I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think many people expect marketing to be "experts". At bare minimum, perhaps knowing what their software looks like at a glance is a reasonable expectation?
Either way, I don't care if you vet or not. It's still amusing. Freelance 3D and VFX animator http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Maurice Patel <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com>wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I do. Typically we always credit all software used on facebook even when > it is competitors which is why you will see product like Z-Brush mentioned > on our pages. A lot of staff post under the Autodesk account. I cannot vet > it all personally and I don't think Social Media should all be vetted. Some > mistakes happen. And for sure not everyone on the Marketing teams are > Softimage or even M&E experts. The mistake was almost certainly > unintentional > > Maurice > > Maurice Patel > Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lampi > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:38 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Re: Autodesk´s Sales model > > Speaking of marketing, the other day on Facebook they had a link posted to > an article about a short that was being made, with the tagline, "See how > Maya was used for all of the modeling and rigging" with a picture of an > artist at his workstation using a SoftImage rig to animate. > > Freelance 3D and VFX animator > > http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Leoung O'Young <digim...@digimata.com > <mailto:digim...@digimata.com>> wrote: > Who actually looks after their marketing/public relations? Is the > Softimage/XSI user base so small, they don't give a hoot! > What a way to run a business. > > On 10/17/2013 1:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: > That's for financial reporting with regards to accuracy and disclosure of > accounting practices for sake of accountability to investors and the SEC. > > A company can provide NDAs and discuss plans of various natures without > running into problems. They can also give glimpses publicly as > demonstrated at the Siggraph user group where they showed forward looking > technologies related to Maya. They can do the same with the other products > and not run afoul of the SEC. Sharing a broad overview of where they see > the individual products heading isn't an issue either as long as it's done > on the level. Other companies of heavier weight and broader visibility > have been more open than Autodesk. It is Autodesk that has chosen to be > opaque creating a sense of distrust amongst their customers. > > In the long run that will be Autodesk's undoing as they're serving a > market which doesn't have a lot of loyalty. > > Matt > > > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph > G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:38 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > > > Subject: RE: Autodesk´s Sales model > > Sarbanes Oxley....... > > > -- > Joey Ponthieux > > __________________________________________________ > Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not > represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Mirko Jankovic > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:15 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > > > Subject: Re: Autodesk´s Sales model > > and then someone is wondering why people are thinking worse and creating > all sort of conspiracy theories... > it doesnt need to be like detailed road map but where software as such is > going at all.. or is it being ripped apart by Maya vultures and left to rot > or they will keep it on life at least with artificial breathing > machines...OR try to build an nice strong guy to stay with us for looong > time... > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Angus Davidson <angus.david...@wits.ac.za > <mailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za>> wrote: > Oh I am fairly sure We will never get point b. It just means their > subscription model will fail. The worlds economy is in too poor a place for > people to continue throwing money at something and hoping for the best. > > > ________________________________ > From: Sergio Mucino [sergio.muc...@modusfx.com<mailto: > sergio.muc...@modusfx.com>] > Sent: 17 October 2013 04:42 PM > > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > > > Subject: Re: Autodesk´s Sales model > > I really don't think you'll EVER get point B in your list from Autodesk. > The best you can do to sort of extrapolate into something similar is keep > an eye on whatever's going on at Autodesk Labs. That's it. Anyone who > believes they can convince, beg, or coerce AD to reveal their roadmaps to > the public has clearly never had to deal with AD's legal department. :-) > > [cid:image001.gif@01CECB5C.C66A2D40] > > On 16/10/2013 11:37 PM, Angus Davidson wrote: > I have nothing against a subscription model. if done well it can work > really well. However subscription only works well if you have the following. > > a) Getting value for money (percieved or actual) > b) There is an openness about what is coming up in future releases > > Without that there is zero incentive for people to put money down on > something that is a big unknown. > > An easy way to fix point a) is to have more releases a year. There is no > reason you cant have two or even three releases a year. Currently you have > one and its pretty much a crap-shoot as to whether you get anything > worthwhile. > > Well the way to fix point b is pretty obvious. When you have a > subscription model you cant hide behind we are a listed company bullshit > anymore. Its a very different thing to having people buy something they > know about, to making your customers take all the risk of putting money > down in the vague hope of getting something useful. If you want > subscription to work you have to have a roadmap its simply a non negotiable > thing. > > > ________________________________ > From: Mirko Jankovic [mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com<mailto: > mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>] > Sent: 17 October 2013 12:16 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > > > Subject: Re: Autodesk´s Sales model > Actually no-one as I'm aware of ever mentioned problem with price of > subscription but subscription it self. > Tool that is worth thousands but earns you even more than that is good > investment. > An $1 screwdriver that you will never ever use is waste of money and bad > investment. > Throwing any kind of $$$ at subscription and not getting anything back .. > what basked does that goes for? > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < > raffsxsil...@googlemail.com<mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>> wrote: > This pretty much hits the nail on the head IMO. > > A number of factors converging has made it so that people have been slowly > conditioned to think DCC software and its sales and updates right now are > OK to be as cheap as they are on the frontload expenditure (a couple to > three and half grands for software with some of the largest and most varied > and complex sets of functionalities ever), and something worth > "subscribing" to. > > The truth is subscription, in any sane world, would require a vibrant, > lively and worthy eco-system of user base, community and software support. > > At present time subscription means you get the occasional SP/ext, which is > usually borked beyond repair and will take another couple fixes to be > fixed, or will be fixed in the next major (Maya 2014 ext had a bucketload > of features but turned out unusably broken due to a ridiculously nasty > shapes bug). At one point upgrading becomes a game of what bugs you can > live with, the old ones you know, or the new ones introduced elsewhere > while fixing those. > Solid releases exist, of course, at least within restricted domains of > functionalities one might be interested in, and that's why often times > people stick to a release for five years. It's not that they don't want to > upgrad, it's that it's the ONE safe spot in a bloody mine field of bugs and > disasters that are behind you (older versions that didn't work), and around > you (new versions that break a different piece every time). > > There is no community support worth mentioning, the Area is a wasteland of > despair where the only noise is that of noob souls wailing in despair, the > "app shop" useless (the few contributors are all giving up on it when it > takes weeks to months for AD to clear a free minor update to their stuff). > There is no such thing as a quick fix, let alone weekly or forthnightly > builds. > The support itself is useless to anybody but the most superficial user. > Training/educational content of any depth is scarce to unavailable (a few > smatterings of superficial stuff again, at best), and there is no effort in > sight to change that. > Lastly, being on subscription provides with no added network or > interaction at all. > > There IS a thriving eco-system around some of the softwares, but all of > it, and I literally mean ALL of it, is down to your social network, > reputation, and putting in the hard miles to connect and keep track of > who's who and what websites to follow. > Beta testing, friends on the inside, the right blogs and websites, third > party software and training providers... those often work and work to > levels you simply wouldn't expect a completely anarchic system to, and they > are free, and usually absolutely unsupported by AD, which instead keeps > throwing money or hours at the big studios that steer their main horse the > most. > This isn't bad, and I'm not having a go at AD, my current situation is > actually quite alright in fact, but I find that when I really look at it > from a distance there is simply no incentive for me to wish to pay money on > a regular basis to AD. The best is all free, or user driven, or both. > > I'm not against subscription model, not at all actually, but AD and Adobe > are putting the cart before the horses, changing their business model well > before they are anywhere within a light year of being able to foster and > support the eco-system , sales and dev models that such business model > requires for users to be treated fairly. > > Right now it's a lose/lose situation AFAIC, and a huge demand on my trust > ahead of time when track record past is diametrically opposite to what one > would consider encouraging. > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Matt Lind <ml...@carbinestudios.com > <mailto:ml...@carbinestudios.com>> wrote: > > When I hear the word 'subscription', I think of magazine subscription > where content is provided on a regular and continuing basis like a stream > and it's the customer's prerogative to jump into the stream or bail out. > Applied to the case of software, I would intuitively expect builds and > point releases provided on a regular intervals throughout the year. A > download manager would be able to 'diff' what you have with what's > available and patch your install appropriately. New builds should be > available weekly or bi-weekly or monthly at worst case, and perhaps a point > release every 8-10 weeks, with a major release once per year. The current > model of getting one release per year and maybe a service pack or two later > does not qualify as a subscription in my book. Service packs are "damn, we > screwed up. Here are the fixes to our mistakes and the things we didn't > finish". The fact I have to download a service pack should be viewed as an > inconvenience to the customer and avoided at all costs, not the customer > pining for relief saying, "thank god I can now get work done and go home at > a decent hour". > > Yes, as stated in earlier posts, the logic and business mindset has been > conditioned to be topsy-turvy. > > > This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or > disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. > Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on > behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content > of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may > contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not > necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, > Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are > subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the > contrary. > > > This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or > disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. > Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on > behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content > of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may > contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not > necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, > Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are > subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the > contrary. > > > > > >
