Mr. Doyle are you reading this? Morten
Den 5. marts 2014 kl. 10:11 skrev Stefan Kubicek <s...@tidbit-images.com>: > This is exactly what I am thinking for years now: 3D software out of the > hands of large corporations. > All the legal problems that come with public companies (not being able to > talk freely about future developments at any time for example, safe harbor > blah) is just to much of a problem for a product that highly depends on > the input of it's users and proper communication, let alone looming > bankruptcy in financially difficult times, let alone in times of bad > management decisions, and combinations thereof. Blender can never go > bankrupt! That DATEV example is particularly nice since buyers of the > software automatically become owners of the company, not just the product > or license. > Some thoughts: > It would be cool if subscribes could actively contribute to the > development through feature requests and/or code contributions, and > everybody gets access to daily builds. Through regular code contributions > members could get "developer" status, freeing them from having to pay a > member fee. > It could be legally challenging to get that business model established on > an international level though, not sure how the "Genossenschaft" > translates to the US and other countries. Any ideas how this could work? > > > > after laying around the whole night and couldn't sleep here are my 2 > > cents on the whole situation. > > > > When you look at the history of Softimage it's quite obvious that > > developing a software for this industry is quite a challenge. I think > > there is reason why Daniel Langlois sold Softimage to Microsoft, because > > he couldn't stand the developing costs for a complete rewrite anymore. > > And when you see how long it took until XSI and later Moondust got on > > the market you may have glimpse what it means to develop a piece > > Software with this kind of sophistication. > > > > I can only hope that FabricEngine and all the others develop a better > > business model then the traditional one with investors outside of the > > industry who are not bound to the company they are invested in and can > > sell their investment at anytime to anywhom. I think the only solution > > are strong bounds into the 3D industry itself. > > > > I want to show you an example. In the Germany there is a company called > > DATEV. They do a very unsexy thing: tax accounting software. But the > > interesting part is that this company has been built by its customers > > and is owned by its customers in form of a cooperative society. The > > company exists since 1966 which gives you an idea about the stability > > and longevity of such the business model. > > More info about you find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datev > > > > As manufacturing 3D software is obviously not a highly profitable > > business (or why else Softimage got sold from the founder via Microsoft > > throught AVID to Autodesk, Maya from Wavefront through Alias to > > Autodesk, 3dsmax from Kinetix through discreet* to Autodesk) > > I can only strongly recommend to stay away from financal investors and > > the stock market and try to finance the development through the 3D > > industry itself. > > > > By the way if you look at Autodesk's latest business figures then you > > get the impression that big troubles can arise. Last years revenue > > dropped significantly especially when you compare it to the performance > > of the competition in the engineering sector. Engineering is 93% of > > their business by the way. M&E only contributes 7% to their revenue and > > is decreasing. > > Related to that I don't think that cloud based services which is > > supposedly the next big thing is wanted by such a conservative industry > > like the engineering industry is. And believe me or not they are > > conservative. I have some clients in this field. When this cloud based > > thing goes down the drain it is likely that Autodesk gets in big trouble > > and will therefore concentrate on its core business and will as > > consequence sell its stepchild M&E to whomever may have an interest in > > it (hopefully not a financial investor). > > > > Well I have no glass ball in front of me but I think the 3D industry > > should be prepared for such a situation since Autodesk has a dominant > > market position and apparently no one seems to care. > > > > It's a shame their will be no other software with a > > middle-click-this-button-to-repeat-the-last-command functionality > > anymore because Autodesk owns the patent on this and many other > > innovative concepts which made Softimage unique and stand out. So I > > think I will stay with "my second love" until I go the "Kim Aldis route". > > > > Just my 2 cents. Sorry for the rambling speech. > > > > I am still very thankful that I got in touch with Softimage at Spans > > und Partner 8 years ago after messing around with 3dsmax and Maya. > > Thanks to the developers and the community for supporting such a great > > product over the last 28 years. > > > > Cheers, > > Stephan. > > > > +1 > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:11, Jeffrey Dates <jda...@kungfukoi.com> wrote: > > > > This. > > Everything Andy said. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Andy Jones <andy.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Many studios having the same problems at the same time is a HUGE > > opportunity if we leverage it properly. > > > > I completely agree about the collaboration that will be necessary from > > users. However, for studios' part, I know a lot of places are > > interested in Fabric already, even if they haven't actually bought > > licenses yet. So if part of the incentive was some kind of agreement > > for the FE guys to help nurture a scene assembly tool to life quickly, > > it might help tip the scale for whatever cost/benefit analysis places > > are doing. The devs working on Fabric are truly some of the best in the > > world (and from what I understand, a big part of the reason AD bought > > Softimage to begin with). They are a big part of the equation for what > > will happen in the future, even if they don't end up wanting to build a > > scene assembler as a supported "product" in itself (or who knows -- > > maybe they will?). > > > > It would be great to get a little (or big?) list of studios that are > > interested in this sort of project (or other ones) and possibly have > > some kind of summit with the FE guys about what it would take to > > fast-track FE into certain critical areas of production, assuming a > > certain number of licenses were purchased. No commitments at this point > > -- just a list of interested parties who might be curious enough to be > > part of the conversation, pending whatever other conversations need to > > be had with superiors. I.e., it's understood that nobody is speaking > > for their companies at this point. Just indicating that they think > > their company *might* be interested. > > > > I'll start: > > > > Psyop > > Massmarket > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Felix Geremus > > <felixgere...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > You are probably right. But these times are a little bit different and > > maybe that's exactly the one chance inside all this mess. We're all > > sitting in the same boat at the same time. I know a lot of studios who > > entirely rely on Softimage for lighting. All of these will have to spend > > time and thus money to move on to another pipeline during the next two > > years anyway. So why not invest at least parts of this time into the > > same thing? Individuals are great, and the community should absolutely > > try. But it's so hard to put something like this together in your spare > > time. A few studios supporting and profiting from this effort would > > accelerate the whole process immensely. And about showing potential: > > wasn't Stage, and all the other fabric applications build for exactly > > this reason? To show the potential of such a project? > > > > > > > > > > 2014-03-04 21:55 GMT+01:00 Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > it is a bit harder for visual effects vendors/studios, in an already > > difficult market, spending money on software development (not their core > > business) is a hard sell. seeing a product or product in development on > > the other hand drums up interest which leads to real investment and > > collaboration. they need to see if their ideas are aligned with others > > on the project. don't take my comment as discouragement, it is just how > > i see it... for now it will be on individuals to come together on a > > project which shows potential. i hope we, the remaining softimage > > community, can do that together. again, not discouragement to any studio > > which wants to partner to make something happen... > > > > steven > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Felix Geremus > > <felixgere...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So now that Softimage will be gone, isn't there room or even need for > > collaboration here? Before everybody tries to build something > > themselves, shouldn't people try to bundle forces? And I'm not only > > talking about individuals here. I'm talking about small to medium size > > companies who couldn't afford to build something like this alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------- > Stefan Kubicek > ------------------------------------------- > keyvis digital imagery > Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3 > A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien > Phone: +43/699/12614231 > www.keyvis.at ste...@keyvis.at > -- This email and its attachments are -- > --confidential and for the recipient only-- >
