I hope the already announced "Non-commercial NUKE" will not be affected.
Seriously.
I am looking forward to giving myself the pains of learning at least
basic roto skills
to be able to do better slapcomps. Everybody has their own New year´s
resolutions...
Aside from that, I trust that whoever will go ahead and pay 250 millions
for the company
will expect this to be a long time investment and will want to make sure
the profit grows
from customer trust and a long term development strategy.
As I understand it, that´s how business and profit is done nowadays and
those worries
about hedgefonds or private investor groups triggered by short sighted
motives are
totally out of context and should not be taken yet again as a mirror of
the world we live in.
The best business model atm is the subscription model. Guaranteed cash flow.
Like with a cow, milk it instead of butchering it. Exceptions just prove
this rule.
Cheers,
tim
Am 19.12.2014 00:55, schrieb Sebastien Sterling:
I'm pretty sure most of us are happy with Nuke, it would be nice if
the next owner exhibited some shared passion or vision of the product
and a willingness to further it's betterment. instead of begrudgingly
stretching out and rationing feature quotas secure in the knowledge
that there is no longer (oups..!) i mean no comparable alternative for
people to defect to. :P
On 18 December 2014 at 23:37, Luc-Eric Rousseau <luceri...@gmail.com
<mailto:luceri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
More context for clarity: "worthless".. to build a new "greatest
compositing" app.
On Dec 18, 2014 6:01 PM, "Luc-Eric Rousseau" <luceri...@gmail.com
<mailto:luceri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I see what you did there, but that quote was about the 14-bit
compositing code that was last developed in 1996, which I used
5 years
later.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andi Farhall
<hack...@outlook.com <mailto:hack...@outlook.com>> wrote:
> "Personally I think all of this old source code base is now
worthless."
>
> I would agree, and I would include Maya.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com
<mailto:mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:22:00 +0100
> Subject: Re: Lets Hope Autodesk Buys the Foundry!
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com>
>
>
> " I think people just want the existing, production-proven
ones they are
> used to,"
>
> Well this goes also for Softimage for a lot of artist out
there but doesn't
> meant a thing later when it was chopped down
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau
<luceri...@gmail.com <mailto:luceri...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Does anybody want a new compositor? I don't think they do.
I think people
> just want the existing, production-proven ones they are used
to, cheaper.
> What people have in their hands is pretty great already.
>
> btw autodesk doesn't own eddie/illusion/matador/ER, just the
source code of
> the fxtree, which doesn't really have any eddie in it and
not that much of
> the other ones. Personally I think all of this old source
code base is now
> worthless.
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Paul Griswold
> <pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com
<mailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com>> wrote:
>
> Doesn't ADSK own Toxik, Composite, Smoke, Flame, FX Tree
(Eddie, Media
> Illusion, Matador), as well as Elastic Reality (inside the
FX Tree)? On top
> of that they have a fantastic vector paint program called
Sketchbook
> Designer (not Sketchbook Pro, though that's pretty spiffy too).
>
> It seems like they already own enough technology to create
the greatest
> compositor the world has ever seen. I wonder what the
problem is?
> Leadership? Nah....
>
> -PG
>
