> I guess what the issue (at least for me) is, is that while you are > correct that Autodesk did talk about moving development to Singapore, > Autodesk did NOT say that the product was in a state of minimal development.
Perry, At the time Softimage was moved to Singapore the team out there was about the same size as the Montreal team and there was a year of overlap and Montreal devs (including me) went to Singapore to train that team. Hardly what you would call "minimal development". It is ridiculous to think a company would devote this kind of effort to shut the product down. If Autodesk's intention was to shut Softimage down they could have easily done that on day one. In this case I think the explanation you have been given fits perfectly. The market has changed. M&E leadership has changed. In response the decision makers have decided to refocus the efforts around existing products that have a much larger market share than Softimage. Too much product overlap is not healthy for any company long term. I spent a lot of my career working on Softimage and it was a great experience thanks to my colleague and everyone on this list. However, I've seen the numbers and I can't really argue with the decision on that basis. We can continue to argue how we got to this point but that doesn't seem very productive but I will vouch for the fact it wasn't all a bed of roses under Avid's tenure. -- Brent
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
