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> > > > **** > > **** > > **** > > -- **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > > --
