*"It is incorrect to think that Autodesk is only interested in acquiring technology":*
Did you consider the viability of selling Softimage? *"There's too much tied into the software for us to do that safely. We've looked at open-sourcing, not just Softimage but other applications, but it's not trivial to do these things. There's code bases, third party IP, we have to go through all of it to understand where all the IP came from.""We wouldn't sell the software. We paid to acquire the IP"* *" Taking proven technology and productizing it, whether as individual products, (like the Foundry) or as features (like Autodesk) is not really a bad thing a-priori..."* Yadadad... This is basically you going back on your previous statement, after realising the obvious fallacy, i get it. Hard In house developing VS levering capital to buy Third party/free party tech, and display them as new features is one thing But you will have a hard time selling the latter as innovation when your line up for 2015 is comprised of pre existing solutions dating back to 2008. Personally i think it is a good thing that ingenious third party plugs find their way into an app, but only when they are well integrated. and i don't particularly like seeing something as trivial as a chamfer modifier elevated and flaunted as a flagship feature, i completely understand the reactions of the Max community. *" Yes, I guess I can start look for an alternative (even though that won't be easy) and that's not because with Max 2013 I'm not productive (even if I've to do several back and forth with C4D), but because at this point I don't believe AD will ever add any substantial new features to Max.* * Considering recent Softimage users experience, I just wanna stay away from a company like this."* This is you, this is how you are seen, by a comunity of people who's DCC you are still supporting. if this account is anything less then soul crushing to you as a provider, then you have a serious problem. indeed you may well have lost 2 applications this day I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the road in a few years time, somebody is going to posit: Of course ! let's retire max, we can't support another DCC and numbers are flagging... "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." Would you care to balance the value of your in-house content versus the tools you've acquired ? NEX NAIAD OPEN SUBDIV XGEN Cat Quad Chamfer grease pensil Zookeaper ICE...on and on and on... Should we broaden the definition of tool ?: 3D studio max Alias MAYA Softimage. Mudbox.... The list is endless, and illustrates a point. *"It is incorrect to think that Autodesk is only interested in acquiring technology"* *That is all you have ever done in this industry.* So far as M&E is concerned you have never created anything. you have acquired and maintained, and when it becomes self evident that you have bitten off so much more then you can chew to develop, you have bought and feverishly integrated other peoples solutions, and when that hasen't been enough, you have as is presently painfully obvious, discontinued. This is the main difference between you and Side FX, or you and Pixology, they can tailor their users experience, and when asked they can change things and improve things at a core level. I'm sure you would like to be as responsive, but you find yourselves as custodians of 30 years worth of legacy code, and still attempting to build of this outdated and rotting foundation. The most interesting thing you could do is create from the ground up a new DCC able to compete and lead the next gen, using all the acquired knowledge and IP gleamed from your previous acquisitions the first real true AD M&E solution, something to be rightfully proud of, something so good even in time maya studios would transition to, true it might cost a lot of money, but at least you'd be alive !. but... you will not do this, this will not happen because, you are not developers. On 20 March 2014 17:53, Maurice Patel <[email protected]> wrote: > The interesting thing is that the M&E industry is full of custom and > specialized tech created to solve specific production problems. That is not > going to change any time soon because people are always trying to do push > boundaries (whether in games or VFX) and so build interesting solutions to > their problems. Taking proven technology and productizing it, whether as > individual products, (like the Foundry) or as features (like Autodesk) is > not really a bad thing a-priori - you could argue it is actually a very > good thing as it benefits a lot more people if you do (assuming you do it > well). > > Now you may question our execution, but it is incorrect to think that (1) > this is not an effective thing to do to ensure the best production > technology can be accessed by more people or (2) to think that only > Autodesk is interested in acquiring and productizing proven production > solutions and (3) to think that Autodesk is only interested in acquiring > technology. We develop a lot of features in-house including major > architectural work which is complex, difficult to do and doesn't always > reward you with a new 'shiny feature' that is easy to demo. 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. > > But that is not all we do and there seem to be some popular misconceptions > - such as the fact that the 'plug-ins' that referred to in the links are > nothing to do with the features that were being described in 3ds Max 2015. > Not that 3ds Max is Softimage - but it is not just a bunch of plug-ins > either. > > maurice > > > Maurice Patel > Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Sebastien Sterling > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why MAX is not option for me. > > "That's why I call 3DMax a "Plugin Container"" > That not really the issue, maya is pretty much wall to wall third party as > well by nature. > This is AD not being arsed with developing content, so it looks around for > pre existing solutions, snaps them up, adds them in, Then they market them > as "New" features... > It's not so much that they buy pre-made solutions, there are some really > smart third party people out there, its the fact they through them in with > minimal integration and little regard for workflow, that and having a 30 > euros operator, being your highlight... > In all fairness the max people walked right into that one, they presented > AD with the easy option. > , minimal effort required. > I mean what the hell can the AD dev's do, do they just re-purpose and > integrate all day ? > > On 20 March 2014 10:33, Daniel Kim <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > That's why I call 3DMax as a "Plugin Container", not a 3D package. ;) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Kim > Animation Director & Professional 3D Generalist > http://www.danielkim3d.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
