Softimage, like SideEffect, 3DSMax and the rest are small teams of very clever developers, 8-12 is the normal number of developers for any app… that is a very small cost compared with the cost of advertising and PR, believe me.
Regarding this implied direct relationship between pace of development and resources, it is so so obscene it is insulting to say that. By that rule all the software portfolio Autodesk manages hinders everything they do, let's face it, they have lots of products. If the case is pace of development just hire a few more good guys and make sure the effort does not go to waste by not promoting it well. The issue I have is that something does not add up… I still don't understand the decision and the more I think about it, the more suspicious it becomes.. .does not even seem a coordinated well put plan that is causing all this storm (all the handling has been awful and big companies tend to handle these things with utmost care as it casts a horrible light to the brand itself) Just look at how Apple handled Shake, they discontinued it but offer the possibility of buying the source code and carry on using it, it was bad but at least was a clean exit. Also helps that nuke was ready for prime time so felt like moving forward instead of moving back to the 80s with Maya. Jordi Bares [email protected] On 8 Mar 2014, at 11:05, Cristobal Infante <[email protected]> wrote: > it's a bad decision in the eyes of who? > > They didn't really buy softimage because they thought is a software they > could improve any further, they were actually really buying US the users. > Some people call it killing the competition, a chess move. > > If xsi only had 8-10 developers, than It doesn't take a math genius to figure > out that they were obviously making money with it. Maybe not as much as a lot > of us would like to believe, but still surely enough to keep it going. > > From a business point of view, they are thinking "How can we make MORE money > for less cost". How do we make our business more efficient on a long term > plan? The answer is quite simple, you unify all your efforts into one money > making machine that will eventually be Maya 2.0. It will look very similar to > Maya if not identical otherwise they wouldn't have bothered "transitioning > us" now. > > Some people say "bad costumer service" but I guess the mayority of their > costumers are Maya so we were a small price to pay... > > They knew there was going to be a loss of costume, but in 5 years time that > frequently asked question "What 3D package should I learn?" will be totally > irrelevant. They are putting their money on that "bright" future. > > Anyone want to bet which Adsk 3d software will die next? No brainer. > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 8 March 2014, Chris Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > I couldn't agree more > > On Friday, 7 March 2014, Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at things from another angle I am concerned with the whole decision > because I don't understand it, abandoning Softimage seems such a bad decision… > > Can I ask you how many developers were working exclusively on the Softimage > product? 6? 8? 12? > > Is that a crazy cost? let's face it, Autodesk is a huge corporation and we > are talking about saving peanuts... > > Or am I dreaming here? > > Selling it would be a great option, and surely if the market share was so > small would not have any impact whatsoever on your company. > > Jordi Bares > [email protected] > > > > > -- > > Chris Marshall > Mint Motion Limited > 029 20 37 27 57 > 07730 533 115 > www.mintmotion.co.uk > >
