Ethical simply doesn't enter the picture when you interface with a publicly traded corp. Whether it's sad or not is a different discussion, but never expect ethical from any profit driven organization. This is not a criticism levelled to any company, it's just an important thing to keep in mind when dealing with one that, ultimately, targets investor benefits as their main objective. ZBrush or 3DCoat are ultimately driven by the vision and feelings of some key people, Fabric to a large extent can be personable, SideFX often is, Some products inside the Foundry are successful and insular enough to benefit from the good will of some key people. Autodesk simply doesn't work to those parameters, it's not configured to the moment any given decision can be overridden by a fluctuation in the stock market that's completely unrelated to the division serving you.
The (some) people inside have feelings and ethics, and some rare times they might surface in a company policy, software feature or PR move, but the general direction of the company itself isn't determined by those anomalies. You can expect some moral standards and genuinely humane feelings reflected in those products with teams insular and successful enough in some of those companies, and you definitely can in the more mom&pop style companies, but don't expect a publicly traded company to be successfully affected, provoked, manipulated or coerced into action or inaction by any interaction shaped by feelings like if you were dealing with another person. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > << There is so much more that is wrong and could be fixed >> > > Of course what can "legal" often bears very little, to sometimes NO > relation to what can be considered "ethical" > > > > On 03/05/14 17:09, Raffaele Fragapane 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!
