I guess what the issue (at least for me) is, is that while you are correct that Autodesk did talk about moving development to Singapore, Autodesk did NOT say that the product was in a state of minimal development. This, along with Chris V.'s statement led everyone (and how could it not) to think things were business as usual. Different team, but everything would be fine, things would be the same, just with new people. This should not denigrate the Singapore team, who did great work, especially towards the end right before EOL announcement.
You all may have intended to keep Softimage alive, but had we known that the status had changed to one of very little, or minimal development, we would have known that the status had changed with regards to what we would be getting in the future and how Autodesk saw the product in the future. Look, I fluctuate back and forth as to if Softimage was on the chopping block when purchased, or not. I feel that the people involved, especially Marc Petit, really thought it would survive. And really, it doesn't matter to me as much as the fact that it was not clear (it was basically hidden) that the status of Softimage within the company had changed to one where it would be maintained, or minimally developed. I will gladly change my mind if you, Maurice, or anyone else can point me to the statement where it was EXPLICITLY stated to us, the users, that the status had changed. I don't mean that we should have KNOWN it had changed, I mean a statement where someone came right out and SAID it would be minimally developed and/or maintained. That may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it makes all the difference in the world as to establishing the credibility of Autodesk. One is just a general statement that lets US decide what we think it all means, the other one (that I don't remember ever reading) is a statement of FACT. One final thought: Isn't it obvious that apologies (good, heartfelt, honest apologies) about the mistakes that were made, would go a long way here? Part of the reason that people are so suspicious, frankly, is because many of you don't exude much remorse, if any. That may be a corporate culture thing, it may be the lack of intonation that happens with email, but regardless, you need to know that many of you are coming across as pretty casual and unfazed (except with the amount of emails and questions you have to answer multiple times). On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Maurice Patel <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > We moved people off of other teams to work on Skyline too. And we did not say > anything to those users either - resources get moved around regularly in > organizations from project to project This is one of the reasons why we try > to avoid getting into discussions about how many engineers are working on X, > Y or Z - especially as that can always be subjective in terms of output > sometimes a small team can be more productive than a big team and vice versa. > When we moved all the Montreal engineers off of Softimage and moved > development to Singapore we did talk about it. > maurice > > > Maurice Patel > Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Rob Chapman > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:51 PM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Carl Bass > > Hi Maurice > > yes sorry, my previous mail the 'you' was much more directed at Autodesk the > entity than you personally, I hope you understand. and yes it was mashed, > but I hope to elaborate. > > Now that 'you' (Autodesk) are making it is very clear that those great > engineers that were moved onto other projects were one part of the reason for > purchase, the other was Softimage the product. but at the time , whilst > assuring us the existing customers of Softimage the product was going to be > ok eg 'the future is bright' etc I do feel that the Softimage user base at > that time were never informed properly of the true extent of the engineer > stripping until long afterwards . > > this is perhaps one of those lingering disagreeable tastes as is feels like > your obligation was fulfilled with minimum effort whereas back then there was > not a sense of EOL as we were assured the product was going to be ok. as long > as it was sold as a plugin. or a suite. or not all... > > so to clarify. with some actual history because yes I am not entirely sure of > the facts here and others may be more clued :) but at what point were the > Softimage customers informed that the entire engineering team had been moved > to a new application? was this only, as you say in Autodesk's statement of > intent? as this, in my opinion, was never truly communicated and somewhat > hidden to the user base until much later on. -- Perry Harovas Animation and Visual Effects http://www.TheAfterImage.com -25 Years Experience -Member of the Visual Effects Society (VES)
