+1 Morten
Den 18. marts 2014 kl. 18:09 skrev pete...@skynet.be: > How much of the subscription money is going into those 99% failures? > > I know it's nasty to put it like that - but people paying subscription are > doing so believing (hoping) they are funding the very future and survival of > the software they are paying for. Right now, it's: continue to pay > subscription, in order to get upgraded, eh no, downgraded, eh no > retro-graded to another DCC app. > > It's a losing proposition, any which way you look at it. > A few years (2, 3?) of subscription is enough to buy that other app - so > anyone who wanted to have it, could and would have done so already. > So what happened to the subscription money of the past few years - seeing it > wasn’t used to keep Softimage from the slaughtering block? Was it not enough > for the survival of the software? Was it used to help fund the future of > another software? Or was it to fund research? At a 99% failure rate? Does > the competition have that same 99% failure rate? > Or do I misunderstand it again? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maurice Patel > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:54 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: RE: Autodesk webinar > > Hi Peter, > That is not what I am saying. We will continue to build new technologies and > we will continue to do research into new areas. And new projects have and > will continue to be kicked off. Innovation is 99% failure 1% success. Does > not mean we will not keep trying to do new and different things but our > approaches will change and adapt. Bifrost and Recap are two examples or > recent projects – time will tell how successful they are – but we have not > stopped trying. > maurice > > Maurice Patel > Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of > pete...@skynet.be > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:40 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Re: Autodesk webinar > > “...We had plans to build a next generation technology, starting with > games - we called it project skyline. The industry was in a growth period. > Everyone was optimistic. And if we had succeeded we probably would not be > having this conversation.” > > so – no next generation 3D authoring from Autodesk then – that’s official > and final ? > As that’s all the info needed to move forward really. > > Sad how the death of one exciting technology (Naiad) leads to the death of > another (SI / ICE ) and it all ends up zombified in Maya. > Assimilate or die. > > > > From: Perry Harovas<mailto:perryharo...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:55 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com<mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com> > Subject: Re: Autodesk webinar > > I would imagine he means Project Skyline. > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Chris Marshall > <chrismarshal...@gmail.com<mailto:chrismarshal...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Which bit failed? > > On 18 March 2014 14:51, Maurice Patel > <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com<mailto:maurice.pa...@autodesk.com>> wrote: > "sometimes we have to fall back on our positions when our attempts fail" > Maurice > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Perry Harovas > Animation and Visual Effects > > http://www.TheAfterImage.com<http://www.theafterimage.com/> >
