Brent McPherson wrote: *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".*
Hi Brent, I apologize for not using the exact phrasing that Maurice used when I wrote my original post, so here is why I believe that the exact nature of the plan for Softimage was, at the least, not clear and at the most, a lie of omission: *http://www.creativebloq.com/3d/autodesk-answers-your-questions-demise-softimage-31411069 <http://www.creativebloq.com/3d/autodesk-answers-your-questions-demise-softimage-31411069>* *"We go through strategic planning each year, and it was part of that process that the decision was made. Softimage wasn't an area we were actively investing more resources in, it was something that we had outsourced to Singapore and was in a continue-to-maintain mode. But it wasn't something we were thinking of end-of-lifing until that strategic planning process."* Please note I am NOT saying the plan was to kill it at the time it was outsourced to Singapore. I am saying the exact nature of what the status was within Autodesk was not made clear (or left out of discussion). That status change, as Maurice's quote above states, was a* "continue-to-maintain mode"*. That, and the fact that (as Maurice also states above) *"Softimage wasn't an area we were actively investing more resources in"* would have been very valuable to know when the decision was announced. That was never told to any of us, at least not publicly, and if it was and you point that out, then I will stand corrected and apologize. This is what I am saying. We should have known this was the new status. You all let us guess, wonder, worry, but never said that you all were not going to actively invest more resources, or that it had been put in a continue-to-maintain mode. Had we known this, at least we would have had all the information, and I for one would have started learning new tools then. So please understand, I am not saying the plan at that time was to EOL Softimage. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Brent McPherson < [email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > -- Perry Harovas Animation and Visual Effects http://www.TheAfterImage.com <http://www.theafterimage.com/> -25 Years Experience -Member of the Visual Effects Society (VES)
