Forgot to add the more important thing is that what AD didnt expect with this shitstorm is that all of the other communities are now talking, there are knowledge transfers and people are understanding that their perceptions of other packages may have been wrong. Things are moving a lot faster now as very skilled Softimage users are looking at other options. That leads to them writing tools etc that makes the other packages better and will pull more people away from AD.
I think they now realise that pissing off these types of people is not a wise decision. ________________________________ From: Angus Davidson [[email protected]] Sent: 08 March 2014 02:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Good point well put I disagree 5 Years from now, Modo / Houdini / Fabric Engine will be the standard. I say this because they are agile, they listen to what their users want and they actively develop and have a coherent roadmap. With the rate that the industry is developing Maya will not be able to keep up. ________________________________ From: Cristobal Infante [[email protected]] Sent: 08 March 2014 02:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Good point well put They have messed up really badly with us by the way the've handled this. But I don't really consider this a storm, a few guys ranting on a mailing list. CGsociety haven't even bothered to make this news. Why did they keep softimage for all this years? well simple, they were investing in a relationship with costumers. Now that the Foundry had started to gain ground it was time to act and think about this bright future. We are just too involved in the mess to see the whole picture. Think 5 years from now, all I can see is Maya. On Saturday, 8 March 2014, Daniel Kim <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I hope there is a company or someone else who can hire all SI developers and make another next generation 3D software. I remember when Lightwave shut down years ago, and they are back in industry and shows great stuff, and even Modo. I really hope there is a company or someone hires SI dev members... ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Kim Animation Director & Professional 3D Generalist http://www.danielkim3d.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: 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 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. <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>
