I think the problem here is that A) people on this list are rational human beings who care about the software they use for a number of valid reasons and B) the only real motivation is ultimately what AD thinks share holders will respond to- which is to look like they either lost less in a quarter or made more by cutting costs- no mater how "small".
I have no actual data, but I've heard many times that the cg portion of AD accounts for actually a very small part of total revenue, while CAD etc. account for a much larger portion. I'm not anti-capitalism, not by a long shot, but the stock market and what it does or doesn't do to good/bad products good/bad companies is disheartening at times. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, David Gallagher < [email protected]> wrote: > > Well, it was a "difficult" decision, we're assured by Autodesk. > > Not as difficult as it is for us. > > > On 3/11/2014 1:16 PM, Ed Manning wrote: > > Serious question. > > Autodesk has gone on at some length about serving their M&E customers > better, not dispersing their resources on multiple applications, etc. We > have now heard, especially here on the Softimage list, but also in other > forums, from several companies and scores of individual users who are > unhappy about this, and who feel that their work and their income will > suffer as a result. Many of us have had private conversations with people > who are unhappy about it, some of whom speak with the weight (if not the > official voice) of sizable studios behind them. Many of those studios are > mostly built around Maya pipelines, but use Softimage as well. > > So far as I can tell, not ONE Autodesk customer, *even those who > primarily use Maya and already use Houdini*, believes that they will not > be hurt by this. I haven't heard anyone say, "thank God -- at last I can > save a fortune by not deploying Softimage." For any shop that does > transition from Softimage, the very best-case possible scenario is simply > that costs stay about the same -- after all, they will have just as many, > if not more seats to provision. But no one seems to even think the > best-case scenario is plausible. > > Every single company that uses Softimage, uses it for some good reason. > After all, since it's not the "market leader," there HAS to be some special > advantage to using it, otherwise we wouldn't go to the extra trouble of > using it, integrating it, and staffing projects for it (and that last one > can be a LOT of extra trouble). Whether you believe that reason is > workflow efficiency, ICE, flexibility, the in-built compositor, Arnold > integration,or the available talent in your area (most likely a combination > of the above), if you have been using Softimage, you have generally had to > make a conscious choice to do so. > > That choice is sometimes invisible to outsiders in the case of Soft-only > or Soft-centric shops, but it is obvious in the case of large Maya-centric > shops that nevertheless adopt Softimage for some projects. So, given all > that extra effort and inconvenience (#sarcasm), where are the people who > are relieved that it's over? > > It seems, there aren't any. > > I would be very interested to read official statements from any Autodesk > customers who feel that they will benefit from this decision. Yes, in the > long run, many will, since they will transition to Houdini, Modo, or some > yet-to-be tool, but I'm talking about anyone who thinks that they will make > more money, or have an easier time of the next 2 years. > > In fact, I would be interested in reading anything from anyone *at > Autodesk* explaining how this decision benefits ANY of Autodesk's > customers. Does it help Maya-only shops because now they have a more-level > playing field? Does it help multi-app shops because now they'll be > single-app shops using the best-in-breed? Certainly can't both be true. > And if either one of those statements is true, then there will be some > Autodesk customers with even more questions than we have now. > > As far as I can tell, even Maya-only customers do not feel that, say, the > move of the dev team to Maya, does anything beyond slightly improve what > has been an unacceptable stagnation in Maya development. > > So if there is anyone reading this far who can make a positive case for > killing Softimage, please do so. > > And if you can't, and you're in a position of any responsibility at an > Autodesk customer company that feels it's been negatively impacted in any > way, please consider having your company make a calm, rational, public or > private statement to Autodesk detailing that negative impact. > > Thanks > > Ed Manning > > > > > > -- Gideon D. Klindt gideonklindt.com
