FabricPaul wrote:I don't want to rain on your parade, but why would Autodesk want to enable a competitor? They acquired Maya and Softimage so that they owned the majority of the 3D market. The premise of stopping Soft would be in part on a transition of users to Maya. If they then sell Softimage (which, without selling developers along with it, would be nigh-on impossible to do) then they are ensuring that those users wouldn't move, and in the future they'd have customers looking at moving to 'new Soft' and away from Maya. There is no business rationale for selling Softimage at all.
Don't want to reign on your parade either Paul, but your comments don't quite add up, specifically if you run the numbers and look at the trends in dcc development, specifically from a user perspective.
It is a long reply, but I wanted it to covers all aspects of the +/-'s of the whole selling argument, from expectations – on both sides, as well profitability, and alternative investments.
Let's assume AD sold xsi for 10million, with developers, as you've rightly said they'd have to, and we agreed to let them use with no royalties, all of the patents freely.
We'd still have to turn the product and the user base around. ie accepting some shrinkage in users, but assuming a committed core not leaving. We'd estimate that to be another 10 million to achieve that goal.
So with that 20 million, and constant staff salaries, you'd automatically by default be committing to a subscription scenario. And at the current user base numbers that's going to take a long while to repay, unless you could leverage the interest that's still out there into hard sales, knowing that too adds to costs. So there is absolutely no chance of lowering the product price (let alone possible external royalties costs, mr etc, which we'd have to strip out), and without lowering the price, you're looking at a smaller constant user base, and so less return income, so profitability is going to take much longer to achieve.
Let's not forget that too we'd have to develop or add new features from external companies, every year, that's going to cost too. Even if we did turn it around and develop new features, it's a given that all Maya/Max users are going to ask for is those features in Maya/Max, they are not going to change over.
In fact that's a positive for selling it!! As we'd be doing the r&d of what users want and don't incorporated for AD products for free. (see the trends in transliteration below* ) Because in reality if we did incorporate some perceived new 'hot' feature all of those AD users would bleet for it for maya/max, just like they have for ice. And clearly not only in xsi, but max and maya, the comments from the user base has been one consistently of better development practices, better tools, resolutions to issues, all across the board. Which have yet to show any fruition after the move to agile development. I doubt that it ever will. So better they have someone to copy from, if that makes maya/max users happy – who cares where the idea (patents aside) comes from.
Realistically and because of the vast numbers of maya / max users, and specifically the film industry / Arch vis and their commitment to their products is not going to change, unless they are seriously forced out, people are stubborn like that, they dont like change. So for the majority, they are not going to move from maya nor max, irrespective of what is done to xsi or what feature set is added, all they'll do is urge AD to duplicate the feature set into their product of choice.
*That's clearly already done by users right now, look at vimeo, where people see a cinema4d/houdini user development, and other xsi/max/maya users transliterate it into usage for their product, and vice versa. That is happening more and more, transliteration of feature sets. Examples: Soup for maya, as well as ice style USER development in progress for both Maya, Max and even Blender. Let alone the Think particles / ice / Houdini and all types of other examples on vimeo.
Further to assume that all xsi users will migrate to another one of AD products, is well just that an assumption, and a risky one at that, there are alternatives to anything AD has to offer, if only because of transliteration, so one had better assume a low number of migrants, as well as given the historical issues of the product perceived by the users. Unless they (AD) are prepared to take a beating on price, and that's one thing I don't see happening, it a dangerous assumption to make. Possibly the migration of direct product swaps and subscription costs from one product to another is though a possibility in the future, as over the last few years there has been a calculated equalization of the differences in subscription costs, which make the process easier as the value is constant.
The reality of any external company with those challenges that I've outlined, would not make any significant threat to neither Maya nor Max, as along as one realises that one is not going to make money hand over fist, it would take appropriate skills to manage xsi development, and it would take some time to achieve, something that is always directly at odds with user expectations, elevating their doubts, and potentially creating a smaller and smaller user base.
Given that, we'd assume the user base would initially shrink - but could be sustainable, if users are willing to pay the price, and assist constructively in the development of the product. Even if we did succeed in making it a better product, which there is no guarantee, but that very size of the reduced core user base would have a negligible impact on AD business now or in the future.
Countering those very arguments above about selling, is the role of any ceo to reduce competition, and calculating what the cost of acquisition and termination or rather phased reduction costs vs the capital outlay, not only in migration, but in profits and goodwill too. But also important for AD to evaluate is the ever shrinking internal development, and the necessitate the more costly outside acquisitions. So selling does create a potential for zero threat, zero cost development ideas. Also Goodwill, customer satisfactions, consumer relations, PR, whatever you want to call it, is all to often forgotten, nor calculated, as the company offers you a new product in one hand while forcibly taking from the other.
It should come to no surprise to anyone that AD has been doing this since before the acquisition of xsi, with its abandonment of upgrade offers, with it's forced subscriptions, and now with it's 2015 notice of intent. With it's less than stellar interest in freelancers, they clearly have been and will continue to reduce that market to what they perceive as a core set of dedicated professionals and companies, that to be honest couldn't care less about the cost of subscriptions, as to them that's a cost of business and one that can be factored into the cost of their end products for their users or clients. And in that I do agree with them develop a customer base that can easily accommodate subscription costs, it leads for you a more stable business, and a more stable dependable revenue stream, it's their methodology I don't agree with, and it's why people don't like them.
But alternatively one could invest that same 20million+ in specific social media developments, and as it stands today potentially gain significant better return on one's investment, in less time, than any dcc or any product in this field offers.
Consider that you have seen AD in parallel follow that route too, with the vast social media user base potentials even a 10% synergy and thus sale in any AD product combined with social media, can significantly improve the profitability of that product, far faster, with far less effort that turning something around (notwithstanding an antagonist user base.)
Isn't that exactly what shareholders want more of now, quicker profitability, more synergy and a larger customer base.
So maybe more the question is not why they would sell, but why would you invest?
I know it was a long reply, but I wanted it to covers all aspects of the +/-'s of the whole selling argument, from expectations – on both sides, as well profitability, development issues and alternative investments.
Irrespective of the content of which I tried to show major point from all sides; and Irrespective of what may or may not happen - I hope that the future for you ALL - is one that's exciting, challenging and prosperous.
Au revoir.
ps Eugen
Anyone knows the AD chain of command from the inside? Who are the people that make decisions like this? Did they ever really sit in front of any DCC apps?
Senior decisions are made in San Rafael - the corp hq. The ones that can bring their dogs to work. For the most part getting excel and powerpoint and working the large monitor is all you need. Credit to Carl Bass, some software he does use.
..."
