Paul , that is an excellent summary of recent events and results! My recommendation to our management will be to make sure not to rely on Autodesk products for the future, since the company:
1. can generally not be trusted - proven by recent events and trackrecord for product management and not least insufficient level of customer information 2. has a very unsatisfactory development plan for one product (Maya) they have failed to improve to a tolerable level through the past 6 years I have followed its development 3. and this is to be the only alternative to our preferred platform, considering they admitted to have a 99% failure rate for innovative development (which is no surprise given the way they manage their products and aquisitions) We are one of the small shops that depend on Softimage for managing projects otherwise above our level in a harsh competitive market. Retrograding to Maya (as Peter Beykens so eloquently put it) will mean we loose a significant profit margin, as we will have to hire expensive freelance TD's to help us do what I can do now with Softimage. Subsequently we will be less competitive and nothing in Autodesks development and marketing plans looks like it will alleviate this serious problem. I think I am beginning to understand why Autodesk chose to EOL Softimage, but I still find it very ill advised. I simply cannot understand how Autodesk can think they can build a future on the ageing platform of Maya (I leave Max out as it is even older and worse). From the stream of information coming from Autodesk these days (which is a quite new level of interaction and openness with the userbase) I understand that we should not count on Autodesk to rewrite a do-it-all DCC platform for the future, as it is not what they think the market needs. Maybe the large part of their userbase does not need this, but we as a small shop with few hands do, also in the future. So they kill the one platform that suits our needs and don't plan to replace it with something we can use. It is definately time to look elsewhere for our future software tools. Morten Bartholdy Den 18. marts 2014 kl. 19:34 skrev Paul Griswold <[email protected]>: > Thanks Maurice, > > So the information I have today is - most of my work is done with Softimage > and there is 0% chance it will be continued. > > Autodesk has a 99% failure rate internally with creating innovative > products. (your words) > > Autodesk wants me to move to Maya, an old, outdated package that cannot do > what I need now, requires significant work (scripts, plugins, etc.) to make > usable, is not conducive to small shops or freelancers, and there is no > promise that it will ever be able to do what Softimage can do right now. > Making that move not only moves me back to the junior level, but reduces my > pay, lowers the quality of my work, and significantly hampers my ability to > compete. > > Bifrost is being developed at a company with a 99% failure rate with > creating innovative products. Bifrost is not an ICE replacement and may > never be one. > > And, apparently in this industry you should not have all your eggs in one > basket. Unfortunately Autodesk bought the goose laying the golden eggs and > wrung it's neck. Now there's no more eggs. I also find it ironic that > someone from ADSK just said we shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket, > yet they want everyone to buy suites and are trying to emulate the Adobe > model.... Or was that just something you say because there's really no > answer for what Autodesk has done? > > Yes, I think I can make a decision based on that information. > > > -Paul > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Maurice Patel < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > We do understand that people build their livelihoods on our software. This > > is something we take seriously, although (with good reason) you might find > > it hard to believe right now. Every year we spend significant resources > > maintaining legacy code so that the new features we add to our products > > don't radically disrupt customers workflows. We really do try not to take > > unnecessary risks with our software. And we have an incredibly long track > > record of developing software for the long term - one can just look at > > AutoCAD and 3ds Max. Even acquisitions like Flame and Maya have continued > > to be extensively developed at Autodesk as have other product acquisitions. > > > > We have stated and are committed both to developing our core products and > > to innovating. Our decision to focus on 3ds max and Maya was so we could > > continue to do both adequately (not one or the other). We are a high tech > > company so it wouldn't be realistic to expect us not to try to innovate > > even if the risks are high. That does not mean that is all we do. > > > > I am not denying that Softimage customers are now facing some challenging > > decisions. But several have said on the forum, and I would personally agree > > with them, that in this industry - as in any high-tech industry - it can be > > risky to have all your eggs in one basket, even if that means looking > > outside of Autodesk (and there are some very interesting solutions out > > there). Giants fall (look at SGI). We are not immune to that either. > > Personally, I do not think that will happen, but no one at Autodesk will > > ever make any explicit guarantees about the future. All I can say is make > > your software decisions based on what you see today - anything else would > > be, to a certain extent, vaporware and speculation, especially the farther > > out you look. > > > > maurice > > > > > > Maurice Patel > > Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 <tel:514%20954-7134> > > From: [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto: > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Paul > > Griswold > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:15 PM > > To: [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Autodesk webinar > > In Softimage we have a production-proven, solid tool. ICE works TODAY, not > > 2 years from today, not in a dream of a product called Bifrost, but right > > NOW. > > > > Are you telling everyone here who has based their ENTIRE business around > > Softimage, we should trust Autodesk to have a fully functioning tool ready > > that will do EVERYTHING Softimage can do TODAY by the time Softimage hits > > the end? We should believe that after you've just admitted that Skyline > > was a failure? > > > > These aren't a bunch of ideas or concepts here, these are our businesses! > > We feed our families, we pay our bills, we survive based on Softimage and > > now we have to hope that somehow Bifrost is not in the 99% failure, but 1% > > innovation? > > > > Do you seriously want us to bet our future on that? Would you go home and > > tell your significant other that rather than focusing on a tool that works > > for you, makes money for you right now, you're betting everything on a > > promise from Autodesk?? > > > > Who on earth does business like that?? Is Autodesk going to pay our > > mortgages or feed our families when Bifrost falls apart? Because unless > > that's the plan, I can't think of a single sane person who would go along > > with this Maya-only plan. > > > > This is absolutely a terrible way to do business and everyone at Autodesk > > knows it. They've just dug in their heels to avoid looking like they've > > made a colossal mistake. > > > > -Paul > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Adam Sale < [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: > > > > Maurice, in all of this talk the one glaring omission is this. You guys are > > always trying to innovate. You have said success is often 99 percent > > failure to one percent success. Well, in the event bifrost falls by the > > wayside like skyline did, all of a sudden autodesk will have zero node > > based solutions to do the type of ice work we expect of a dcc product. How > > is that a wise move as a company? Its like throwing out the baby with the > > bath water and seems incredibly short sighted. So as we move to bifrost to > > begin our transition away from ICE, we may be in this same mess a couple > > years down the road if it doesnt pan out. Imagine the fallout then.. people > > will go absolutely nuclear on AD. > > > > Adam
