When I bought XSI years ago, I compared it with Maya, and the 3d software packages i had been using since the dawn of the phenomenon, and made my decision. I never looked back. I have been extremely happy with XSI -- the workflow, the interface, everything was geared toward ease of use and learning, and visualization of a project from beginning to end. It has been the one piece of software that I find myself saying, every time I use it, what a fantastic piece of software! A joy to learn and use. And I've barely delved into ICE.
When Autodesk purchased XSI, I was crushed. People speak of AD acquiring XSI to use its technology, and Maurice Patel has stated, "We also acquire tech, redesign and re-engineer it, even rewrite it entirely, to fit into our products and workflows and yes, if it is more efficient to do so, we just integrate it." So that is obviously one reason for them to acquire XSI....right after ICE was introduced..... But what I thought then, and sadly seems to be coming true... Is that AD acquired XSI in order to acquire and 'integrate' XSI's USER BASE. What better way for a company to dominate the user base of a software genre than to acquire software products in that genre, kill them, and then offer the stunned user base a cost-efficient (in the short term) entree into their preferred product. Plus they get to cannibalize the dead software and use it to pump up their 'chosen one'. But we are not seeing that latter tech application effect so much as we are seeing the hijacking of the user base of Softimage. And, as so many have pointed out, bringing Maya into a state where SI users will find their workflow and features emulated is only a vague promise for future application. Not likely to be realized, considering the track record of Autodesk. Does this remind anyone of the infamous corporate takeover mentality...? Applied to software, of course. Same principle. Only here, it is the user base which is the prize, the economic draw of an expanded user base over the years. Especially as Maya, and the expensive plugins and expansions needed to do comparable work that XSI does out of the box... is significantly more expensive than XSI. I am a one-person fine artist, primarily a painter, using SI as a tool for video installation work. This is a grey area of use, not completely non-commercial, as art shows have some commerce involved, still the return on investment in the area of 3D work is always likely to be a loss. Still, I reluctantly went for the SI maintenance agreement with AD when it bought XSI, stretching my budget as far as it will go. Maya is not an artist tool like SI is, and not agreeable to a small artist's budget. Very few options remain, in that regard. I left Lightwave because of its lack of non-linear workflow, and cumbersome animation. XSI was light years ahead in these areas. I made my choice, but now it seems that people like me are being squeezed out of any chance of developing our interests and contributions to an alternate aspect of 3D work. I very much admire the work of all of you who work in the industry, and the truly amazing things you do with SI, or any software. Incredible, what you accomplish. (And i often find myself wishing i had the great teams you have to be able to accomplish more of what I envision.) But there has to be a place for small artists who choose to use 3D software for other purposes, and take it in a somewhat different direction. We may not be a large user base which will be economically significant to a company like Autodesk, but this (fine arts) aspect of 3D work needs to be able to exist. And that is becoming increasingly doubtful, with the big sharks gobbling up our accessible software package and leaving us behind with little chance to develop our work. Nancy Jacobs http://www.childofillusion.net/ On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Paul Griswold <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > wrote: >> Hi Paul, Adam >> 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 >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold >> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:15 PM >> To: [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]>> 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 >
