Other option will be pay per Softimage sold license to the 3rd party library owners.
Autodesk will still earn money from new Softimage seats and those guys will get their money as well. Besides us still have Softimage. So far the answers of the reasons to bring down Softimage are: 1. We want to focuse in new innovative and creative tools. AKA Maya and MAX 2. Softimage had no enough revenue to keep 3rd party libraries 3. There are inherent costs for keep packaging Softimage with Maya/MAX 4. We wanted the engineers of Softimage to put them to work in other areas. Quick analysis for making viable to keep Softimage alive as it is and still mean revenue for Autodesk. 1. There is no more people putting a single hour into writing a single line of additional code for Softimage. Cost $0 2. We need to keep paying IP to the 3rd party libraries. Get an agreement with them and pay them on a per sold Softimage license basis. I don't believe they will say "No are you crazy!". After EOL they will not recieve a penny. >From prices i have found in the internet: MR license $220 Lagoa, don't know how much about how much will Thiago charge if he was selling Lagoa separately, but comparing to other like Mootzoid let's say $150 Syflex. $200 from their site Physix: Don't the price but lets say another $200 Sub Total: $770 3. I don't know what your cost for packaging Softimage into the exe but it is a single operation. But you already packaged Softiamge 2015 for delivery so future cost $0 4. Additional storage at the server that will hold a larger exe file. 1.5 gigs additional storage for Softiamge exe delivery. Average cloud storage unlimited $108. I guess your cost is lower, but let's So. Cost Devs & Support $0 USD 3rd party libraries $770 USD commercial price (I think you have a better price) Delivery and storage $ 110 (rounding) USD per year. Let's add for something I am missing about your costs, another $500 administrative, coffee, cookies, etc, per license. Even that *nobody* will be working in Softimage. But let's add something... I don't what Fix Cost will you assign to a Software that is only held on your on-line sales system, but really I will say it is near $0, after all we have $500 for coffee and cookies. Softimage license price: $ 3,145 USD Gross Income $3,145 per license sold. -------------------------- Sales Cost $0 -------------------------- Inherent Costs $770 Indirect Costs $500 R&D $ 0 Fix Cost $0 ------------------------------ Net Income before Taxes $1,875 -------------------------------- Taxes around $562 ----------------------------------------- Net Income after Taxes $ 1,300 (rounded) So, again why is this not possible? You keep your devs and resources (except for the on-line host to keep Softimage into the system for purchase and download), into your new innovative and creative affairs. You pay the 3rd party libraries on a per sold license basis. You still make money out of a EOL Software, and we are happy. When the time comes and we are convinced that Maya/MAX are a better option to switch our pipelines, and workflows, and no one else in the world is using Softimage because you are succesful, no one will say nothing when Softimage suddenly dissappears from your system. There is always a workaround if you really want to get things working... But all I hear is NO, NO, NO. Without any will to keep this "small" user base. Autodesk rather prefers that we start migrating to other brands/solutions. At least a "Ok guys I will bring this to the board, commitee or whatever, to evaluate it. You are very valuable to us and we will do our best to keep you." But no everything is NO, this are our reasons and that's it! Just saying.... ------------------------------------------------------- Emilio Hernández VFX & 3D animation. 2014-03-26 6:25 GMT-06:00 Martin Yara <[email protected]>: > I'm just guessing, but cutting down all the 3rd party and Autodesk > property things used in Maya/Max isn't a easy task. It would require > personal, time and money to do it. And for what? to please a few some SI > users for free? > > Never gonna happen. > > Selling Softimage or even part of it to another company so they can > compete against Autodesk? > > Never gonna happen. > > RedShift ?! Come on ! > As amazing as the beta is, they don't even have a finished product yet. > > So let's try to be a little more realistic, please. > > The fact that they don't even want to sell us licenses at full price, > makes this "open source" discussion just a waste of time. They just want to > erase SI from the face of the earth as soon as possible so we could all use > Maya. They don't care how much that will affect you as long as they can > expand Maya's market share. > > If one only thinks about profit, it isn't a bad move I guess. Announcing > EOL and stop selling licenses in 3 weeks (or less in some places) is just > too rushed. $10K per seat isn't a simple decision for some people like me, > but I know, you (AD) just don't care. > > > Martin > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM, David Saber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why not selling XSI to RedShift? That way the default renderer would be >> RedShift instead of MentalRay... >> >> >> On 2014-03-26 11:35, Emilio Hernandez wrote: >> >>> Those are the 3rd party libraries that means so much expense to shot >>> down Softimage??? >>> >>> Well, take those out from Softimage and we will talk to those guys to >>> buy separate licenses. >>> >> >
