Thanks for clarifying this one Graham. Good that someone from AD kills this rumors.
2013/9/10 Graham Bell <[email protected]> > Erm, I'm not sure where that 'source' has come from, but I think some > wires might have been crossed about what was said at this meeting > There was a meeting in London with Softimage customers, back in June. It > was somewhat hastily arranged (but don't read anything into that). The > meeting was not to go into details about roadmaps and future development, > but more to get some direct feedback from customers. Chris Bradshaw (head > of M&E) and Stig Grueman (head of M&E WWsales) were present at that meeting. > > As for the lack of Softimage rental, it's a shame Softimage didn't make > the list, but I understand the reasoning for this. > When you look at the whole Autodesk folio, only a relative small bunch of > products have rental options right now, so it's early days I think. > Personally I would like to see more of our products (including Softimage) > start to offer a rental option, but I don't honestly know if/when this will > happen. > > G > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mirko Jankovic > Sent: 10 September 2013 14:10 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Softimage Rental? > > 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] > <mailto:[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]<mailto: > [email protected]>] > Sent: 10 September 2013 12:42 PM > To: <[email protected]<mailto: > [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] > <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected] > >] > > Sent: 09 September 2013 08:28 PM > > To: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Softimage Rental? > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Angus Davidson > > <[email protected]<mailto:[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> > > > --
