So looks like I spoke to soon lol <<..after a decade+, DS is still (not so minimally) supported, (DS V11 Features <http://www.avid.com/US/products/avid-ds/Features>) while the few DS users (far fewer than SI) have been complaining about exposure and anticipating "the end" since Day 1 of the 'not so new anymore' "regime".>>
So the trick to kill software, (without looking too bad doing something hard to not qualify as just plain *wrong*) .. is to buy it, let it linger for a bit, while periodically introducing "new features" (enough to say that it's still "developed") Then say <hey Look! it's not as popular as some of our other (infinitely more advertised) products (hum wonder why!) so eh! EOL> I think Avid may have chosen AD among a number of other buyers, just so they could feel better about themselves having done the very exact same thing. (given how blatantly obvious the reasons for the purchase was) Yep that's pretty disgusting.. Hope Avid feels better now (sigh) _____________________________________________________________________________ *From DS Forum: * ** *---------------------------------* *From:* *John Heiser* ... I do hope your obit will properly portray this community as passionate and professional. It would be easy to descend into flaming and bashing, and while Avid's action/inaction may justify that sometimes, overall we're a respectful group who just feels like our passion for and devotion to DS have been underappreciated and ignored. Thanks, Barry,. *--------------------------------- *Tony Q-J 7:26 AM (15 hours ago) Other recipients: It's also important that it's understood that the passion comes from being so impressed with an all-encompassing bit of software. Not because we're a bunch of looneys! T :) *--------------------------------- *Declan MacErlane 4:46 PM (6 hours ago) Other recipients: +1 On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Ken Sirulnick <[email protected]<javascript:> > wrote: > +1 > > > On Thursday, August 8, 2013 12:47:20 PM UTC-4, Sean B wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> And speak for yourself Tony. Some of us are happy to be looney :) >> > ** ** * _____________________________________________________________________________ * *From Avid press release :* Q: What is Avid’s plan for existing DS customers? A: To leverage the worlds #1 editor (*Media Composer*) with a complete suite of production tools that empower you to create, deliver, and collaborate, Avid has worked with our partner eyeon Software<http://www.eyeonline.com/index.html>to secure an exclusive promotional offer on eyeon products, available only to Avid DS customers. DS owners will get special promotional pricing for Fusion<http://www.eyeonline.com/Fusion.html>, Dimension <http://www.eyeonline.com/Dimension.html> and Generation<http://www.eyeonline.com/Generation.html> *(including Fusion to compensate for the fact that MC is nothing like DS)* at a combined price of just $1,250 US MSRP – that’s more than a 50% savings. *Wow what a deal!* *Maybe we'll get a discount on 3DSM (or Maya) with plugins to compensate for the fact it's not (at all) like SI once AD would say "Eh! .."* On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < [email protected]> wrote: > I'd agree in principle, but a jungle of software patents, code > cross-pollination, and strong dependency on, and exposure of, company > internals when one changes hand make it hard for some products to be > shuffled around. > IE: if they had to put DS up for sale, what happens to patented and shared > high profile properties? What about an eventual, high performing propietary > codec shared across products in example? (Something that in the past had > set Avid apart for many years) > > You'd also open the doors to qualify software as a discrete commercial > unit with identity, which is another legal jungle to navigate, and has just > as many or more negative side effects for the software industry serving you > as it has benefits for the user as a consumer with rights. > > They could also price it so ridiculously that it'd default to a kill. > Unless you're also implying there should be a fair price scheme of sort, > which is another thing that has more thorns than anybody wants to deal with. > > "A company" also happens to be awfully generic. > Would this be corporate law for companies with stock, or would this apply > to any software? If the latter how do you propose development done by > individuals or garage operations is treated? > Should there be a world software registry you need to join before you can > distribute your software so it's all regulated? And what about the knee > breaking hit to agility in that case? > > It's really not that simple :) > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Bk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think if a company wants to discontinue a product with a user-base that >> relies upon it then by law they should have to first offer it for sale. And >> only have the option of shelving it if there is shown no interest in it. >> >>
