Sebastien Sterling write: "But then again we seem to all be erring under the primordially FLAWED premiss that "Autodesk is a software company"."
Or that they care... On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Sebastien Sterling < [email protected]> wrote: > AD doesn't care about the individual or small team users, they make the > bulk from big companies who have the resources for subscription, this being > the case, this decision is more of a "fuck you" to the > freelance/independents. Why implement it at all ? you want to ostracise a > demographic ? > > I might also add in support to Sam's previous statement, about buggy > releases, the maya 2013 to 2014 fiasco, somewhere along the service packs, > they managed to break Blendshapes of all things, so rigs coming from 2013 > to 2014 would no longer work, saw this happen in studio. > > If they even cared to deliver a well tested and fool proof product with > reasonable monthly price tag and EASY jump in jump off subscription. > > But they don't. > > They don't even seem to get how subscription works currently > > Back when i bought softimage 2013 it cost 3700 with vat stand alone, i > checked how much it would cost to buy with subscription, an extra 1500 > dollars ?! > > surely a subscription entry fee should come at a lower or at the very > least equal entry point, I'm paying extra for the right to pay monthly ? is > paying a feature ? > > But then again we seem to all be erring under the primordially FLAWED > premiss that "Autodesk is a software company". > > > On 30 August 2014 09:39, Sam Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That’s the big difference between Autodesk and adobe. For $49 you get >> everything that adobe makes. Most people can afford that. With Autodesk >> it’s more like having another car payment, which most people cannot afford. >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sebastien >> Sterling >> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2014 4:37 PM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Autodesk considering ditching perpetual licenses >> >> >> >> pay 399 per month per license to access your data and functionality, and >> then pay another 399 a month later, and do it again and again :) sure... >> independents are catered to... :P >> >> >> >> On 30 August 2014 00:32, Sergio Mucino <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It was just a matter of time until Autodesk figured out that software is >> not where the value is, but in the data created with it. Going rental-only >> has upsides and downsides, and the biggest downside I see is it becomes a >> very effective way to hold your data hostage. You're forced to pay just go >> access your data. In some cases, this may be irrelevant, in others, it >> won't be. >> >> >> >> Another thing to consider is that sometimes, we forget to see these >> maneuvers through Autodesk's eyes. Autodesk is much more than the M&E >> division. Autodesk has figured that, like Adobe, it has the luxury of being >> not only the standard, but pretty much a monopoly (other CAD products are >> as much as an alternative to AutoCAD, as GIMP is an alternative to >> Photoshop). So, there's little to fear there in terms of user migration. >> >> Unfortunately for the M&E division, their products do have very viable >> alternatives out there (many topics on this list are testament to that). I >> guess we'll have to wait and see (it wouldn't be the first time either that >> a given statement never comes to materialize itself). >> >> >> >> I don't think this would affect the big guys as it would the smaller >> shops and freelancers. I can see those walking away definitively. Does >> Autodesk care? I'm not really sure. They certainly didn't care for the >> entire user base of an entire product (in terms of asking the users what >> they thought if the idea). >> >> >> >> Anyway, don't wanna start the whole pain cycle all over again :-). It's >> Friday, and I got better things to do than being online. Like... Fallout >> 3!! :-D (maybe I can finish it in a few months... After... What? 4 years >> playing it?). >> >> Sergio Muciño. >> >> Sent from my iPad. >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From Si-Community, quoting 'jonmoore' at C4DCafe.com >> >> With *upgrades due to be eliminated early next year,* next up on >> Autodesk's chopping block is the perpetual license. Here is the exchange >> from a recent conference call with financial analysts (reproduced with >> permission of Seeking Alpha): >> >> Matt Hedberg (RBC Capital Markets): Carl, I'm wondering, when might you >> eliminate perpetual sales? >> And maybe more generically, what is the framework for eventually pulling >> this license option? >> >> Carl Bass (Autodesk): I'll ask you Matt, what do you think is a good >> timeframe to do that? >> >> Matt Hedberg: I would certainly probably depend on the products, but the >> market generally wants it-- seems to be wanting it sooner than later. >> >> Carl Bass: We’ve been looking at considering it seriously, and we’ll talk >> again a little bit more about this in October [at Autodesk's annual >> conference for financial analysts] what our plans are. Right now, we have a >> fair amount of transition going on in the business with the elimination of >> the upgrades and certainly inspiring people to action. But as we move into >> next year, we’ll have more to say on that. >> >> _____________________________ >> >> << when might you eliminate perpetual sales? [...] the market generally >> wants it-- seems to be wanting it sooner than later.>> >> Now who the heck is this market? >> >> Is it a collection of users pressuring for this? (among other (wrong but >> legal) things?) >> >> Matt Hedberg is no user (RBC Capital Markets), he speaks on behalf of >> (all impersonal) investors and shareholders that each have stakes in the >> ADSK title, as one of their eggs in their varied baskets of eggs, >> all calling for one thing, -MORE- >> (with quite noticably (and quite unsurprisingly) very little concern for >> whatever implications to the end user if at all). >> >> Are there conference calls where users can say.. >> hey Carl, users cant access their old scenes unless they they commit >> with the "flexible" option. >> So when would you expect that to change? We've been waiting for that. >> >> Carl may be a CEO, but it's not like he, along with other executives >> don't answer to anyone. >> >> Responsibility is to shareholders first. >> (who quite normally, predictably and constantly couldn't care less) >> >> >> But here it's almost like their saying "it's time!" >> time for what? well.. the hegemony of the company is at a point where >> it's (yet) more complete, >> enough to take advantage of the fact that users (further) don't have much >> other choice other then to take what the company decides is good for them >> (once more) >> (which is actually only (very) 'good' for [ADSK].. and basically (very) >> bad for anyone else) >> >> quote from Carl Bass: Three years from now it will be surprising to me >> if anybody is really running very much perpetual desktop software. >> >> Another quote from Carl said that ideally everything would be on the >> (controlled) cloud by around that time, being when most of everyone would >> then essentially be had (by the balls) >> >> Three years from now, it will be surprising to me if anybody is really >> running Autodesk software. >> (unless the fairly high likelihood of everyone basically becoming screwed >> (further) comes to pass) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/29/14 13:34, Perry Harovas wrote: >> >> Really no surprise here: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.cgchannel.com/2014/08/autodesk-considering-ditching-software-licences/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Perry Harovas Animation and Visual Effects http://www.TheAfterImage.com <http://www.theafterimage.com/> -25 Years Experience -Member of the Visual Effects Society (VES)
