/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 /
I think when we'll all work in the cloud, it'll be even more violent.
The future is bright and under control ...click.
Le 16/03/2014 09:47, Julian Johnson a écrit :
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
