..my point, exactly.
On 08/03/14 13:20, Angus Davidson wrote:
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.
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.
