Hi Emilio et al. About the webinar: First sorry about the technical problems. Google servers and our streaming servers had issues and we lost the service. Yes the questions were screened. We were not sure of the volume of the questions we would get and suspected it would be too high to try and handle onscreen on the fly. But behind the camera questions were being collected and fed to us - such as Greg and others' question "why should I trust Autodesk?" - which was the live component. We answered pretty much all the questions posed although we tried to avoid repeating similar questions. We answered the key recurring ones : why don't you sell/license/open source Softimage? Why don't you continue development longer/forever? Why discontinue what we feel is your best/most innovative product. The answer to those three questions are so we can focus more of our efforts on Maya and 3ds Max. Now you may find our answers unsatisfactory but that is why we are doing it. We have now posted the full recording should anyone want to refer to it -ultimately there is not a whole much more new than what has been already been discussed on this forum. maurice
Maurice Patel Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Emilio Hernandez Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Autodesk webinar Well I really do not understand this Autodesk "client oriented" policy. But if I was there, at this time at least, I would have come in and asked at least for an apology and will reschedule the webinar. What sense it makes to watch a recorded webinar without the live QA session? They were already filtering the questions if it is true that they were actually real questions more focused in the "if I have a horse can I trade it for a pony?" We waited two weeks to hear what they have to offer us that will show how wrong we were for not believe in them. This only confirms that we should not believe in them and that they really do not care about us. Seems that the removal of the timebomb was more "a taking a step ahead before someone will come with a lawsuit based on damages". This two weeks of "we are listening you" were nothing else but BS, while they were trying to make us sing "everything is wonderful". Again the door of uncertainty and speculation is wide open. Nothing Autodesk has told us about why they decided to kill Softimage makes full sense at all. The only thought in my mind is that Softimage was coming from behind even without proper branding/marketing strategy, and their Maya cardhouse was starting to fall apart. Cheaper than Maya, less human resources to operate, no big dev team behind to create tools that should be out of the box or to fix things that get broken. Better workflow... Even without been truly improved since Autodesk acquired it. ICE not only for particles or VFX but as well to find quick workarounds for rigging and precedural modeling. Lots of money spent in Maya "innovation" but that it seems they only bought plugins to Maya brand them. Call it the conspiracy theory if you want. But it makes more sense than any other "official" explanation. Imagine how they will look if Autodesk starts selling more Softimage seats instead of Maya. Even that they have invested a lot in Maya and nearly nothing in Softimage. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Emilio Hernández VFX & 3D animation.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
