I think it'd be pretty hard to even determine the market size in first place. Film? Probably so close to totality it wouldn't be funny, but then Nuke for comp in the same market, ZBrush for sculpting, soon enough Mari for texturing, until not long ago PRMan for rendering (now a well challenged position) and so on. So a case could be made that it's simply a market that routinely coalesces around dominant solutions.
Games? Well, you might get some traction there, but then nobody ever challenged them. Design? Far from a monopoly there. and so on. MS back then got targeted because they were effectively exploiting a position of de-facto monopoly (home and home office OS) in a market to become dominant in another (internet accessibility). Their "unfair" advantage on the OS front would have allowed them to, at an immediate loss but a long term gain, to corner another market by wiping away competitors who had no such advantage but had superior products. That's the kind of scenario antitrust covers to a T. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Paul Griswold < [email protected]> wrote: > I suppose I was looking back and remembering the government going after > Microsoft for being a monopoly because it bundled IE with Windows. > Netscape existed back then, as did Apple, but it didn't stop them from > going after Microsoft. > > I'd be interested to see what percentage of the entire market Autodesk has > compared to Newtek, SideFX, The Foundry, etc. > > > ᐧ > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> People often take the whole antitrust thing a bit too far. >> Antitrust laws, contrary to popular belief, don't prohibit de-facto >> monopolies in any way other than those emerging maliciously or >> aggressively. They are intended to try and avoid them, of course, but there >> is nothing illegal to a monopoly emerging naturally as long as it doesn't >> get exploited, once in place, to further itself in an unfair and >> uncompetitive manner. >> If you have a monopoly on something because you're the only provider of >> such thing that's perfectly legal. It's oligopoly through conspiracy (cross >> company agreements on price fixing in example) that's severely punished, >> and monopoly through conspiracy or aggressive exploitation of an existing >> monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic capacity that are prohibited. >> >> AD is also not considered a monopoly since Houdini, Modo, C4D, LW, and >> various other hanger-ons are all available, and AD generally doesn't coerce >> or litigate much through M&E, almost not at all compared to any other tech >> industry. >> >> Lastly, to those saying the acquisition of Softimage should have been >> stalled or blocked by antitrust, Soft had been gutted by Avid and put on a >> fire sale and handled very dubiously by a couple entirely too career >> focused people inside it. AD did absolutely nothing illegal or dodgy buying >> it. They would have had had they performed an aggressive take over of sorts >> and concurrently done something like slashing prices or offering trade-ins >> at a loss against other platforms, effectively making a move to try and >> sweep the market of competitors, but they did none of it. >> >> Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of current or past events, but the whole >> monopoly and antitrust discussions are honestly best left out of it. There >> is so much more that is wrong and could be fixed before people contemplate >> class actions and antitrust appeals that are so incredibly unlikely to go >> anywhere other than to brush the pocket lining of a handful of lawyers. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Paul Griswold < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Well, as I posted over on CGTalk, I don't think killing Softimage was a >>> real business decision. If M&E account for only 7% of ADSK's revenue, and >>> Softimage is one of the smallest components of that revenue, it's >>> insignificant. But, executives need to pound their chests like gorillas >>> and proclaim to the shareholders & board that they're trimming the fat, >>> etc., etc. If it was truly a business decision, they could have cut a lot >>> more than just Softimage to make an impact on the bottom line. This was >>> all for show IMHO. >>> >>> Realistically, they could cancel all of their M&E products if they're 7% >>> of the revenue. They own enough patents & intellectual property that they >>> could essentially hold the industry hostage and never develop another >>> product. Again Joe Alter comes to mind. Why develop anything when you can >>> sit back and force people to pay licensing fees year after year? >>> >>> Hopefully enough noise is made to start stirring up some anti-trust >>> claims. Autodesk is clearly behaving as a monopoly at this point. >>> >>> -Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ᐧ >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Emilio Hernandez <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Well we all still think that putting Softimage to rest is a big mistake. >>>> >>>> Motion Builder also has not major improvements. So we know how all >>>> will end. >>>> >>>> "We will continue to support and develop..." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Emilio Hernández VFX & 3D animation. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-03-05 15:02 GMT-06:00 Jordi Bares <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> If they kill any of those the only one I think would be a mistake would >>>>> be Motion Builder… it has great potential if they decide to actually >>>>> develop it… it has been in limbo mode like Softimage for years now and >>>>> killing the Mac version was truly annoying. >>>>> >>>>> 3DSMax… well… the architecture is so old and messy (have you tried >>>>> developing for Max?) I wonder how are they going to sustain it… >>>>> >>>>> With regards with the users… they may offer the same great deal we are >>>>> receiving.. (irony) >>>>> >>>>> arhghh >>>>> >>>>> Jordi Bares >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 19:45, Emilio Hernandez <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> More reasons to stay with softimage >>>>> El mar 5, 2014 1:42 PM, "Gustavo Eggert Boehs" <[email protected]> >>>>> escribió: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but what they might do (are doing imho) is just keeping updates >>>>>> as irrelevant as possible for animation, not to encourage new users to >>>>>> pick >>>>>> it up with that in mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Em quarta-feira, 5 de março de 2014, Steven Caron <[email protected]> >>>>>> escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>>> i agree with the first two, just 3dsmax has too much installed user >>>>>>> base. i know we are mad and we are making a stink about it... but if >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> axed max?! autodesk might have to consider extra security... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Jordi Bares >>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The writing is on the wall. This is my take. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1 - Mudbox is next as Zbrush has truly wiped the market. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2 - Morion Builder next as they implement some tech in maya. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3 - 3DMax goes next. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone want to bet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gustavo E Boehs >>>>>> Dpto. de Expressão Gráfica | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina >>>>>> | http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it >> and let them flee like the dogs they are! >> > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
