i get that, might have missed the context which eric was response was too,
but i still think its possible to build knowledge in an app and translate
it and at least return to your prior rank and earnings after a bit of time.
but i think i am diverging from the points trying to be made here, if
autodesk could better market softimage and actually vastly improve its
market share (ignoring if thats even in their interest to do) you wouldn't
have to learn a new package :)
perception is powerful, so if i were in the situation where i could no
longer use softimage professionally i would change the way i market myself.
from a purely survival perspective that is. that perspective allows me to
look at the current situation and not be so upset about it.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matt Lind <ml...@carbinestudios.com> wrote:
> It’s not an issue about creating art, Steven. The issue is about
> retaining the rank and standard of living in the work force.****
i agree with you Guy,
Autodesk will keep the patents for sure to try to pimp up Maya.
But... Open source software has a so chaotic and stochastic developpement scheme. Check how blender evolves. Lotsa new features all the time, but all in separatly sparsed developpement cocoons. And it is always buggy and flaky... Just like being on Alpha or beta versions all the time. And one day you even end up with a totally new interface. Surprise!
Of course, we can see very nice things like Alembic or OpenExr as file formats as open source efforts. But who will want to create pieces of softwares without earning from it with all the developpement involved for serious rock solid production proven packages? Wow that would be awesome in a perfect world.
I see a big difference between GIMP and a top of the line 3D app. Or modules? ... that would be even worst for interop integrety i think. I dont know.
you really think it will happen? It would be cool for sure!
> Guy Rabiller <mailto:guy.rabil...@radfac.com>
> Monday, September 10, 2012 9:34 PM
> > Please AD, bring Soft back to a decent and fair exposure, at least
> > closer to the one it deserves or sell it back if you're embarrassed.
> > I'm sure there's a lot of interested and rich people who would buy it,
> > you'll make money out of your 2008 deal and you'll make anger go down.
> That, I think, will never happen, because AD did not buy Softimage for > XSI but for the patents Softimage had over its technologies. Reselling > Softimage would mean reselling the patents as well, and that is > precisely what they want to avoid. Buying as much patents as possible > is the only way to really shadow competitors.
> > Don't wait until someone comes up with a high performance DCC-like > suite made with ../..
> That's why I keep on saying the 'true' solution will have to come up > from the Open Source community. This is the only valid path. But it > will take some time.
> Halim Negadi <mailto:hneg...@gmail.com>
> Monday, September 10, 2012 8:56 PM
> Stefan, there's a lot of unemployed Soft guys down here in Paris, > everybody has to move to London to be able to use a skillset that is > over 10 years worth for most of them.
> Most of Soft companies over here switched ( painfully for some of them > ) to Maya because AD made Soft literally disappear from their catalog.
> Financial people usually don't have a clue and don't really care of > how advanced a software is compared to another.
> What do you think they tend to decide when it comes to licensing and > support renewal for an over 2k/seat software solution that is not even > mentioned by the res-sellers because they are heavily advised not to ?
> Over here we don't have much of a choice anymore, we have to go and > find a job somewhere else or get used to workaround maya all day long.
> Some of us can do it because it pays the bills, some others cannot. In > any case, passion tends to vanish.
> I've personally been around for way over a decade now and I can tell > there's always been some competition and technological choice, except > from the past 4 years.
> We had Explore vs Soft|3D, Explore vs Power Animator, Soft vs Maya, > Max vs Maya, XSI vs Maya, Maya&Max vs XSI.. and then the 2008 deal > went down.
> The mainstream CG world got paralyzed since then and reached a > uniformity I still cannot imagine happening in the 2010's.
> Even Maya people are not happy with this situation, more and more of > them start thinking that ever since AD bought their main competitor, > big DCCs have reached a huge stagnation that benefits to no one, not > even AD.
> Please AD, bring Soft back to a decent and fair exposure, at least > closer to the one it deserves or sell it back if you're embarrassed.
> I'm sure there's a lot of interested and rich people who would buy it, > you'll make money out of your 2008 deal and you'll make anger go down.
> Everybody knows ICE integration in Maya would have been done already > if it was as easy as you guys thought when you closed the deal with Avid.
> Just get inspired by the concept, help yourself with the code, hook it > up to your weapon and get ours back to light. Just get the party > started again, I'm sure you'll feel unexpected benefits.
> Give back the choice of interaction model to people. This is more the > center of the debate than the actual technological value.
> Both packages have their strengths and weaknesses but please let > people choose, a lot of them are artists, not only technicians.
> Don't wait until someone comes up with a high performance DCC-like > suite made with Fabric Engine or whatever, because a this point, > more people than you expect will jump on it and the downhill might be > steep.
> Maya might end up just as a keyframing tool that allows a producer to > line up 50 animators on the spot without any training costs. All the > TDs that have been building it's worth for years deserves better.
> Stefan Andersson <mailto:sander...@gmail.com>
> Monday, September 10, 2012 4:15 PM
> I don't know, it used to be something those marketing/pr people stay > up at night and come up with those nifty slogans.
> I can just say that Softimage would probably replace 80% of the so > called "pipeline tools" that are created to work around the software. > Just put any Maya artist infront of a vanilla install of Maya and they > will scream... :)
> ICE would probably wipe out 90% of the in-house scripts that are > created. And instead they would have a better modal/nodal system to > work with.
> But.... the main problem these days is probably not the technology, > it's finding the people who can do it. Not a lot of Softimage artists > that are highlevel TD's around. Most of them are on this list, and > they already have a job :)
> regards
> stefan andersson
> -- > stefan andersson - digital janitor - http://sanders3d.wordpress.com > Graham Bell <mailto:Graham.B...@autodesk.com>
> Monday, September 10, 2012 3:55 PM
> "I don't want Softimage to be a good companion to Maya&3dsmax, I want > Softimage to kick their ass and make all users leave their software > and use Softimage instead!!"
> This is a perfectly valid point, however playing a neutral card for a > moment and to just throw something out there....how do we do that?
> There are plenty of Maya/Max based studios out there, skilled up, > decent pipeline with some tech & tools, and producing very good and > capable work for years, how would you get them to then rip all that up > and go with Softimage?
> I'm not sure it's that easy, expanding the capability of a pipeline by > adding another solution/software is one thing, but a complete > replacement/retool of your core 3D app? That's a whole bigger thing > altogether.
> G
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Leoung > O'Young
> Sent: 10 September 2012 20:35
> To: softim...@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Re: In case you missed it..
> Stefan, I totally agreed with you rant....hopefully we are wrong
> We are sitting on the fence about upgrading our licenses, at this > point we will have to take a hard long look.
> We have been with Softimage/XSI since the early '90..
> Leoung
> On 9/10/2012 3:07 PM, Stefan Andersson wrote:
> Just to throw some more gasoline onto the fire.
> So the value to a 3dsmax/Maya user would be to use Softimage as a > particle plugin. Everything else their respective Software is good at.
> I know you don't agree with them Graham, and it's not you who > "wrote/made" this :) It's been said over and over again on this list, > it doesn't seem that Autodesk cares about Softimage.
> And it's for that reason alone that I don't recommend anyone (anymore) > to buy or learn Softimage. Autodesk representatives on this list is > trying to assure us, but apparently those people have absolutely NO > contact with the Marketing/PR people. It's not that we have been > asking for much, but the way they market Softimage and the way new > users and studios look at Softimage... well... you get my point.
> I don't want Softimage to be a good companion to Maya&3dsmax, I want > Softimage to kick their ass and make all users leave their software > and use Softimage instead!! But that is not in Autodesk view a good > thing. And for this reason I think Autodesk is really bad for Softimage.
> Why is attitude and "kick butt" mentality a bad thing? it's what keeps > a lot of us going and improving our-self. It's what makes us trying to > reach for those extra 10% in a production.
> Am I pissed at Autodesk? you bet you sweet ass I am. I spent years > behind Softimage and got companies to buy the software that were Maya > based, and really really tried to get it to work...
> With ICE I had big hopes. But... Autodesk had little incentive to kick > Maya/3dsmax out the window. They made Softimage into a particle plugin.
> So what happens now?
> I know it's pointless rant, and it just adds fuel to the fire. But > it's difficult to talk about something positive when it comes to > Softimage. It's like having a Formula One car, but you live in the > country side and no one understands why you have it.
> Sorry for the rant everyone.
> best regards
> Stefan
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Graham Bell > <Graham.B...@autodesk.com<mailto:Graham.B...@autodesk.com>> wrote:
> Perhaps worth pointing out that this is a Entertainment Creation > 'Suites' magazine and of the course the two main flavours
There are many more factors at stake other than what software you use. You have to factor in age, family situation, and so on. The older you get, the more difficult it is to get another job because your salary requirements are higher. If your expertise is obsoleted, not too many companies are going to take on an expensive veteran with less applied knowledge than a youngster at half the cost who is fresh legs in the subject.
In my case I'll probably have to go into some other discipline to abstract myself away from the problem. Not unheard of, but it's not trivial to start a new career either.
Matt
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 6:59 PM
To: softim...@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: In case you missed it..
i get that, might have missed the context which eric was response was too, but i still think its possible to build knowledge in an app and translate it and at least return to your prior rank and earnings after a bit of time. but i think i am diverging from the points trying to be made here, if autodesk could better market softimage and actually vastly improve its market share (ignoring if thats even in their interest to do) you wouldn't have to learn a new package :)
perception is powerful, so if i were in the situation where i could no longer use softimage professionally i would change the way i market myself. from a purely survival perspective that is. that perspective allows me to look at the current situation and not be so upset about it.
hope i am making sense
s
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Matt Lind <ml...@carbinestudios.com<mailto:ml...@carbinestudios.com>> wrote:
It's not an issue about creating art, Steven. The issue is about retaining the rank and standard of living in the work force.
Well, I'm not sure it will happen but what I'm sure though, is that:
1) OpenSource softwares/communities depend on how they are managed, what's the goal behind, the spirit, the motivations. It's not because Blender is what it is that another project should be and behave the same way.
There are big 'industrial' open source softwares supported by communities of companies. After all, are not almost all of the big 3D CGI companies working on Linux ?
2) Developping open source and free softwares does not always mean not beeing paid for it. Developpers can be supported by companies, communities, individuals, etc.. How do you think Firefox, Thunderbird and a multitude of other opensource softwares developpers are eating ? They are paid for it, yet the softwares are free and opensources. Who developped OpenEXR, PTex, Alembic, etc.. ? All companies employees.
And there are zillions of other opensource softwares like this in other industries and areas that are in the same situation and have the same business model.
Plus this is the ultimate solution against piracy. Peoples paid to create free products.
This is a working business model but strangely it seems very few peoples are really aware of it.
3) If nobody does nothing, nothing will never happen.
4) Fortunately, some peoples are already working on it.
> i agree with you Guy,
> Autodesk will keep the patents for sure to try to pimp up Maya.
> But... Open source software has a so chaotic and stochastic
> developpement scheme. Check how blender evolves. Lotsa new features all
> the time, but all in separatly sparsed developpement cocoons. And it is
> always buggy and flaky... Just like being on Alpha or beta versions all
> the time. And one day you even end up with a totally new interface.
> Surprise!
> Of course, we can see very nice things like Alembic or OpenExr as file
> formats as open source efforts. But who will want to create pieces of
> softwares without earning from it with all the developpement involved
> for serious rock solid production proven packages? Wow that would be
> awesome in a perfect world.
> I see a big difference between GIMP and a top of the line 3D app. Or
> modules? ... that would be even worst for interop integrety i think. I
> dont know.
> you really think it will happen? It would be cool for sure!
> sly
>> Guy Rabiller <mailto:guy.rabil...@radfac.com>
>> Monday, September 10, 2012 9:34 PM
>> > Please AD, bring Soft back to a decent and fair exposure, at least
>> > closer to the one it deserves or sell it back if you're embarrassed.
>> > I'm sure there's a lot of interested and rich people who would buy it,
>> > you'll make money out of your 2008 deal and you'll make anger go down.
>> That, I think, will never happen, because AD did not buy Softimage for
>> XSI but for the patents Softimage had over its technologies. Reselling
>> Softimage would mean reselling the patents as well, and that is
>> precisely what they want to avoid. Buying as much patents as possible
>> is the only way to really shadow competitors.
>> > Don't wait until someone comes up with a high performance DCC-like
>> suite made with ../..
>> That's why I keep on saying the 'true' solution will have to come up
>> from the Open Source community. This is the only valid path. But it
>> will take some time.
>> Halim Negadi <mailto:hneg...@gmail.com>
>> Monday, September 10, 2012 8:56 PM
>> Stefan, there's a lot of unemployed Soft guys down here in Paris,
>> everybody has to move to London to be able to use a skillset that is
>> over 10 years worth for most of them.
>> Most of Soft companies over here switched ( painfully for some of them
>> ) to Maya because AD made Soft literally disappear from their catalog.
>> Financial people usually don't have a clue and don't really care of
>> how advanced a software is compared to another.
>> What do you think they tend to decide when it comes to licensing and
>> support renewal for an over 2k/seat software solution that is not even
>> mentioned by the res-sellers because they are heavily advised not to ?
>> Over here we don't have much of a choice anymore, we have to go and
>> find a job somewhere else or get used to workaround maya all day long.
>> Some of us can do it because it pays the bills, some others cannot. In
>> any case, passion tends to vanish.
>> I've personally been around for way over a decade now and I can tell
>> there's always been some competition and technological choice, except
>> from the past 4 years.
>> We had Explore vs Soft|3D, Explore vs Power Animator, Soft vs Maya,
>> Max vs Maya, XSI vs Maya, Maya&Max vs XSI.. and then the 2008 deal
>> went down.
>> The mainstream CG world got paralyzed since then and reached a
>> uniformity I still cannot imagine happening in the 2010's.
>> Even Maya people are not happy with this situation, more and more of
>> them start thinking that ever since AD bought their main competitor,
>> big DCCs have reached a huge stagnation that benefits to no one, not
>> even AD.
>> Please AD, bring Soft back to a decent and fair exposure, at least
>> closer to the one it deserves or sell it back if you're embarrassed.
>> I'm sure there's a lot of interested and rich people who would buy it,
>> you'll make money out of your 2008 deal and you'll make anger go down.
>> Everybody knows ICE integration in Maya would have been done already
>> if it was as easy as you guys thought when you closed the deal with Avid.
>> Just get inspired by the concept, help yourself with the code, hook it
>> up to your weapon and get ours back to light. Just get the party
>> started again, I'm sure you'll feel unexpected benefits.
>> Give back the choice of interaction model to people. This is more the
>> center of the debate than the actual technological value.
>> Both packages have their strengths and weaknesses but please let
>> people choose, a lot of them are artists, not only technicians.
>> Don't wait until someone comes up with a high performance DCC-like
>> suite made with Fabric Engine or whatever, because a this point,
>> more people than you expect will jump on it and the downhill might be
>> steep.
>> Maya might end up just as a keyframing tool that allows a producer to
>> line up 50 animators on the spot without any training costs. All the
>> TDs that have been building it's worth for years deserves better.
>> Stefan Andersson <mailto:sander...@gmail.com>
>> Monday, September 10, 2012 4:15 PM
>> I don't know, it used to be something those marketing/pr people stay
>> up at night and come up with those nifty slogans.
>> I can just say that Softimage would probably replace 80% of the so
>> called "pipeline tools" that are created to work around the software.
>> Just put any Maya artist infront of a vanilla install of Maya and they
>> will scream... :)
>> ICE would probably wipe out 90% of the in-house scripts that are
>> created. And instead they would have a better modal/nodal system to
>> work with.
>> But.... the main problem these days is probably not the technology,
>> it's finding the people who can do it. Not a lot of Softimage artists
>> that are highlevel TD's around. Most of them are on this list, and
>> they already have a job :)
>> regards
>> stefan andersson
>> --
>> stefan andersson - digital janitor - http://sanders3d.wordpress.com >> Graham Bell <mailto:Graham.B...@autodesk.com>
>> Monday, September 10, 2012 3:55 PM
>> "I don't want Softimage to be a good companion to Maya&3dsmax, I want
>> Softimage to kick their ass and make all users leave their software
>> and use Softimage instead!!"
>> This is a perfectly valid point, however playing a neutral card for a
>> moment and to just throw something out there....how do we do that?
>> There are plenty of Maya/Max based studios out there, skilled up,
>> decent pipeline with some tech & tools, and producing very good and
>> capable work for years, how would you get them to then rip all that up
>> and go with Softimage?
>> I'm not sure it's that easy, expanding the capability of a pipeline by
>> adding another solution/software is one thing, but a complete
>> replacement/retool of your core 3D app? That's a whole bigger thing
>> altogether.
>> G
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Leoung
>> O'Young
>> Sent: 10 September 2012 20:35
>> To: softim...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> Subject: Re: In case you missed it..
>> Stefan, I totally agreed with you rant....hopefully we are wrong
>> We are sitting on the fence about upgrading our licenses, at this
>> point we will have to take a hard long look.
>> We have been with Softimage/XSI since the early '90..
>> Leoung
>> On 9/10/2012 3:07 PM, Stefan Andersson wrote:
>> Just to throw some more gasoline onto the fire.
>> So the value to a 3dsmax/Maya user would be to use Softimage as a
>> particle plugin. Everything else their respective Software is good at.
>> I know you don't agree with them Graham, and it's not you who
>> "wrote/made" this :) It's been said over and over again on this list,
>> it doesn't seem that Autodesk cares about Softimage.
>> And it's for that reason alone that I don't recommend anyone (anymore)
>> to buy or learn Softimage. Autodesk representatives on this list is
>> trying to assure us, but apparently those
> > Please AD, bring Soft back to a decent and fair exposure, at least
> > closer to the one it deserves or sell it back if you're embarrassed.
> > I'm sure there's a lot of interested and rich people who would buy it,
> > you'll make money out of your 2008 deal and you'll make anger go down.
That, I think, will never happen, because AD did not buy Softimage for XSI
> but for the patents Softimage had over its technologies. Reselling
> Softimage would mean reselling the patents as well, and that is precisely
> what they want to avoid. Buying as much patents as possible is the only way
> to really shadow competitors.
I know Guy, I was trying to make some humor out of a dramatic situation
that's been going on for four years now. I remember you were saying that
the minute after the deal went down.
> Don't wait until someone comes up with a high performance DCC-like suite
> made with ../..
> That's why I keep on saying the 'true' solution will have to come up from
> the Open Source community. This is the only valid path. But it will take
> some time.
Once Blender will get rid of it's Z up and get it's interface a little
civilized, it's already mature enough to strike pretty hard. Performance
wise, it's already far ahead of any other DCC on the market. Unfortunately,
the foundation leadership hast it's obsessions and I think they stick on
some non-standard choices to kind of maintain the software a side of the
industry.
One, I don't buy the "selling more suites can only be good for SI" argument. Ok, better than nothing, but selling suites AND promoting SI as a reasonable standalone app would be fairer, eye height with the other packages.
But, behold, maybe AD sees things clearer than we could possibly like...
Because, personal preference and bad marketing aside, in truth, SI is simply not the shining redeemer. Thought it was (stupid), but had to learn better...
- It's modelling tools might be good, but there's too much missing (curve based modelling, data and asset import, rendering) to make it a reasonable choice for the visualization folks. VRay, the de facto rendering standard in that (quite big) market, is just available for a few months now.
- It's not long ago that SI got the rendering options it was in dire need of. (I tried to use mental ray for a big visualization, and it was a pretty horrible experience...)
One USP for Softimage now is still Arnold, but the Maya version is making progress. Cool to have VRay, too, maybe even Maxwell, but all of them need to mature a bit more.
- ICE might be a TDs wet dream, but what does an animator, modeller, texturer, etc. get out of it on a daily basis? Depends on your job situation - freelancers/people in small studios need to approach job tasks more versatile and will profit from it one way or the other. In bigger companies, specialization is stronger, and some folks will probably never need (or be allowed) to touch it.
- SDK is always somewhat lagging behind... it's still not open enough compared to Maya's, which does NOT help when a choice has to be made for which app to use for the pipeline backbone.
Still, no official PyQt support. It's good to have a clean UI, but customizability counts these days.
How come it is still difficult to create on-the-fly UVs in a custom topo Operator, or there are selection problems with the created geometry, or Clusters (a pretty central concept) are still not fully exposed?
For 3rd-party devs, it's not only the small market share but also things like this that make it a lesser choice. Don't tell me it's because SI is so feature complete that there are so litte commercial plugins around.
Praise Mootz, Mathee, Sch nberger for holding up the flag. Without them, there would be nothing. Where are the americans/canadians in this?
ICE topo still has a bit of a workaround feel to it... Operators also seem to be somewhat slow, compared to C++ (but I haven't taken the time to dig deep).
- Particle rendering is still not where it should be, which makes you shake your head since it is officially sold as a particle system...
- Ran into a bug with bullet rigid bodies recently, which was a pretty nasty show-stopper almost... or think of that horrible disconnected shader bug a while ago... Things like this REALLY do not any good.
And this list does not claim to be complete...
So, bottom line, Softimage stand out (far) in terms of workflow/usability, versatility out-of-the-box, and ICE, but it still needs some serious dedicated development efforts in many other places, to justify stepping before the crowd and promote it as the oh-so-cool app.
Still, it is cool... don't ask me why.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Stefan Andersson <sander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know, it used to be something those marketing/pr people stay up at
> night and come up with those nifty slogans.
If there is more profit to be made from Softimage from hiding it as a
general, competing against Max / Maya application and selling it as a
particle plugin why wouldnt they do it? this is what they have done since
the Suites brainiac idea, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that
they tried to sell Softimage any other way. The same guys who came up with
that pie chart used similar bullshit logic to rationalise the position of
where Softimage should sit in the market.
And over the last 4 years Ive come to realise there is f*ck all we can do
about it apart from move on, continue the bitter taste with choices of
future applications that will no longer be Autodesk controlled. next
software I try to learn/master is going to be either open source like Guy
says or will have some kind of contract or Acknowledgement that it will
*never* sell out to the likes of AD.
Software Tools for the users not for shareholder profits, this is the only
light at the end of this tunnel - if such a thing can exist, am sure
Autodesk representatives will say otherwise.
On 11 September 2012 10:36, Michal Doniec <doni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Stefan Andersson <sander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't know, it used to be something those marketing/pr people stay up
> at
> > night and come up with those nifty slogans.
Wow this thread exploded in 24 hours. Some really great ideas, and
thoughts have been shared. I have to say, Matt Lind I'm right there with
you. By demoting Softimage's perceived value it devalues anyone who uses
it as their main app. Perception is reality - especially when you're
dealing with upper management, advertising people, etc.
If any of you work in advertising, how often do clients demand a Smoke or
Flame suite without even knowing what it is or why they need it? I've seen
it happen frequently. The brand recognition and perception that it is the
must-have package drives the market, whether it's the right tool or not.
I've had clients who are 3D savvy ask about my software. When I told them
Softimage, they responded "oh I remember that from the old days... it's
still around?". Ouch!
So in my view, graphs like that continue to push the perception into the
marketplace. It doesn't matter if Softimage is the most complete, "studio
in a box" 3D app Autodesk has available when they continually tell the
general public it's an accessory to their "real" 3D apps.
Why is it so damaging to Autodesk to continue with the existing marketing
plan AND promote Softimage on equal footing to Max and Maya?
The only rational explanation I can come up with is, if potential new
customers (non Max, Maya users) are exposed to Softimage on an equal level
to Max and Maya, they will quickly realize it offers significantly more
tools than Max and Maya, such as the FXTree, Face Robot, ICE, etc., and it
will cut down on sales of the suites.
Big studios are never going to change their pipeline based on some
marketing materials. But there are thousands of new businesses and new
freelancers each year who look to start their career using a particular 3D
app. The suites offer a larger source of income than selling individual
packages. But for the small company or freelancer, Softimage alone offers
nearly everything they'd need at a lower cost, so the answer is to hide it
away and push the more expensive solution.
That's what happens when competition leave the marketplace.
Rolling up my sleeves :)
If you don't know me, I (still) head Product/Industry Marketing for M&E and have posted a couple of times on the forum about our strategy.
First. I'd like to respond to the link to the campaign item that started this thread http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj: Although I can't say I am particularly fond of that diagram myself (it's rather ugly), it actually came out of a study commissioned from a third party research company that hired 3ds Max and Maya animators to evaluate what (if any) value Softimage, MotionBuilder and Mudbox offered to Maya and 3ds Max users as a means of determining the value of Suites - so we used it in the Suites Campaign.
The specific purpose of the campaign is to encourage 3ds max and Maya users to buy Suites; so yes it focuses only on the areas of these applications that offer significant value above and beyond what Maya and 3ds max can already do. It is not meant to be an exhaustive description of those applications capabilities.
I know Autodesk Marketing is often hard to fathom - heck it is for us too, but if we want Softimage to survive we (the marketing team) need to work with the system not against it. We are not going run a campaign to switch Maya or 3ds max users to Softimage - that would kill our business and create a massive customer outcry for no real gain. Any expectation that we would do that is unrealistic. So, if we are not going to do that, then we need to find a better way to get people to adopt Softimage and, while not perfect, Suites has been our best bet yet.
Given that, take a pause and ask objectively "where is Autodesk's real opportunity here?" Is it to run a campaign encouraging Softimage users to add Maya (or 3ds max) to their toolset? Or vice versa? Which would (1) be the better business decision and (2) get Softimage in the hands of more users?
You will probably reach the same conclusion we did.
In terms of overall exposure, I am not going to deny that Softimage is less visible than when it was part of Avid. Then Softimage was run as its own entity and there was 100% focus on one(ish) product (ish because there was actually a few more than one). That is not the case now. Autodesk runs its business pretty much as one centralized operation for the sale of efficiency and scale and so M&E competes with hundreds of other Autodesk products for mind share when it comes to marketing investment and visibility - and M&E is not the largest part of Autodesk's business. This dictates exactly how much coverage M&E gets and how many and what products we can feature on things like the home page. Oddly enough though, the bulk of our web traffic actually goes directly to the product pages so it can be argued that this specific point is moot anyway. But yes, visibility is reduced and suffers as a function of a given product's ranking in the Autodesk product stack.
Believe me, I have similar discussions with Flame users who also believe we have abandoned marketing Flame. Deep down most of this is related to our centralized marketing processes discussed above and not to any individual. This is not going to change nor is it clear that any alternative could be successful and/or profitable. Or at least not in the sense one might expect. In the long run Suites and Cloud Services are changing the way Autodesk views products but not in the traditional sense. My team's constant challenge is therefore to figure out how to increase visibility within the systems we have - be it through more aggressive social media strategies (why we launched the Softimage Facebook page) or other methods. While the good old days have nostalgic value (and yes we remember when Discreet Logic had its own website, as did Alias and Softimage, with their own dedicated Marketing resources), we have long realized we can never go back to those days. The battles have moved on to new battlefields - but it does continue!
Maurice
While appreciated, that's not terribly encouraging, Maurice.
And I don't know where the idea that marketing should sample the userbase
and then promote whatever perception is found came from, but wherever it
came from, a link to Phil Knight, Young and Rubican, Armando Testa, and
other founders of modern marketing should be sent for their benefit.
It's supposed to alter and guide public perception into profit and want,
not to consolidate it (especially when it's clearly flawed) in the hope the
receiving end doesn't get mildly offended :p
If a client perceives something he hasn't bought yet a certain way (see
diagram), and you literally confirm that and nod vigorously, their
incentive to buy that thing will be exactly 0. He will do what he was
thinking to do before you reached him.
Since the price is already fixed anyway, you might as well make things a
bit more encouraging than "you have to learn an entire new app, as complex
as any you already rely on and own and took you years to master, to move a
pointcloud around".
But mind, this is unfathomable, not sure it's good to hear that is for you
guys as well though ;)
I don't disagree at all. But dealing with the realities of how things actually work versus how they should work is part of our day to day. We play the cards we are dealt and push for change in ways we feel can succeed. However, there is that saying from Bacon. If the mountain....
But to be clear, we did not sample the user base to get the diagram. The consulting company paid professionals to execute a productivity study that was published separately last year. The diagram is from that. Whether what we are doing is being elegantly done or not, Autodesk, across its industries,is trying to alter public perception: to move away from the notion of hero products that do everything to a suite of products that provide a best-in-class workflow to (eventually) a set of cloud services that offer you exactly what you need when and where you need it and for as long as you need it. This is a bit simplistic and Utopian but i am typing on a mobile device now. it is however at the heart of Autodesk's strategy. Where each product and industry is in relation to this strategy, as well as its velocity in terms of getting there, is highly variable and it is certainly not going to happen overnight. Dealing with the reality of what we have today in relation to this and in relation to what customers need to do to run their businesses now brings me back to the start of my response :)
On 2012-09-11, at 7:31 PM, "Raffaele Fragapane" <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> While appreciated, that's not terribly encouraging, Maurice.
> And I don't know where the idea that marketing should sample the userbase and then promote whatever perception is found came from, but wherever it came from, a link to Phil Knight, Young and Rubican, Armando Testa, and other founders of modern marketing should be sent for their benefit.
> It's supposed to alter and guide public perception into profit and want, not to consolidate it (especially when it's clearly flawed) in the hope the receiving end doesn't get mildly offended :p
> If a client perceives something he hasn't bought yet a certain way (see diagram), and you literally confirm that and nod vigorously, their incentive to buy that thing will be exactly 0. He will do what he was thinking to do before you reached him.
> Since the price is already fixed anyway, you might as well make things a bit more encouraging than "you have to learn an entire new app, as complex as any you already rely on and own and took you years to master, to move a pointcloud around".
> But mind, this is unfathomable, not sure it's good to hear that is for you guys as well though ;)
How about simply the idea of marketing Softimage? Not marketing it to
Max or Maya users to get them to switch, or as a way to get them to
buy suites. Just market it to anyone looking to purchase a 3d app
period. Basic equal marketing for an equal app.
Simply adding the Softimage suite from Japan to the rest of the world
would be a big step forward.
-PG
Phalangically transmitted through an iPad to your cerebral cortex.
On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Maurice Patel <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com> wrote:
> Rolling up my sleeves :)
> If you don't know me, I (still) head Product/Industry Marketing for M&E and have posted a couple of times on the forum about our strategy.
> First. I'd like to respond to the link to the campaign item that started this thread http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj: > Although I can't say I am particularly fond of that diagram myself (it's rather ugly), it actually came out of a study commissioned from a third party research company that hired 3ds Max and Maya animators to evaluate what (if any) value Softimage, MotionBuilder and Mudbox offered to Maya and 3ds Max users as a means of determining the value of Suites - so we used it in the Suites Campaign.
> The specific purpose of the campaign is to encourage 3ds max and Maya users to buy Suites; so yes it focuses only on the areas of these applications that offer significant value above and beyond what Maya and 3ds max can already do. It is not meant to be an exhaustive description of those applications capabilities.
> I know Autodesk Marketing is often hard to fathom - heck it is for us too, but if we want Softimage to survive we (the marketing team) need to work with the system not against it. We are not going run a campaign to switch Maya or 3ds max users to Softimage - that would kill our business and create a massive customer outcry for no real gain. Any expectation that we would do that is unrealistic. So, if we are not going to do that, then we need to find a better way to get people to adopt Softimage and, while not perfect, Suites has been our best bet yet.
> Given that, take a pause and ask objectively "where is Autodesk's real opportunity here?" Is it to run a campaign encouraging Softimage users to add Maya (or 3ds max) to their toolset? Or vice versa? Which would (1) be the better business decision and (2) get Softimage in the hands of more users?
> You will probably reach the same conclusion we did.
> In terms of overall exposure, I am not going to deny that Softimage is less visible than when it was part of Avid. Then Softimage was run as its own entity and there was 100% focus on one(ish) product (ish because there was actually a few more than one). That is not the case now. Autodesk runs its business pretty much as one centralized operation for the sale of efficiency and scale and so M&E competes with hundreds of other Autodesk products for mind share when it comes to marketing investment and visibility - and M&E is not the largest part of Autodesk's business. This dictates exactly how much coverage M&E gets and how many and what products we can feature on things like the home page. Oddly enough though, the bulk of our web traffic actually goes directly to the product pages so it can be argued that this specific point is moot anyway. But yes, visibility is reduced and suffers as a function of a given product's ranking in the Autodesk product stack.
> Believe me, I have similar discussions with Flame users who also believe we have abandoned marketing Flame. Deep down most of this is related to our centralized marketing processes discussed above and not to any individual. This is not going to change nor is it clear that any alternative could be successful and/or profitable. Or at least not in the sense one might expect. In the long run Suites and Cloud Services are changing the way Autodesk views products but not in the traditional sense. My team's constant challenge is therefore to figure out how to increase visibility within the systems we have - be it through more aggressive social media strategies (why we launched the Softimage Facebook page) or other methods. While the good old days have nostalgic value (and yes we remember when Discreet Logic had its own website, as did Alias and Softimage, with their own dedicated Marketing resources), we have long realized we can never go back to those days. The battles have move!
Fire the company that did that study then ;) because every other person in
the middle end of competence that's never used XSI seems at least curious
about facerobot, and not so much about "particles", although ICE these days
is of course one of the most positively linked thoughs when Soft is
mentioned.
While FR isn't quite as polished and complete as it should be, there's a
big chunk of A market that would see value in it, especially since there's
no alternative to it and it's less complicated than briding FX pipelines.
It seemed for a while that was being pushed, but I imagine that, like in
most other regards it seems, the character and animation markets are
already fully cornered anyway, so AD probably doesn't see much benefit in
rippling the waters in that pond.
Again, this is my perception of things, I'm sure everything looks
differently internally. Maybe there is a big plan internally, but from
where I sit my arse, it looks like everything is turned on its head every
few months.
Again, you pitching in candidly is sincerely appreciated, at least by me.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Maurice Patel
<maurice.pa...@autodesk.com>wrote:
> I don't disagree at all. But dealing with the realities of how things
> actually work versus how they should work is part of our day to day. We
> play the cards we are dealt and push for change in ways we feel can
> succeed. However, there is that saying from Bacon. If the mountain....
> But to be clear, we did not sample the user base to get the diagram. The
> consulting company paid professionals to execute a productivity study that
> was published separately last year. The diagram is from that.
> Whether what we are doing is being elegantly done or not, Autodesk, across
> its industries,is trying to alter public perception: to move away from the
> notion of hero products that do everything to a suite of products that
> provide a best-in-class workflow to (eventually) a set of cloud services
> that offer you exactly what you need when and where you need it and for as
> long as you need it. This is a bit simplistic and Utopian but i am typing
> on a mobile device now. it is however at the heart of Autodesk's strategy.
> Where each product and industry is in relation to this strategy, as well as
> its velocity in terms of getting there, is highly variable and it is
> certainly not going to happen overnight. Dealing with the reality of what
> we have today in relation to this and in relation to what customers need to
> do to run their businesses now brings me back to the start of my response :)
> On 2012-09-11, at 7:31 PM, "Raffaele Fragapane" <
> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > While appreciated, that's not terribly encouraging, Maurice.
> > And I don't know where the idea that marketing should sample the
> userbase and then promote whatever perception is found came from, but
> wherever it came from, a link to Phil Knight, Young and Rubican, Armando
> Testa, and other founders of modern marketing should be sent for their
> benefit.
> > It's supposed to alter and guide public perception into profit and want,
> not to consolidate it (especially when it's clearly flawed) in the hope the
> receiving end doesn't get mildly offended :p
> > If a client perceives something he hasn't bought yet a certain way (see
> diagram), and you literally confirm that and nod vigorously, their
> incentive to buy that thing will be exactly 0. He will do what he was
> thinking to do before you reached him.
> > Since the price is already fixed anyway, you might as well make things a
> bit more encouraging than "you have to learn an entire new app, as complex
> as any you already rely on and own and took you years to master, to move a
> pointcloud around".
> > But mind, this is unfathomable, not sure it's good to hear that is for
> you guys as well though ;)
-- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it
and let them flee like the dogs they are!
For the suites, I think softimage people are not that much interested to
have a Softimage suite that include Maya or 3dsmax, but rather Mudbox and
Motion builder.
About the marketing, I see the point of trying to make softimage enter the
studios by the small door, but it's been some years now and can you tell us
how successful it is?
I don't think the point is to run a switch campaign, but more giving real
exposure to Softimage, present it as a frontline product at least as equal
than the 2 others,
and I'd say more as it is in the challenger position.
The facebook page is a good initiative, but it seems quite tied up to the
existing users.
You just confirmed with this http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj that in people
minds softimage as been reduced to a particles software, well it's all
because AD marketed it like this!
Even if you reduce Softimage to ICE, then it's all about procedural
Geometry, Deformers, Rigging, crowed, and particles.
But it's also the better and faster solution you have for non linear
workflow (I've work with both maya and Soft in animated movies production..)
Anyway thanks for clarifying things.
A.
2012/9/12 Maurice Patel <maurice.pa...@autodesk.com>
> Rolling up my sleeves :)
> If you don't know me, I (still) head Product/Industry Marketing for M&E
> and have posted a couple of times on the forum about our strategy.
> First. I'd like to respond to the link to the campaign item that started
> this thread http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj: > Although I can't say I am particularly fond of that diagram myself (it's
> rather ugly), it actually came out of a study commissioned from a third
> party research company that hired 3ds Max and Maya animators to evaluate
> what (if any) value Softimage, MotionBuilder and Mudbox offered to Maya and
> 3ds Max users as a means of determining the value of Suites - so we used it
> in the Suites Campaign.
> The specific purpose of the campaign is to encourage 3ds max and Maya
> users to buy Suites; so yes it focuses only on the areas of these
> applications that offer significant value above and beyond what Maya and
> 3ds max can already do. It is not meant to be an exhaustive description of
> those applications capabilities.
> I know Autodesk Marketing is often hard to fathom - heck it is for us too,
> but if we want Softimage to survive we (the marketing team) need to work
> with the system not against it. We are not going run a campaign to switch
> Maya or 3ds max users to Softimage - that would kill our business and
> create a massive customer outcry for no real gain. Any expectation that we
> would do that is unrealistic. So, if we are not going to do that, then we
> need to find a better way to get people to adopt Softimage and, while not
> perfect, Suites has been our best bet yet.
> Given that, take a pause and ask objectively "where is Autodesk's real
> opportunity here?" Is it to run a campaign encouraging Softimage users to
> add Maya (or 3ds max) to their toolset? Or vice versa? Which would (1) be
> the better business decision and (2) get Softimage in the hands of more
> users?
> You will probably reach the same conclusion we did.
> In terms of overall exposure, I am not going to deny that Softimage is
> less visible than when it was part of Avid. Then Softimage was run as its
> own entity and there was 100% focus on one(ish) product (ish because there
> was actually a few more than one). That is not the case now. Autodesk runs
> its business pretty much as one centralized operation for the sale of
> efficiency and scale and so M&E competes with hundreds of other Autodesk
> products for mind share when it comes to marketing investment and
> visibility - and M&E is not the largest part of Autodesk's business. This
> dictates exactly how much coverage M&E gets and how many and what products
> we can feature on things like the home page. Oddly enough though, the bulk
> of our web traffic actually goes directly to the product pages so it can be
> argued that this specific point is moot anyway. But yes, visibility is
> reduced and suffers as a function of a given product's ranking in the
> Autodesk product stack.
> Believe me, I have similar discussions with Flame users who also believe
> we have abandoned marketing Flame. Deep down most of this is related to our
> centralized marketing processes discussed above and not to any individual.
> This is not going to change nor is it clear that any alternative could be
> successful and/or profitable. Or at least not in the sense one might
> expect. In the long run Suites and Cloud Services are changing the way
> Autodesk views products but not in the traditional sense. My team's
> constant challenge is therefore to figure out how to increase visibility
> within the systems we have - be it through more aggressive social media
> strategies (why we launched the Softimage Facebook page) or other methods.
> While the good old days have nostalgic value (and yes we remember when
> Discreet Logic had its own website, as did Alias and Softimage, with their
> own dedicated Marketing resources), we have long realized we can never go
> back to those days. The battles have moved on to new battlefields - but it
> does continue!
> Maurice
In my humble opinion, the simple point here is whether or not Autodesk sees
softimage as a full-fledged DCC App or not. The aforementioned campaign
item shows it does not, but actually it is.
Softimage is a complete 3D Application and not just a specialized particle
package. There are numerous examples out there where full projects are
completely done on Softimage alone from start to end. I can vouch for it
myself. We are soon ending work on a full cg feature film (not released
yet) with 3D stereo completely done on softimage, barring a few fluids and
particles (Maya and Houdini) on some shots. And I am talking from
modelling, texturing, surfacing, layout, rigging, animation, lighting and
rendering. All on Softimage for some 900 shots and some change to spare. I
myself have written numerous plugins/tools/scripts/feature addition (both
in c++ and python) for endowing/extending it for pipeline and otherwise
including complete Layout, Modelling, Animation and Lighting plugins/tools
etc. I never said no to any feature extension for pipeline asked of me
because everything was doable ! Is it not enough to show that Softimage is
a full application. It even has a decent compositor in Fx Tree, if need be.
Speaking from morality of situation (although business, for most, is
everything but morality), Autodesk as a responsible company should give
well-informed and undeniably true information about it's products to it's
customers. It is a matter of providing true information.
Since it is a full app, it should be marketed as such. Any alteration to
this and we moving away from truth, providing incomplete information to the
user.
It may be that for Autodesk, Softimage may not be earning as much revenues
as Maya or Max, but it can. Give it the right place it deserves in the
campaigns.
If you really want to undertake a good research exercise (although not very
practical maybe), here's what I suggest, take a few users, a completely
random sample, who do not know anything of Maya or Max or Softimage. Ask
them to use each one for all kinds of 3D tasks for some time. Then take a
vote. I will not be surprised they will value Softimage to be par with Max
or Maya, if not more.
> In my humble opinion, the simple point here is whether or not Autodesk > sees softimage as a full-fledged DCC App or not. The aforementioned > campaign item shows it does not, but actually it is.
> Softimage is a complete 3D Application and not just a specialized > particle package. There are numerous examples out there where full > projects are completely done on Softimage alone from start to end. I > can vouch for it myself. We are soon ending work on a full cg feature > film (not released yet) with 3D stereo completely done on softimage, > barring a few fluids and particles (Maya and Houdini) on some shots. > And I am talking from modelling, texturing, surfacing, layout, > rigging, animation, lighting and rendering. All on Softimage for some > 900 shots and some change to spare. I myself have written numerous > plugins/tools/scripts/feature addition (both in c++ and python) for > endowing/extending it for pipeline and otherwise including complete > Layout, Modelling, Animation and Lighting plugins/tools etc. I never > said no to any feature extension for pipeline asked of me because > everything was doable ! Is it not enough to show that Softimage is a > full application. It even has a decent compositor in Fx Tree, if need be.
> Speaking from morality of situation (although business, for most, is > everything but morality), Autodesk as a responsible company should > give well-informed and undeniably true information about it's products > to it's customers. It is a matter of providing true information.
> Since it is a full app, it should be marketed as such. Any alteration > to this and we moving away from truth, providing incomplete > information to the user.
> It may be that for Autodesk, Softimage may not be earning as much > revenues as Maya or Max, but it can. Give it the right place it > deserves in the campaigns.
> If you really want to undertake a good research exercise (although not > very practical maybe), here's what I suggest, take a few users, a > completely random sample, who do not know anything of Maya or Max or > Softimage. Ask them to use each one for all kinds of 3D tasks for some > time. Then take a vote. I will not be surprised they will value > Softimage to be par with Max or Maya, if not more.
> Alok what is that project and the studio where you work?
> Thanks,
> Dave G
> On 9/12/2012 12:04 AM, Alok Gandhi wrote:
>> In my humble opinion, the simple point here is whether or not Autodesk
>> sees softimage as a full-fledged DCC App or not. The aforementioned
>> campaign item shows it does not, but actually it is.
>> Softimage is a complete 3D Application and not just a specialized
>> particle package. There are numerous examples out there where full projects
>> are completely done on Softimage alone from start to end. I can vouch for
>> it myself. We are soon ending work on a full cg feature film (not released
>> yet) with 3D stereo completely done on softimage, barring a few fluids and
>> particles (Maya and Houdini) on some shots. And I am talking from
>> modelling, texturing, surfacing, layout, rigging, animation, lighting and
>> rendering. All on Softimage for some 900 shots and some change to spare. I
>> myself have written numerous plugins/tools/scripts/feature addition (both
>> in c++ and python) for endowing/extending it for pipeline and otherwise
>> including complete Layout, Modelling, Animation and Lighting plugins/tools
>> etc. I never said no to any feature extension for pipeline asked of me
>> because everything was doable ! Is it not enough to show that Softimage is
>> a full application. It even has a decent compositor in Fx Tree, if need be.
>> Speaking from morality of situation (although business, for most, is
>> everything but morality), Autodesk as a responsible company should give
>> well-informed and undeniably true information about it's products to it's
>> customers. It is a matter of providing true information.
>> Since it is a full app, it should be marketed as such. Any alteration to
>> this and we moving away from truth, providing incomplete information to the
>> user.
>> It may be that for Autodesk, Softimage may not be earning as much
>> revenues as Maya or Max, but it can. Give it the right place it deserves in
>> the campaigns.
>> If you really want to undertake a good research exercise (although not
>> very practical maybe), here's what I suggest, take a few users, a
>> completely random sample, who do not know anything of Maya or Max or
>> Softimage. Ask them to use each one for all kinds of 3D tasks for some
>> time. Then take a vote. I will not be surprised they will value Softimage
>> to be par with Max or Maya, if not more.
Let me get this straight. Maya and 3dsMax professionals - presumably long
time users - have been hired to evaluate in which areas these other
applications add value to their main packages? Aside from the unlikely
scenario of Autodesk themselves not knowing their own texture
painting/sculpting application would excel in exactly this particular area,
virtual production software would have great animation/rigging
capabilities, and ICE would be more appreciative than what is natively
found in max/maya... you have also used their completely unbiased
perspective on what qualifies for the "area of excellence" and made a chart
with this "data" for a marketing campaign? The same campaign that has been
going on for several years and clearly represents companies official stance.
I wouldn't say Softimage is being kept alive. At best, a "particle plugin"
has been put on life support.
Discouraging.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Maurice Patel
<maurice.pa...@autodesk.com>wrote:
> Rolling up my sleeves :)
> If you don't know me, I (still) head Product/Industry Marketing for M&E
> and have posted a couple of times on the forum about our strategy.
> First. I'd like to respond to the link to the campaign item that started
> this thread http://yfrog.com/h0t6exxtj: > Although I can't say I am particularly fond of that diagram myself (it's
> rather ugly), it actually came out of a study commissioned from a third
> party research company that hired 3ds Max and Maya animators to evaluate
> what (if any) value Softimage, MotionBuilder and Mudbox offered to Maya and
> 3ds Max users as a means of determining the value of Suites - so we used it
> in the Suites Campaign.
> The specific purpose of the campaign is to encourage 3ds max and Maya
> users to buy Suites; so yes it focuses only on the areas of these
> applications that offer significant value above and beyond what Maya and
> 3ds max can already do. It is not meant to be an exhaustive description of
> those applications capabilities.
> I know Autodesk Marketing is often hard to fathom - heck it is for us too,
> but if we want Softimage to survive we (the marketing team) need to work
> with the system not against it. We are not going run a campaign to switch
> Maya or 3ds max users to Softimage - that would kill our business and
> create a massive customer outcry for no real gain. Any expectation that we
> would do that is unrealistic. So, if we are not going to do that, then we
> need to find a better way to get people to adopt Softimage and, while not
> perfect, Suites has been our best bet yet.
> Given that, take a pause and ask objectively "where is Autodesk's real
> opportunity here?" Is it to run a campaign encouraging Softimage users to
> add Maya (or 3ds max) to their toolset? Or vice versa? Which would (1) be
> the better business decision and (2) get Softimage in the hands of more
> users?
> You will probably reach the same conclusion we did.
> In terms of overall exposure, I am not going to deny that Softimage is
> less visible than when it was part of Avid. Then Softimage was run as its
> own entity and there was 100% focus on one(ish) product (ish because there
> was actually a few more than one). That is not the case now. Autodesk runs
> its business pretty much as one centralized operation for the sale of
> efficiency and scale and so M&E competes with hundreds of other Autodesk
> products for mind share when it comes to marketing investment and
> visibility - and M&E is not the largest part of Autodesk's business. This
> dictates exactly how much coverage M&E gets and how many and what products
> we can feature on things like the home page. Oddly enough though, the bulk
> of our web traffic actually goes directly to the product pages so it can be
> argued that this specific point is moot anyway. But yes, visibility is
> reduced and suffers as a function of a given product's ranking in the
> Autodesk product stack.
> Believe me, I have similar discussions with Flame users who also believe
> we have abandoned marketing Flame. Deep down most of this is related to our
> centralized marketing processes discussed above and not to any individual.
> This is not going to change nor is it clear that any alternative could be
> successful and/or profitable. Or at least not in the sense one might
> expect. In the long run Suites and Cloud Services are changing the way
> Autodesk views products but not in the traditional sense. My team's
> constant challenge is therefore to figure out how to increase visibility
> within the systems we have - be it through more aggressive social media
> strategies (why we launched the Softimage Facebook page) or other methods.
> While the good old days have nostalgic value (and yes we remember when
> Discreet Logic had its own website, as did Alias and Softimage, with their
> own dedicated Marketing resources), we have long realized we can never go
> back to those days. The battles have moved on to new battlefields - but it
> does continue!
> Maurice
What was the reason AD purchased Softimage if they didn't think they could
market it as a full fledged 3D app? Was it to grab most of the market and
stifle the competition?
If you really wanted to get a good handle one what benefits Softimage has
for users of other packages it would have been better for AD and that
screwy research agency to sit a user from Max down with a user familiar
with Softimage AND Max then compare notes and show the wide range of
benefits and use that in the marketing Same applies to Maya. A one sided
view from someone not familiar with using the package being pretty useless
should have been obvious I would think for anyone from a marketing
background. Its obvious to me someone with no marketing experience.
I'd love to have it all laid out for me though on how the evaluation was
done.
i don't buy the research-story - instead i believe softimage ended up in the particles corner because they had to visually balance the "bonus"-tools of the suites in a chart with a given set of buzzwords.
> What was the reason AD purchased Softimage if they didn't think they > could market it as a full fledged 3D app? Was it to grab most of the > market and stifle the competition?
> If you really wanted to get a good handle one what benefits Softimage > has for users of other packages it would have been better for AD and > that screwy research agency to sit a user from Max down with a user > familiar with Softimage AND Max then compare notes and show the wide > range of benefits and use that in the marketing Same applies to Maya. > A one sided view from someone not familiar with using the package > being pretty useless should have been obvious I would think for anyone > from a marketing background. Its obvious to me someone with no > marketing experience.
> I'd love to have it all laid out for me though on how the evaluation > was done.
> What was the reason AD purchased Softimage if they didn't think they could
> market it as a full fledged 3D app? Was it to grab most of the market and
> stifle the competition?
talent mostly but there are patents some which you might not think are
important. type in 'avid technologies render' in google patents search and
see for yourself.
