a statement that customers own what they create; vendors cannot claim control of drawings, models, or project data through the fine print.

AI Freedom – guarantees that firms may use their own outputs to train internal AI systems, preserving the ability to innovate independently rather than relying solely on vendor-driven tools.

Developer fairness – ensures that APIs remain open, with transparent and non-punitive revenue models that allow third-party ecosystems to thrive.

Transparency – requires vendors to clearly disclose when and how customer data is used in their own AI training or analytics.

Portability – commits vendors to interoperability and open standards, so that customers are never locked into one ecosystem against their will.

Such a Bill of Rights would not prevent Autodesk, Bentley Systems, Nemetschek, Trimble and others from building profitable AI services or new subscription tiers. But it would establish clear boundaries: vendors innovate and capture value, but not at the expense of customer autonomy. For customers, developers, and ultimately the built environment itself, this would restore balance and accountability in a market where the fine print has become as important as the software itself.

AEC Magazine is now working with a group of customers, developers and software vendors to see how this could be shaped in the coming months.

Conclusion

EULAs are no longer obscure boilerplate legalese, tucked at the end of an installer. They have become the front line in a new battle, not over software piracy, but over who controls the data, workflows, and ecosystems that shape the future of design.

In my view, as currently worded, Autodesk’s clause could be interpreted as a prohibition on AI training, although this may be counter to Autodesk’s intentions with regards to customer ‘outputs’. Furthermore, Dassault Systèmes’ demand for a slice of developer revenues illustrates just how quickly the ground is shifting. Contracts are no longer just protective wrappers around software; they are strategic levers which can be used to lock in customers and monetise ecosystems.

This should concern everyone in AEC. Customers risk losing the ability to use their own project history to innovate, while mature developers face sudden, new revenue-sharing models that could undermine entire businesses. Left unchallenged, the result will be less competition, less innovation, and greater dependency on a handful of large vendors whose first loyalty is to shareholders, not users.

The only path forward I see is collective action. Customers and developers must push back, demand transparency, insist on long-term contractual safeguards, and possibly unite around a shared Bill of Rights for AEC software. The question is no longer academic: in the age of AI, do you own your tools and your data — or does your vendor own you?

Editor’s note / Autodesk response:

In response to this article, Autodesk provided the following statement:

“The clause included in Martyn Day’s recent article has been part of our Terms of Use since they were originally published in May 2018. 

 “This clause was written to prevent the use of AI/ML technology to reverse engineer Autodesk’s IP or clone Autodesk’s product functionalities, a common protection for software companies. It does not broadly restrict our users’ ability to use their IP or give Autodesk ownership to our users’ content.

“We know things are moving fast with the accelerated advancement in AI/ML technology. We, along with just about every software company, are adapting to this changing landscape, which includes actively assessing how best to meet the evolving needs and use cases of our customers while protecting Autodesk’s core IP rights. As these technologies advance, so will our approach, and we look forward to sharing more in the months ahead.”

Autodesk also clarified that the License and Services Agreement only applies to legacy customers who still use perpetual licenses. The Terms of Use from May 2018 supersedes that agreement to cover both desktop and cloud services.

Correction (8 Oct 2025): An earlier version of this article incorrectly suggested that the changes to the Terms of Use were made in May 2025. Based on Autodesk’s statement above this article has now been corrected and updated for clarity

D5 Render’s response

In response to this article, D5 Render provided the following statement:

We fully understand and share the community’s concerns regarding data rights in the evolving field of AI. We remain committed to maintaining clear and fair agreements that protect user rights while fostering innovation.

Our Terms of Service (publicly available at www.d5render.com/service-agreement) do not claim any ownership or perpetual usage rights over user-generated content, including AI-rendered images. On the contrary, Section 6 of our Terms of Service explicitly states that users “retain rights and ownership of the Content to the fullest extent possible under applicable law; D5 does not claim any ownership rights to the Content.”

When users upload content to our services, D5 is granted only a non-exclusive, purpose-limited operational license, which is a standard clause in most cloud-based software products. This license merely allows us to technically operate, maintain, and improve the service. D5 will never use user content as training data for the Services or for developing new products or services without users’ express consent.

As for liability, Sections 8 and 9 of our Terms of Service are standard in the software industry. They are designed to protect D5 from risks arising from user-uploaded content that infringes on third-party rights. These clauses are not intended to transfer the liability of D5’s own actions to users.

Explainer #1 – EULA vs Terms of Use: what’s the difference?

At first glance, a EULA (End User Licence Agreement) and Terms of Use can look like the same thing. In practice, they operate at different levels — and together form the legal framework that governs how customers engage with software and cloud services.

The EULA is the traditional licence agreement tied to desktop software. It explains that you do not own the software itself, only the right to use it under certain conditions. Typical clauses cover installation limits, restrictions on copying or reverse-engineering, and confirmation that the software is licensed, not sold.

The Terms of Use apply more broadly to online services, platforms, APIs and cloud tools. They include acceptable use rules, data storage and sharing conditions, API restrictions, and often a right for the vendor to change the terms unilaterally.

One unresolved issue is how to interpret contradictions. If the EULA states ‘you own your work’ but the Acceptable Use Policy restricts what you can do with that work, and neither agreement specifies which takes precedence, which clause governs? In practice, customers may only discover the answer in the event of a dispute — an unsettling prospect for firms relying on predictable rights.

Explainer #2 – Why is data the new goldmine?

As the industry moves into an era defined by artificial intelligence and machine learning, customer content has become more than just the product of design work, it has become the raw material for training and insight.

BIM and CAD models are no longer viewed solely as deliverables for projects, but as vast datasets that can be mined for patterns, efficiencies, and predictive value. This is why software vendors increasingly frame customer content as “data goods” rather than private work.

With so much of the design process shifting to cloud-based platforms, vendors are in a powerful position to influence, and often restrict, how those datasets can be accessed and reused.

The old mantra that “data is the new oil” captures this shift neatly: just as oil companies controlled not only the drilling but also the refining and distribution, software firms now want to control both the pipelines of design data and the AI refineries that turn it into intelligence.

What used to be customer-owned project history is being reconceptualised as a strategic asset for software vendors themselves and EULAs and Terms of Use are the contractual tools that allow them to lock down that value.

Explainer #3 – Autodesk’s Terms of Use

What it says

Autodesk’s Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) appears to ban AI/ML training on any “output” from its software unless done within Autodesk’s APS cloud. This could include models, drawings, exports, even IFCs.

Why it matters

Customers risk losing the ability to train internal AI on their own design history. Strict licence audits mean firms could be flagged non-compliant even without intent.

Legal experts warn the AUP’s broad claims over “outputs” may conflict with copyright law, which in many jurisdictions gives authors automatic ownership of their creations.

Consultants could face knock-on risks if client contracts require them to warrant full ownership of deliverables — raising potential indemnity exposure.

Autodesk gains leverage by funnelling AI innovation into its paid ecosystem.

The big picture

This move mirrors gatekeeping strategies in other tech sectors, where platforms wall off data to consolidate control. Regulators in the EU (Digital Markets Act, Data Act) and US antitrust bodies are increasingly scrutinising such practices.

Explainer #4 – Developers at risk

What changed?

Autodesk has overhauled Autodesk Platform Services (APS): APIs are now metered, consumption-based, and gated by stricter terms. While firms can still build internal tools, sharing or commercialising scripts now requires Autodesk’s explicit approval.

Why it matters

Independent developers face new costs and quotas for integrations that were once bundled into subscription fees. In-house teams must now budget for API usage, turning process automation into an ongoing operational cost.

Quota limits mean projects risk disruption if thresholds are unexpectedly exceeded mid-delivery.

The contractual line between “internal tool” and “commercial app” is now defined by Autodesk, not developers.

Innovation that once flowed freely into the wider ecosystem is fenced in, with Autodesk deciding what can be shared.

The big picture

Across the CAD/BIM sector, developer ecosystems are being monetised and restricted to generate shareholder returns. What were once open innovation pipelines are narrowing into vendor-controlled platforms, threatening the independence of smaller developers and reducing customer choice.

Recommended viewing: May Winfield @ NXT DEV

At AEC Magazine’s NXT DEV event this year, May Winfield, global director of commercial, legal and digital risks for Buro Happold presented “EULA and Other Agreements: You signed up to what?”, where she invited the audience to reconsider the contracts they’ve implicitly accepted.

How many users digest the fine print of EULAs and AI tool terms? Winfield warns that their assumptions often misalign with contractual reality and highlights key clauses that tend to lurk in user agreements: ownership of content, usage rights, and liability limitations.

In her presentation May does not offer legal advice but she provides a practical reminder: what you think you own or can do might be constrained by what you signed up to — underscoring the urgency for users, developers, and governance bodies to delve into EULAs and demand clarity.

■ Watch @ www.nxtaec.com

The post Contract killers: how EULAs are shifting power from users to shareholders appeared first on AEC Magazine.

The construction industry is one of the largest sectors on the planet. Yet even with an annual value estimated at $14 trillion, it has so far yet to experience digital disruption.

The potential is huge, too, and billions of dollars were invested in construction and property technology (contech and proptech) start-ups over the past five years, with the mission of sparking a revolution in how we create the built environment.

Yet what has been perceived as a field brimming with potential is still to produce the desired fruit. In this article, we will delve into the key challenges facing AEC start-ups and how these might be overcome.

In recent years, I have witnessed first hand the growth of the construction tech industry, through my own involvement in running a start-up, taking on advisory roles for government organisations and corporates, and working in the construction material commerce space. That’s given me an in-depth view of the huge potential here, and how far we are from filling the current gap. I present my views with hope that it can help AEC entrepreneurs and investors find some common ground on which to build.

Find this article plus many more in the May / June 2025 Edition of AEC Magazine

Subscribe FREE here

Why the delay?

So what makes construction so tricky and so seemingly immune to digital disruption as compared to other sectors? As I see it, construction tech start-ups face a number of key challenges, including:

Dinosaurs versus unicorns: Construction is a game that comes with a very heavy ticket price to play. Not only does it require a strong financial backbone and stamina, it also takes a lot of experience – one that cannot be bought, even with lavish funding. As opposed to the IT sector, where new start-ups can spring up to become market-leading mega companies with valuations measured in billions of dollars in just a few years, the building sector is dominated by veterans. Even in the construction software space, the market is led by well-established players offering tech stacks that are often 20 to 30 years old. This would seem like a natural breeding ground for a new age to emerge, where the Canva, Figma or Wiz of construction might flourish, but it is yet to happen. Let’s begin the analysis by seeing how the money is spread.

Construction start-ups are from Venus, venture capitalists (VCs) are from Mars: Traditionally, most VCs come from a software-first mindset, in which success is defined in terms of recurring revenue, user acquisition, and scalable SaaS models. They focus on large user numbers, lean, quick growth and owning categories. In contrast, construction start-ups are rooted in a world of physical infrastructure, where value is created through complex, capital-heavy projects with long lead times, tight regulations, and high execution risk. Even if they are software-oriented, the mindset is completely different, as we will explore later in this article. VCs expect exponential growth curves and monthly churn reports, while construction founders grapple with bidding cycles, procurement hurdles and delivery timelines measured in years, not sprints. This disconnect can make it difficult for construction innovators to translate their impact into metrics that VCs can understand. And that looks set to remain the case, at least until a new generation of investors emerges who are prepared to go deep into the screw level. Some construction tech oriented VCs have emerged over the last years such as Foundaental, Brick and Mortar, Building Ventures, Blackhorn Ventures, Zacua and Kompas. Some leading construction companies also make corporate venture capital (or CVC) available to promising start-ups. These include Cemex, Saint-Gobain and Vinci. However, we still need the ‘heavy lifters’ of the VC world to help scale the field.

Construction tech versus tech for construction: One of the crucial misconceptions of this market lies in the failure to distinguish between these two verticals. The term ‘construction tech’ refers to innovations in how we build things, focusing on construction processes, materials and methodologies. The term ‘tech for construction’, by contrast, is used to refer to pure technological applications, such as management software, Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, AR/VR and others. In other words, these are technologies that can be applied to construction, but are not specific to the field. But VCs tend to invest in the second category, the pure tech models, seeking the next Uber, Figma, Airbnb, Facebook or Tesla of construction. Their investments aim for disruptive, high-growth technology, but are often disconnected from the ground – or in our case, the building site. Fields like manufacturing, materials, and on-site work have always been less lucrative to tech investors, but this is where the greatest potential for sector-wise change lies.

Warning: hurdles ahead

So what are the biggest hurdles faced by construction tech start-ups? In my experience, the most prevalent barriers include:

1. The ‘butterfly effect’, where risk is greater than gain: In construction, time is money and projects are inherently risky. Each project is unique, involving numerous variables and stakeholders. For a start-up, developing a new solution might be straightforward and worth the risk of trying, but that’s only because they are not paying the price of their mistakes. A minor deviation from the plan can lead to significant delays and cost overruns in completely unexpected areas. The potential risks associated with untested technology are often too great for construction companies to bear. Therefore, start-ups must provide watertight solutions with a clear silo of their work scope that mitigate the risk.

2. Recognition that a one-trick pony is not a unicorn: Despite being a $14 trillion industry, the construction sector is a relatively small market for point solutions. These are specific, narrow applications designed to address particular problems. The number of practicing AEC professionals is estimated at between 3 million and 4 million, which translates to a limited customer base for specialised software solutions. It’s important to note that the AEC software market is valued at around $6 billion, controlled by centralised players. This discrepancy highlights the limited scope and scalability of many construction tech solutions. While a point solution might solve a specific problem efficiently, its applicability is often too narrow to attract widespread adoption to build a unicorn.

3. A monopolised software ecosystem: Due to the heavy nature of the industry, software start-ups face a difficult situation in which they can never replace the existing platforms, but only integrate. Players such as Autodesk, Nemetschek, Bentley Systems are so heavily rooted in the industry that start-ups must adapt their solution to mature infrastructure and formats that are sometimes not at the forefront. Closed formats create a very muddy puddle in which to play, while IFC simply does not provide enough of a format. This rough landing makes it difficult for new entrants to board. Start-ups must fight an uphill battle before even entering the ring. Creating non-intrusive on-boardings that don’t require switching and implementing a long learning curve can drastically improve chances of success

4. The difference between a service and SaaS: The days of software training and specialists are over. In the instant AI age, expecting users to retrain with complex new tools as in the past is unrealistic. With tech solutions popping up like mushrooms after the rain, users lack the skills to go deep and this often creates problems for anyone making a serious construction application. As a result, construction tech companies frequently need to provide comprehensive services alongside their product to tailor fit it and follow through. This service-intensive model can be very heavy and costly not just for the customer, but also for the start-up. Given the ‘plug-and-play’ expectations of the market, start-ups can easily find themselves in a swamp of unprofitable projects that far exceed their initial offering and remain unscalable. It is key to build products that are self-maintained and exercised by the client.

5. Makers developing for makers: A significant challenge in achieving product/ market fit arises when creators design solutions to solve their own problems, rather than addressing broader industry needs. This insular approach often results in products that resonate very much with a niche audience, but fail to gain traction in the wider market. For instance, an engineer might develop a tool to streamline a specific aspect of their workflow, without considering how many professionals face the same issue, or if the solution can be scaled. It may be so that 90% of their colleagues will find it useful, yet there are not enough of them to build a large business, or they can’t afford to pay the required prices. This type of company may be quick to build traction, but that can be very misleading.

6. Lengthy time-to-market: Construction projects often span two to five years. This extended timeline is fundamentally at odds with the rapid growth expectations applied to start-ups and their investors. Start-ups typically need to demonstrate exponential growth and achieve scalability quickly. However, the slow pace of the construction industry means that it can take years for a start-up to complete a real proof of concept (POC), regardless of how much funding it has raised. If a project spans three years, and a new tech is onboarded for trial, it could take a few years before the technology becomes a watertight solution and only then scan it start to scale. This protracted timeline hinders the ability to achieve the rapid growth necessary to reach unicorn status, deterring investors who seek faster returns.

Turning disadvantage to advantage

Having described the hurdles, let’s remember that along with barriers comes potential. The biggest advantage of construction is scale and stability. If it works, it’s huge! Yes, it takes a bit more time, but that time is won back as a competition barrier.

The market has proven that the building sector is one of the safest and most reliable markets for those with a competitive advantage. Start-ups offering true innovation can win big and become unicorns if they have the patience and foresight to understand their path. Seeking quick returns and hyper growth from the get-go is likely to lead to disappointment.

For me, the AEC unicorn formula is:

Onboarding ease * users * profit = Potential

This simple equation provides a quick analysis tool to predict the likely success of startups. It is simply a grading system based on three crucial metrics. Combine these together in the formula, and you will find a useful grading system to evaluate success.

The Unicorn formula for AEC

Onboarding (Grade factor 1-10)
Ease of adoption • Required support • Risks associated

Potential users
Total amount of users or projects. Take 10% of that.

Profitability
Estimated profit per user/project.

Ease of onboarding: This is perhaps the most crucial determiner of a go/no-go situation. As previously mentioned before, there is no time in today’s world for deep training and long integration times. Smooth onboarding and usage is the key to winning customers. This is calculated as a factor between 1 and 10, where 10 indicates the optimum ease of use.

Users: These are users/projects that show potential to become customers. The goal is to identify a realistic number of customers who are willing to pay for the tech product or service and assume 10% of that number will be won over.

Profit: This is a term that isn’t sufficiently talked about in a start-up world where everyone is chasing scale, but construction is a cut-throat business and if your product is not competitive or is just a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than a ‘must-have’, it will not survive. Profit margins should be watertight and based on competitive advantage.

Conclusion

As we step into the age of AI and automation, it is predicted that construction will transform itself, and with it the nature of its tools and the daily lives of its workers.

This is an exciting time in history and an opportunity to get on board. AI is not only being used in the tools that we make – it’s also being used to make them. That’s lowering barriers to entry like never before. For this reason, we can expect to see a big increase in digital solutions from developers of all sizes, opening doors that for years were thought of as closed.

I hope this article helps you position yourself in this brave new world, either as a user, an entrepreneur or an investor looking to take part in the digital transformation of construction. I am certain that if all six points are addressed, success is guaranteed. Best of luck to us all!

Tal Friedman will be presenting at NXT BLD on 11 June – ‘From AI visions to fabricated realities’

The post Why are there no unicorns in construction? appeared first on AEC Magazine.

Bentley Systems has announced the selection of James Lee as chief operating officer. Lee transitions from Google, where he held the position of General Manager overseeing startups and artificial intelligence operations at Google Cloud.

Before his tenure at Google, Lee dedicated 12 years at SAP, serving in roles including chief operating officer for SAP Ariba and Fieldglass, alongside chief operating officer and general manager of sales for SAP Greater China.

Lee will enhance Bentley’s cross-functional coordination across planning and implementation, will champion operations, and will supervise operations in China, Japan, and portfolio advancement including growth ventures such as Bentley Asset Analytics.

Bentley System’s CEO Nicholas Cumins remarked, ““I am excited to welcome James, a world-class operational leader, to Bentley. His energy and experience managing operations and investment initiatives at SAP and Google will be instrumental to Bentley as we continue to scale up and drive our ambitious growth agenda.”

To boost innovation and strengthen alignment between product execution and technology strategy, Bentley has also declared that product development responsibilities have been unified under chief technology officer Julien Moutte. Consequently, the chief product officer position has been removed, and through mutual understanding Mike Campbell will depart the organisation.

Cumins explained, “Streamlining our organisational reporting structure and consolidating product development under Julien puts us in a stronger position to capture the many growth opportunities that we have opened up with infrastructure AI and that are incremental to our core business and consistent momentum. Without a doubt, AI is our generation’s paradigm shift and has huge potential for improving infrastructure delivery and performance.”

Caption: James Lee, Bentley Systems COO

The post Bentley Systems appoints new COO appeared first on AEC Magazine.

At AEC Magazine, we’ve lost track of the countless ways software companies have altered their pricing and licensing models over the nearly 20 years we’ve covered BIM.

What’s evident is that this pace of change is accelerating as developers continue to refine their business models, shifting from traditional per-unit pricing to a ‘service-based’ model.

It now appears that if one major player successfully implements a change— measured by increased revenue or seats sold— the rest of the market will sheepishly follow.

This hasn’t helped customers. Design IT directors manage tech stacks which typically comprise multiple products, from multiple vendors, across multiple sites and possibly multiple geos.

Licence model changes are typically made to increase the revenue of software firms. This increases the cost of ownership and can also increase the time it takes to manage those licences. In short, it drains hard pressed budgets. Operating the same product, but on multiple different licences, increases the chance of being fined under licence compliance audits.

When a firm consistently adds new seats each year, the likelihood of differences in End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) increases, especially as software companies operate multi-year licensing but are rapidly evolving their licence models.

One might expect vendors are offering diverse licensing options to accommodate the wide variety of business needs, but subscription models in our industry remain surprisingly inflexible.

Business evolution

The design technology market is what one would call a mature software industry. In the 1980s, firms like Autodesk and VersaCAD pushed architects to trade in their drawing boards for desktop CAD. Today, it’s safe to say that professional design firms now rely on CAD systems far more than paper.

Over time, the opportunity for new sales has diminished, leading software firms to focus on getting existing customers to purchase more. In business parlance this means that the CAD market is highly saturated and highly penetrated. This saturation often results in diversification, with vendors developing additional products to expand their customer base. Their sales departments become very concerned about ‘attachment rates’.

Companies like Bentley Systems and Autodesk, once known for a single product, have now expanded to offer hundreds of solutions across various vertical markets.

Occasionally, a new generation of technology emerges, allowing companies to replace outdated systems. These shifts are rare, occurring roughly every 10 to 15 years.

Historically, such transitions have aligned with major operating system changes, like the shift from Unix to DOS or DOS to Windows. However, during these periods of transformation, it’s never certain that the dominant applications or leading software firms will retain their top position post-transition.

Find this article plus many more in the Sept / Oct 2024 Edition of AEC Magazine

Subscribe FREE here

Perpetual to subs

For about 30 years, software firms sold perpetual licences, granting users never ending access to a particular version of the design software. Depending on the development cycle, every few years the vendor would go back to try and upsell the customer to the next release by hopefully providing features deemed worthy of the upgrade price. This was always a hard slog for software firms and cost a lot in marketing and sales. Maintenance fees became common to naturally progress the sales cycle. Still, many customers would not upgrade every release, typically upgrading every three years. It was possible to be an Autodesk customer that hadn’t spent any money with Autodesk for years.

As software vendors diversified and created numerous applications for design management and creation, the opportunity for bundling emerged. Companies like Corel, with CorelDRAW, pioneered the idea—appealing to users’ desire for perceived value by offering multiple applications at a discounted rate. Autodesk followed suit in 2012, capitalising on vertical markets by bundling popular products like AutoCAD, Revit, and Navisworks.

In 2013 Adobe then championed subscription and moved its Creative Suite product delivery to the cloud. Subscription replaced perpetual licences and the cost of ownership per licence went up.

Pretty much all software firms learnt from Adobe’s experience. In the CAD space Autodesk was first to manage the migration.

In 2016, Autodesk introduced subscription and transferred Suites into Collections as an alternative to perpetual licences. By 2020 Autodesk wanted to stop perpetual sales and convert customers and gave customers a number of years to migrate. At the same time, it culled network licences and moved to named user sign on, mandating a seat per user.

While this was shocking, Autodesk did offer a killer deal, offering two subscription licences for every single perpetual licence handed in, for a period of 8 years. Depending on when firms moved, some will need to start paying for these extra licences from 2028 onwards (in four years’ time). It’s likely that the design IT manager who signed up for the deal, is no longer at the same company.

The last five years

Today, we have a world of connected cloud and mobile apps combined with named user subscriptions, giving vendors direct access to customer usage and contact details, which were previously obscured by reseller channels. This direct link also opened-up new possibilities for increasingly direct sales models, services and usage billing. Procore, for example, has championed ‘per project’ fees.

As software firms have further refined their cloud and subscription packages, many historical discounts have been removed.

In response, some customers have adjusted their strategies to fit their budgets, downsizing certain products and replacing applications from developers perceived to be price gouging. Of course, this approach only works when viable alternatives are available.

We’ve come across several instances where software vendors have raised prices by 100-300%, making it difficult for existing customers to avoid steep hikes or forced product migrations. Vendors often pressure clients by threatening to shut down hosted servers for ‘legacy’ software, forcing them to accept new terms or face repurchasing all software at full market price.

Design IT directors already juggle billable hours alongside IT management tasks such as upgrades, cross-grades, and user onboarding and offboarding. When vendors go rogue, the extra time needed for evaluation, transition, and migration to a replacement product becomes an unwelcome burden.

Cloud integration

The focus of several vendors has shifted to integrating and delivering services via SaaS. Procore, Autodesk, Hexagon, Trimble have all expanded and embellished the cloud component of their business. New features are increasingly being added, as opposed to delivered in the design software.

We’re moving toward a world where pure-play desktop applications are becoming rare, with users relying on vendors for hosting, applications, collaboration, and business functions. This is already producing some anxiety in customers who fear being trapped in proprietary cloud with limited API access. Perhaps sensing this distrust, most vendors are now talking about how ‘open’ they are, should that be file access, programming, or Application Programming Interface (API).

Artificial Intelligence

Although current AEC software features limited artificial intelligence, AI is poised to make a significant impact when applied at scale, potentially transforming the industry with advanced expert systems.

For the next year or so we will probably see small features and tasks benefiting from AI with more in-depth applications after that. AI-driven expert systems promise significant productivity benefits, posing a challenge to existing software business models. In 10 years’ time, one wonders how many seats of full BIM will be required to manually hand craft detailed schematic design models and generate documentation. With less software and more service, business models will change.

Conclusion

The need of software firms to maintain growth in a highly saturated and penetrated market has led to rapid ‘innovation’ in business models which outstrips the budgets and perceived value provided to customers. Design IT directors are having to juggle budgets to provide teams with the tools they need.

After years of feedback and complaints, it was a logical choice at this year’s NXT DEV conference to host a panel discussion on how software pricing, licensing, and business models affect firms (see box out below).

The frustration levels are high and with price negotiation seemingly being automated out of the process, there seems to be a valid discussion to be had over value. If a software tool is biased towards conceptual design, it might be heavily used for three months out of a three year project, but it’s priced as if it’s used eight hours per day, every week of every year.

At AEC Magazine, we’re already contemplating the future beyond individual software subscriptions. We’re beginning to see firms experiment with project value-based fees. With the advent of AI, auto-drawings, automation, and expert systems, the potential to significantly reduce the amount of software, labour, and time needed could drive productivity beyond anything we have seen before.

As the industry remains focused on recurring seat licence volumes, the future may demand a hybrid business model combining software access with transactional services and monitored CPU/GPU usage. This shift could necessitate software companies gaining deeper insights into project or customer finances—a prospect that is unlikely to go down too well.

The voice of the customer: NXT DEV panel discussion

After hearing numerous complaints from design IT directors about the constantly changing business models of software companies, we decided to dedicate a panel session to this topic at our recent NXT DEV conference. The goal was to offer critical feedback to current software and service providers in the AEC market, while also providing key insights to start-ups developing their pricing and licensing strategies.

The panel session was moderated by Richard Harpham, formerly of Revit, then Autodesk, and now co-founder of Skema. The panel included Iain Godwin, ICT Consultant to many AEC practices and former IT director / senior partner at Foster + Partners, Jens Majdal Kaarsholm, director of design technology at BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group), Alain Waha, CTO Buro Happold and Andy Watts, head of design technology at Grimshaw.

Many presentations at NXT DEV highlighted a growing concern among AEC firms about their data being locked in the cloud servers of software vendors, compounded by fears of restricted access through proprietary APIs. This pointed to a clear trust gap between vendors and their customers.

The panel members are responsible for their company’s design software estate, and explained how they are constantly evaluating value vs cost. They expressed how the felt ‘pushed into a corner as to how we will pay for technology’ by vendors.

Waha expressed concern about vendors engaging in ‘rent-seeking,’ aiming to extract money for shareholders without adding value. “They have identified us as sheep and we cannot defend against a large dominating organisation who will be rewarded and incentivised by capital at scale.” He then highlighted the irony that while these funds prioritise shareholder profits over technological advancements in the built environment, people, including himself, also benefit from strong pension returns.

Harpham played devil’s advocate. He said, “Vendors are not trying to do physical harm to the customers but there are business goals that make you change the way you work. You only have so many levers you can pull — you can ask a customer to pay more for what they have and right now that’s running about 5% per year. You can change the metrics and that ‘s what happened when we moved to subscription. You can re-package and that’s Suites/ Collections and then there’s licence compliance.”

Godwin, who was instrumental in the first Open Letter to Autodesk, stated that customers required trust in relationships with vendors. There were many aspects of the relationship with Autodesk that were schizophrenic. The Revit development team was trying to do its best, but the monetisation process and compliancy model undermines the trust and doesn’t help firms feel like they are getting value out of that relationship. And that was just the first five minutes!

We think this panel session is essential viewing. Tune in to hear what else was said.

NXTAEC.com

As a follow on to NXT BLD and NXT DEV 2024, our AEC technology conferences, we have launched NXTAEC.com, a dedicated video website where you can view all the talks from our recent events, including the incredibly honest Pricing, licensing and business models panel discussion.

NXTAEC.com is free. You just need to register. By implementing a registration system, we can offer capabilities like ‘watch later’, ratings, comments, playlists, share and dedicated video search with tags. Over time we plan to add more community features and facilitate ways to keep in touch with people you meet at NXT BLD and NXT DEV.

For now, we have uploaded content from the last three years of NXT BLD and the the last two years of NXT DEV. We will spend the Autumn backloading all the previous NXT BLD talks.

We want to keep the NXT BLD and NXT DEV vibe going throughout the year, so we also plan to use the site to produce and feature demonstrations from the really innovative AEC startups which we discover from our day job of researching the market for our bi-monthly AEC Magazine .

If you have not done so already, please register now.

The post Pricing, licensing and business models appeared first on AEC Magazine.

It’s available to view now, free, along with all our back issues.

Subscribe to the digital edition free + all the latest AEC technology news in your inbox, or take out a print subscription for $49 per year (free to UK AEC professionals).

Geo whiz: Bentley to acquire Cesium
We explore the surprise deal that promises to bring the worlds of digital twins and geospatial closer together

Graphisoft in the era of AI
How does the developer of Archicad plan to put AI to work on behalf of its customers?

AI is hard (to do well)
Generative AI (GenAI) is extremely promising, but achieving tangible results is more complex than the hype suggests

Darwinism in AEC technology
To adapt and survive, the AEC industry should be focusing on knowledge-based expert design systems

Pricing, licensing and business models
The rapid evolution in the way AEC software companies charge for licences and shepherd their users to boost revenue

Graphisoft strategy
In the shift from BIM to BIM 2.0, big changes are underway at Graphisoft

Snaptrude advances
The cloud-based BIM 2.0 software fleshes out its features in pursuit of victory over the current desktop BIM tools

Vectorworks futures
CEO Biplab Sarkar talks new features, moving from file to cloud databases, auto-drawings AR, openness in BIM and AI

The investment issue
With Autodesk dealing with an activist investor problem what could be the knock-on effect for customers?

Autodesk Content Catalog
Autodesk has integrated Unifi’s solution for managing and accessing design content into its cloud stack

How to choose a remoting protocol
Advice for delivering performative remote workstation deployments

The post AEC Magazine Sept / Oct 2024 Edition appeared first on AEC Magazine.