And if Softimage is a competition, AD would have to improve Maya and 3dsmax that people are still buying it... Naa, to much work... just sit on the subscription... Holger Schönberger technical director The day has 24 hours, if that does not suffice, I will take the night
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marc-Andre Carbonneau Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Softimage Rental? Well because then it would become competition againÂ… From: [email protected] [mailto:[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> --
