New community edition (Release 2025)
Hi community,
what are your thoughts regarding the new open release?
Angela
Forum Discussion
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
