New community edition (Release 2025)

I have to revise my earlier statement!

Release 2025 is strictly limited to 50 users – regardless of whether they are active or inactive!

Instead of 4 or 5 users, this version already reserves 6 (!!) users out of the box. So in reality, you're left with just 44 users – hoping none of them ever leave the company, since even disabled users still count.

It’s essentially a built-in EOL function / kill-switch! 

 Kalaiselvan NP : I may have misunderstood your previous feedback. But thanks for testing anyway!

According to the "Aras Innovator 2025 Release Administrator Quick Start" guide only "enabled" users are counted toward the license limit.

However, this does not appear to be true. Even after disabling all newly added users, the system remains non-functional until the corresponding User items are deleted entirely. Unfortunately, deleting a user is no longer possible once they have interacted with the system in any way - even through trivial actions such as setting grid preferences or pinning an ItemType to the sidebar. This behavior contradicts the documentation's description.

To delete users beyond the 44-user limit, administrators are forced to remove all related data from the system.
This creates a highly problematic situation for any open release user who relied on the promise of “50 enabled users.” Innovator becomes unusable the moment custom user #45 is added. If the administrator is unaware of this limitation, the system may suddenly become inaccessible for everyone else - without warning - and resolving the issue is extremely difficult.
Deleting all related data is nearly impossible for administrators who lack deep experience with Innovator, making this a serious risk in real-world deployments. (Aras still recommends this version for "small scale production applications").

I’m confused by Aras' decision to implement these user restrictions in such a way - especially while providing slightly misleading information in both the official documentation and on their website.

1. In the best-case scenario, this is simply a result of being out of touch with the user base. Either they overlooked the issue - or they noticed it and didn’t care.

2. In the worst-case scenario, the inaccurate statements in the Administrator Guide are intentional. Since the guide isn’t legally binding, users may be left with the false impression that they can work with up to 50 real users and simply disable them when needed.

   This could be interpreted as a deliberate tactic to create artificial pressure - pushing users toward a subscription once they exceed the 44-user limit and find themselves unable to access their data in any meaningful way.

Either scenario is problematic. If Aras truly needs to rely on tactics like this to gain new subscribers, it raises concerns about the company’s financial situation and long-term strategy. At this point, I would not feel comfortable recommending their product.

I genuinely wonder if Aras understands how this decision comes across to their user base. It risks damaging trust and gives the impression that either user experience is being ignored or that misleading guidelines is being used as a sales tactic.

To be honest, I don’t think they’ve fully realized how off this decision might seem from an outsider’s perspective.
I still believe the company can do better - just as they have in the past - both in terms of transparency and in how they support their community.
And if it takes 357 more posts in this thread (or elsewhere) to make the point clear, I’m fine with that. It´s still less work then changing the PLM software itself. 

But that´s all just my personal opinion. How do you rate the situation?

Hi Angela

I am with you on this, it is a very sad time for small engineering companies. The old Aras open version was a gateway for smaller companies into having a professional PLM system and to grow with it.

I am operating in the South African market, and we have a lot of small startup companies trying to make a living in this challenging environment. Aras open edition was a lifeline for them, giving them some professional tools. With their other challenges and uncertain operating environment they will never start with the subscription version. The open edition was a nice way of easing into PLM.

They are all small and may have managed with the 50 enabled users, but including non-enabled users in the count severely limits the usability of the system.

Small companies are now effectively locked out of PLM, they will be limited to the CAD based PDM systems, or some or other online stopgap solution.

Hi Riaan

Thanks for your input – I really appreciate you sharing your perspective!

I wasn’t aware of the impact Innovator has in your region. Having a foot in an emerging market is actually an advantage. And Aras had that essentially for free until now.

The current restrictions are no different from those in Release 2024. But I wanted to give them reasonable time to respond to user feedback. I'm surprised they literally haven't changed anything, even though I was originally given different indications.

I suspect they’re trying to ghost the issue. In this forum, it doesn't necessarily stand out. I will write 1 or more articles highlighting the current situation with Release 2025 and share them on other platforms. Not that I'm particularly eager to do so - I don’t claim my perspective is 100% right. But from my point of view, this topic shouldn’t just be ignored.

I think the topic is relevant to several user groups:

• Those interested in the Open Release should definitely be informed about the current usage restrictions, especially the contradictory statements.

• Existing Aras users should know that past statements may no longer apply.

• Other PLM vendors might offer alternative solutions for users abandoned by Aras.

Users of the Open Version were not necessarily the most significant in terms of revenue. But many of them actively contributed to the platform in the past - and that was a key factor in Aras' initial success.

I still quietly hope that Aras will come to see that not every decision about the Open Release has been for the better. Ironically, the strong user reactions could even be reframed as a positive - a sign of how much community cares for their product. Would be the perfect marketing opportunity!

I don’t want to unnecessarily bring this topic into the public eye if things were simply poorly planned or communicated. I understand that the decisions around the Open Release were mainly aimed at a few large target customers, and others may have been overlooked.
However, if some of these decisions were made with less than full transparency, I believe it’s important to raise awareness within the software community.

John Sperling Eli Donahue AJ Sebastian Christopher Gillis 

Is it still to be expected that Aras will provide feedback here?
(I am aware that none of the people in cc are directly responsible, but I needed to include a few people to raise awareness.)

I want to quote Peter Schroer: "If there is something you’d like to tell us, let us know. We are not fragile."
I hope some of that mindset still remains!

Small disclaimer:
Aras appears to be fully aware of the content and tone of this discussion, and seems to be fine with all aspects presented. There has been no censorship, moderation, or attempt to officially reframe or challenge any of the points raised.
Similar arguments were made during the Release 2024 discussion - particularly regarding user limits and other technical constraints - and those posts have also remained online without any censorship or negative feedback for over a year.

Since this is Aras’s own platform and they define the rules of engagement, they of course have every right to moderate or remove content they consider problematic.
The fact that they haven’t done so should be seen as a positive and intentional act of tolerance, which I’d like to explicitly acknowledge!

Congrats on Aras’ impressive result in the latest Forrester Wave report! The report includes an interesting quote:

"Customer feedback. Reference customers [...] agree that it (=Aras) communicates clearly, fulfills its promises, provides great customer service, and resolves issues quickly."

Well… when it comes to the Open Release, I’d say the communication hasn’t exactly been crystal clear - and the promises? Still a bit of a work in progress.

The current promise is an Open Release that supports "50 enabled users". Is that really fulfilled?

Back then, when you had fewer than 250 users, Aras actually encouraged companies not to go for a subscription. I was personally assured that there would always be an Open Release I could rely on. So…where exactly is my Open Release?

But besides my own personal story with Aras:

Of course, the Open Release and its few users may be lower priority. But the Open Release is often the first point of contact external users have with the software. What kind of first impression does it leave when the product doesn’t even meet its own stated specifications and promises? That’s definitely something that could be improved!

I just realized that I haven't yet shared my collection of Peter Schroer quotes describing the idea behind Aras and the concept of the open release. Perhaps the new PTC leadership, with their background in traditional industries, wasn’t fully briefed on what made Aras so distinctive - fortunately, there are still many sources online!

Let´s start with this one: https://aras.com/en/blog/you-re-never-too-old-to-be-a-hacker

--

"After years of the same old, same old in the PLM industry, I knew there had to be a better way. We set out to create that at Aras. And I think we’re doing a pretty good job.

First, we created better technology. Modern, flexible technology that's designed to adapt to the way your business works, not the other way around. It helps a lot that it actually works too.

Then we hacked the PLM enterprise business model. I hate the sales approach taken by most PLM companies. It is excruciating and when it's over no one, especially the customers, feels very good about it.

At Aras, we don't sell PLM software. We give it away. And if you'd like a little help with it, you can buy some training or some consulting time from our staff of experts. And if you want support and upgrades and good stuff like that, you can buy an annual subscription. We put all the info you need up on our website and we let you make your own decisions. Simple? Yup. Effective? You bet. Refreshing? Absolutely. And it's fair."

--

I personally believe Mr. Schroer would be ashamed if he saw how the current user restrictions were implemented - with misleading communication and aimed at the wrong audience. The legacy was corrupted overnight - simply because the old industry didn’t recognize its value. But I assume they now prefer to spent more money on traditional marketing. I’m just waiting for the first print and TV ads to roll out.

Maybe someday they’ll be bold again: A carefully well-tuned open release concept could effortlessly attract new target audiences, just as it did in the past. But I assume modernization always takes time?