Selling SI is something that has already been discussed thousands of times since the EOL announcement and it is clear that it will never going to happen. I guess if someone offer 10x what Autodesk paid may have a chance to but that will never happen so let's stop with that topic.
SI is never going to come back either so that's another battle we can't win. It doesn't make sense to keep these complaints. We should focus in something Autodesk could agree so we can have a better transition, or just pick a non Autodesk route. The FBX idea or SI license for a few years with some conditions like having Maya under sub doesn't sound like a bad deal for ADSK and for those who want to migrate to Maya or Max. Still I doubt they will agree but it sounds a little more realistic. Keep returning to these complains or demands that obviously doesn't benefit ADSK at all like selling SI or resuscitate SI won't get us anywhere. Martin Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/03/16, at 17:47, Julian Johnson <jul...@exch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 15/03/2014 17:44, Graham Bell wrote: >> I¹ve absolutely no doubt, but in all the time I¹ve demoed Softimage, even >> pre-AD, there was never anyone who didn¹t like the software, tech or >> couldn¹t see the potential benefits. However despite this, it wasn¹t easy >> for people to simply adopt. >> We could easily lead the horse to water, but never make it drink. > > Graham, as everyone at Autodesk seems convinced there is no market for > Softimage what harm could there be in selling it? If the might of Autodesk's > marketing resources had no impact then it stands to reason that no one else > is going to be able to make a success of it. I mean you've tried your best, > right? It's just not possible to market Softimage. Avid tried and failed, you > tried and failed. It stands absolutely no chance of ever becoming a > competitor to Maya or Max as it's too hard to adopt. Why not, therefore, sell > it on to an interested third party who could solely cater for the niche > Softimage audience? Don't we all win that way? We have an interested 'owner' > - you can focus your resources on Maya and Max and walk away with a lump sum > for 'innovative' R&D and you still have no competition. You no longer have an > alienated and hostile Softimage customer base. > > Better still, as soon as Maya becomes a more attractive option we then have > the choice to adopt or not. Given the myriad improvements listed by Chris > that adoption in a few years time should be a no-brainer for us, shouldn't > it? We can once more re-enter the Autodesk fold willingly and migrate to the > better product. If you, Chris and Maurice genuinely believe in 'new' Maya and > Autodesk's own marketing abilities it should be relatively easy to sell it to > Softimage customers in a few years time. I'm sure we're going to be blown > away by the new innovations that Maurice talked about. With the current > roadmap and user input Maya will undoubtedly be a better product than > Softimage is now. I know you wouldn't be asking us to transition to an > inferior product - that just wouldn't make business sense. No billion dollar > business would treat their customers that way. > > Fundamentally, it seems as though if the initial decision to buy XSI was > motivated by a desire to move the product forward and market it in earnest > (with a genuine business case that demonstrated either more sales or > additional revenue - and why else would you have bought XSI?) then there has > been a colossal failure in that business plan by Autodesk. The burden of that > failure has been placed solely on the customers to whom, surely, Autodesk has > some level of responsibility. > > And yet, that burden of responsibility doesn't seem to have been reflected in > the manner in which Softimage is currently being EOL'd. I can't think of a > more brutal scenario - immediate cessation of development; no prior warning; > no safe-harbour alternative option; no pre-planning or understanding of the > essential migratable features in Softimage; no in-place transition training; > no concept of recompense for your failure; and no willingness to negotiate or > ameliorate the terms of the EOL in any substantial way. > > Julian
