It would be great. But they have an agreement with Maxon now, so it's like they have C4D....
2013/9/10 Emilio Hernandez <[email protected]> > Let's write Adobe to buy Softimage. They are only missing now a 3D > software. :P > > > 2013/9/10 Eugen Sares <[email protected]> > >> Maya got enough other problems... I don't envy them, at all. >> >> AD's predicament is, throttling down Softimage development too far is >> going to stagnate sells, and they don't exactly look like a company that >> wants to keep a non-profitable product. >> But they don't want to sell it either, because that would mean creating >> competition and loss of customers (even if they tried, I don't think they >> would get their 35mio. back). >> Killing it would mean loosing a good chunk of the userbase, too, because >> Soft users won't run into the arms of Maya so quickly. Embarrasing... >> So they keep it alive, which means there has be *some* development. Good >> for us. Better than nothing... >> That leaves the tactics to add half-baked or cheap stuff, and hope people >> are stupid enough to throw more money in... >> >> The best and fairest scenario would be to make it a much more open >> framework, and leave it's fate to those who care. >> >> The COM/OLE thing, though, is a major f*ckup, that's for sure. Really >> bitter. Well, at least windows is still the most widely used OS. >> I wonder if it would be possible to get rid of those core dependencies >> bit by bit, or if it would have to be all or nothing. >> >> >> Am 10.09.2013 20:34, schrieb Matt Lind: >> >> Did they transfer the COM/OLE core so they can kill Maya too?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Here’s to hoping.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Matt**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >> *On Behalf Of *Eugen Sares >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:41 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Softimage Rental?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> There was some technology transfer from Soft to Maya, also. >> Too less to live, too much to die... a deadlock. >> >> What I still hope for is that what's left of the development resources is >> invested as wisely as possible. >> Best would be to improve extensibility, so it becomes easier for 3rd >> parties to do Autodesk's job. >> Softimage is too precious and sophisticated to be ditched. >> >> >> >> Am 10.09.2013 16:15, schrieb Marc-Andre Carbonneau:**** >> >> Well because then it would become competition again…**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >> *On Behalf Of *Mirko Jankovic >> *Sent:* 10 septembre 2013 10:09 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Softimage Rental?**** >> >> **** >> >> If they hate SI that much why they don't just give it to someone else >> that will actually develop it...**** >> >> **** >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tim Crowson < >> [email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> If that report is true, it's a good thing that Soft is as mature as it >> is. I mean frankly, apart from ICE improvements, how is 'not developing for >> film/advert' any different than in the last few years? >> >> -Tim C.**** >> >> **** >> >> On 9/10/2013 8:10 AM, Mirko Jankovic wrote:**** >> >> Well as I posted on another thread and will do it again no matter that >> there some that will say for crying out loud or similar... **** >> >> **** >> >> *autodesk had a meeting with all the studios in london who use xsi and >> said they arent really going to develop it for the film/advert side of >> things, now all development is from a small team in asia and they will >> develop mainly for games***** >> >> **** >> >> From a source... well someone here probably was on that meeting I >> guess... and nothing new really but...**** >> >> In any case there is pretty good reason why there is no SI rental option >> and honestly it is lying to peoples face. simple as that.**** >> >> **** >> >> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Angus Davidson < >> [email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Maurice >> >> Firstly thanks for stepping up to the plate ;) While I can understand >> your logic, surely there should have been some explanation of this up >> front. Whether its in the FAQ, or on the rental page. Part of the problem >> as you lay out in your last sentence is that you cant talk about future >> developments. However You guys seem to be the Masters of not explaining >> what you are currently doing either. >> >> Very simple example of this is the exclusion of Softimage from the rental >> options(It could very well be a technical reason). However no body out side >> of Autodesk knows why and the only thing they can do is speculate and none >> of that will ever be good. You know its a sad day when SI users are getting >> sympathy on the Max underground forums. I mean when it gets to the point >> that people are now actively asking for ways to move their current active >> subscriptions from Max or Si to Maya you have to admit that there is a >> pretty serious problem. >> >> We have more folks who are briefly in charge of Softimage and then >> disappear then Mae West had gentleman callers,. Right now all we have are >> our observations and perceptions and currently theres very little to >> differentiate whats happening to Softimage to what happened to combustion. >> The steps so far are virtually the same, and we all know how that ended. >> >> I really do appreciate you taking to to come and explain things to us on >> the mailing list, however the bottom line is you shouldn't have to. In a >> company the size of Autodesk that should be handled correctly in the first >> place by your marketing and awareness people. There is a very big PR gap >> that needs to be filled and expectations that need to be managed. >> >> Anyway thanks again >> >> Angus >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Maurice Patel [[email protected]] >> Sent: 10 September 2013 12:42 PM**** >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Softimage Rental? >> >> Hi Angus, >> You are right about people wanting to maintain working pipelines based on >> older versions. This is our expectation and this has been taken into >> account. Still we have to start somewhere. Rental is the way many people >> want to go for flexibility. Today only e-flex gives that kind of capability >> (to a certain extent) but you have tp be a very large enterprise account to >> qualify. We continue to offer perpetual plus subscription which gives you >> prior version usage. Since we cannot talk aboutfuture releases and >> capability our hans are somewhat tied when it comes to talking abouthow we >> expect this to all evolve. Suffice it to say that we have to start >> somewhere and this is just the start. We expect that the model will be >> gradually integrated over time and inderstand that lack of forwards >> compatability for previous versions is 'currently' an adoption blocker. >> However there are usecases where rental purchase of the latest version is a >> benefit even without prior version support. Note the license model as >> designed does not entail forced upgrade each time a new release is issued >> but is designed to allow usage of the installed version until the user >> choses to upgrade >> >> (usual legal safe harbour applies in that none of this is meant to be >> read as a guarantee and Autodesk reserves the right to change its plans at >> any time) >> >> On 2013-09-10, at 8:33 AM, "Angus Davidson" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Luc-eric >> > >> > I kinda suspected that was the case. It might be worth updating the FAQ >> just to state that. However it shows just how far out of touch the people >> making the decisions are. Even if your in the very lucky position that you >> are not forced by some or other constraint to use a specific version, very >> few folks will run the latest and greatest on a commercial project because >> it just hasn't been proven. The risk of running into a project halting bug >> is just too great. >> > >> > And with the greatest respect to Chris and the rest of the team the >> turnaround on fixing those kinds of bugs just isnt fast enough to warrant >> the additional risk. >> > >> > On the positive side South Africa is now included in the ARC program. >> This means we can apply for up to 125 seats for free. Educational seems to >> be the only AD$K division that has an actual policy and a plan. However >> thats only going to last so long before the competition does likewise. >> > >> > Kind regards >> > >> > Angus >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Luc-Eric Rousseau [[email protected]] >> > Sent: 09 September 2013 08:28 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Softimage Rental? >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Angus Davidson >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Apart from the glaring omission of SI from that list the things that >> worries me in the FAQ is that rental options dont have previous version >> rights. Unless I have read that incorrectly your SOL if your client needs >> you to work on a older version. >> >> >> >> One wonders how much if any thought has gone into this at all. >> > >> > Presently, that's not technical possible anyway, as the older builds >> > cannot deal with the new kind of licensing implementation. Only 2014 >> > SP1 and up can. >> > = >> > <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >> style="width:100%;"> >> > <tr> >> > <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font >> face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span >> style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee >> only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not >> copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the >> University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into >> agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that >> the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University >> and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are >> not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the >> Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and >> outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in >> writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> >> > </tr> >> > </table> >> > >> > >> = >> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >> style="width:100%;"> >> <tr> >> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font >> face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span >> style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee >> only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not >> copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the >> University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into >> agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that >> the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University >> and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are >> not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the >> Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and >> outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in >> writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> >> </tr> >> </table> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> > > > -- > > -- ...superpositiviii...qualunque cosa accada!...
