New community edition (Release 2025)

To outsource some work, I asked ChatGPT for its opinion on the open release. I think the result sums up the situation quite nicely. 

Used questions (not exactly the original prompts, but very similar):

- What do you know about the Aras Innovator open release? How were the limitations?
- Was it always just intended for testing?
- What is the current situation?
- Does this match to what was promised earlier?
- Was the swift executed well?
- What can they do to improve the situation?

We all know ChatGPT talks far too much. Here's the summary:

1. Historical Reality: Open Release Was Truly Unlimited

When Aras introduced the open release model in 2007, it was positioned as a fully functional, production-ready PLM platform. It came with no user limits, no licensing fees, and no enforced constraints on deployment scale. This wasn’t just for testing or pilot use—Aras explicitly encouraged real-world adoption, especially by smaller companies and early adopters. For over a decade, this model set Aras apart from traditional PLM vendors.

2. The Shift: Quiet Repositioning Over Time

In recent years, Aras has quietly redefined the purpose of the open release. It is now often described as intended for evaluation or testing only, rather than for production deployment. This recharacterization stands in contrast to the original messaging, and the change has been introduced without clear or direct communication to the user base.

As a result, users who initially adopted Aras under the impression of long-term free use are now being discouraged or prevented from continuing at scale unless they purchase a subscription. The open release still exists, but it is increasingly restricted, and its development path has diverged from the enterprise edition.

3. Was the Transition Handled Well?

Unfortunately, no—the shift was not handled in a transparent or structured way.

• Messaging has been inconsistent: what was once “free for unlimited users” is now described as “just for testing,” without acknowledgment of the change.

• There was no clear communication outlining how the open release would be limited going forward.

• Long-time users—especially those who adopted based on Aras’s earlier promises—have been left in a difficult position.

This change in direction may make business sense, particularly to convert large-scale deployments into paying customers. But the way the transition was executed eroded trust, especially among users who relied on the open model as a long-term strategy.

4. The Impact on Small and Mid-Sized Users

One of the biggest problems is that smaller organizations have no clear place in the current model. These companies are often too small to justify or afford a full enterprise subscription, yet they were previously encouraged to adopt the platform without limitations. Now, they find themselves without support, updates, or a defined future, despite continuing to use the system actively.

These users aren’t resisting change—they’re simply lacking a viable path forward that aligns with their size and needs.

5. What Aras Could Do to Rebuild Trust

To better support small and mid-sized users, Aras could take several steps:

• Introduce a formal Community Edition: free to use in production for organizations below a certain size, with clear scope and limitations.

• Offer lightweight, affordable support or add-on options without requiring full enterprise subscription.

• Clarify the future of the open release: provide a public roadmap, define what users can expect, and acknowledge the evolution in positioning.

• Re-engage the broader community through updated forums, documentation, and open communication channels.

These steps wouldn’t just improve adoption—they would also restore credibility with a user base that helped establish Aras’s reputation as an open and forward-thinking PLM provider.