PDA

View Full Version : Autodesk Details Subscription Transition for New Software Licenses



robertoortiz
02-04-2015, 08:55 AM
Well this sucks..
"

"With today’s announcement, we are giving our customers a full year to plan for these changes, and will continue to be transparent about our plans"




SAN RAFAEL, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today Autodesk, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADSK) announced that new commercial seats of most standalone desktop software products will be available only by Desktop Subscription beginning February 1, 2016. Through these changes, Autodesk is continuing its transition to subscription-based offerings for its products, which provide customers a simplified product management and deployment experience, and makes it easier to introduce new tools and technology into the workflow with lower upfront cost and the ability to pay as you go.

"How the world is designed and made is changing, and how software is delivered is changing as well. The companies that embrace these changes will lead their industries toward a more nimble, connected and richer future,” said Andrew Anagnost, Autodesk senior vice president of Industry Strategy & Marketing. "Our customers have long asked for greater flexibility and more value from their software investments. The shift to subscription allows Autodesk to deliver both, as well as an improved user experience and easier access to a broader portfolio of technology.”

Autodesk Desktop Subscription offers a simplified installation, management and upgrade experience, flexible payment terms, and broader access rights across multiple devices. Autodesk plans to continually innovate and improve Desktop Subscription products to more tightly integrate them with Autodesk cloud services and reduce file compatibility issues.

Autodesk customers who have purchased perpetual licenses prior to February 1, 2016 will be able to continue to use those licenses, and customers on Maintenance Subscription will continue to receive corresponding benefits for as long as their subscription remains active. Autodesk will also continue to offer Cloud Services Subscriptions.

“With today’s announcement, we are giving our customers a full year to plan for these changes, and will continue to be transparent about our plans,” continued Anagnost. “Autodesk will be working closely with our customers and partners to ease the impact of these changes, and we are committed to making the transition as smooth as possible.”

For full details on today’s announcement and subscription options, please visit http://www.autodesk.com/perpetuallicenses
"

http://news.autodesk.com/press-release/archived/autodesk-details-subscription-transition-new-software-licenses

GandB
02-04-2015, 09:28 AM
Glad I never bothered with them. Blender, Lightwave and Modo are fine alternatives.

Surrealist.
02-04-2015, 10:01 AM
Thanks for posting. I was just talking to my sales rep about what is going to be happening. He did not know yet. But this does answer at least a few questions I had. We had talked about this at length. It is a complex issue. And hopefully we will get more answers to some of the many questions that arise from this.

Edit:

Oh, found this:

http://static-dc.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/docs/pdfs/PerpetualLicensePublicFAQ.pdf

More in depth and answers some of the questions I had just been asking yesterday.

brent3d
02-04-2015, 10:42 AM
Viva the monopoly! Owning is almost always better for the consumer then renting. Renting generally costs you more in the long run, everyone knows that, but thanks Autodesk for telling consumers what is good for them... lol.

bobakabob
02-04-2015, 12:25 PM
Agreed, you have to keep paying them to have access to the files of work you've created. You rent the software and they own you.
Good business model...

Surrealist.
02-04-2015, 01:07 PM
You have a year to buy a perp license. And after that you can keep it. (and keep also your yearly subscription plan or not up to you) You are not required to switch to rental. They have only announced that new licenses will be rental in 2016. That gives people a year to decide which way to go. And anyone choosing to stay perp can.

As it is now there is a choice so people can decide. After 2016 that choice goes away but only for new licenses. People who already have perp before that date can keep going that way.

spherical
02-04-2015, 05:16 PM
Yes, but will they be able to get new versions? That detail is left up in the air. Found it interesting that the VP at least nodded that they will try to "ease the impact". OOoops. Uh... up top we said that it would be better for customers. If so, there wouldn't be any "impact" to ease.

Surrealist.
02-04-2015, 09:51 PM
It is all answered in the PDF FAQ. (link above) But yes, if you buy a perpetual license with a yearly maintenance subscription before Feb 1 2016, you keep it, and can continue to keep it upgraded and all of the benefits you normally get from a perpetual license with subscription. In other words for all of the people who currently own AD products under a perpetual license, nothing changes. There is no forced hand here for them. It is the new customers after Feb 1 2016 who will only have the option to rent.

Netvudu
02-05-2015, 05:32 AM
I can´t prove it but I´m 100% sure that last statement, even if said so by Autodesk will be false.
AD wants you to go to the subscription model, so they will force you into it, and there are practical ways to do so. For instance, if they make your updating process virtually impossible or impossibly convoluted unless you are on the subscription model, users will go that way out of boredom.
As I said, I have no facts to back this idea, but if you are a Maya or Max user, better get comfortable with the subscription model...or change your software.

souzou
02-05-2015, 05:50 AM
It is all answered in the PDF FAQ. (link above) But yes, if you buy a perpetual license with a yearly maintenance subscription before Feb 1 2016, you keep it, and can continue to keep it upgraded and all of the benefits you normally get from a perpetual license with subscription. In other words for all of the people who currently own AD products under a perpetual license, nothing changes. There is no forced hand here for them. It is the new customers after Feb 1 2016 who will only have the option to rent.

Surely this is just shades of grey. If you own a perpetual licence you have to stay on maintenance to stay updated - if you let it lapse you can only get back up-to-date by going on subscription. Either way they get their annual 'rental' from you - you can't skip upgrades without getting tied into the subscription.

lightscape
02-05-2015, 05:52 AM
Is it within the price range of adobe cloud?

tischbein3
02-05-2015, 05:58 AM
Is it within the price range of adobe cloud?

http://www.autodesk.com/subscription/desktop

scroll down, pick a product, click buy and....

souzou
02-05-2015, 06:00 AM
Is it within the price range of adobe cloud?

Maya is currently listed as USD $2310 pa or $290 pm.

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 08:20 AM
I can´t prove it but I´m 100% sure that last statement, even if said so by Autodesk will be false.
AD wants you to go to the subscription model, so they will force you into it, and there are practical ways to do so. For instance, if they make your updating process virtually impossible or impossibly convoluted unless you are on the subscription model, users will go that way out of boredom.
As I said, I have no facts to back this idea, but if you are a Maya or Max user, better get comfortable with the subscription model...or change your software.

I think they will definitely move the perp licenses entirely eventually. But I also believe based on the track record of the last year, that they will notify people of changes well in advance. As it stands now nothing really changes for a year. That is plenty of time to explore options.

I feel that their plan is to do this first, then offer what the alternatives are and allow people to gravitate to the new model. There are a lot of people with perp licenses right now. And a lot of studios with network licenses and so on. For all of those customers nothing changes for a year and even then, as per the release, they can still stick with the way they have been doing business. It is way too soon to force the hand on all of those customers.

But at the same time you don't have to be a market annalist to see the writing on the wall. Rental is coming. But in the case of Autodesk I would give it another year maybe more but not much, say by 2017 or 2018 it will be all rental with an announcement coming in 2016. That's how I read between the lines.

Mainly because it is a real complex issue and they have a lot of things to work out to get customers serviced. That is my take on it.

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 08:28 AM
Surely this is just shades of grey. If you own a perpetual licence you have to stay on maintenance to stay updated - if you let it lapse you can only get back up-to-date by going on subscription. Either way they get their annual 'rental' from you - you can't skip upgrades without getting tied into the subscription.

Yes. Some months ago that gave a fair warning that upgrades would go obsolete. That passed. Now the only way to upgrade it so be on subscription. No more waiting for 2-3 years to upgrade.

However there is some leeway. You have a 30 day grace period after which you are charged another fee. I think 100 bucks roughly. At least it is for me. Then after that as long as you pay your subscription within the year (from your start date to end date) you don't loose it.

Anyway, yeah, it is expensive to keep this software up to date.

Pensart
02-05-2015, 08:52 AM
According to this page http://store.autodesk.eu/store/adsk/en_IE/pd/ThemeID.25705700/productID.297240200 a whopping 3900euro for maya2015. Don't find any mention of vat inc. or not. Anyhow, these prices are unpossible for freelance artists. Unless they have steady and good payed contracts running. No wonder freelancers choose lw & modo as an alternative.

My current software pipeline consist of the following software at the moment. Lightwave, LWcad, 3Dcoat, Blender. and i'm very happy with them!
I also have Modo2.3 but i did stop upgrading and even using it. Not that i don't like modo. Its a great package but upgrading lw and modo...
I have chosen to stick with LW and the little helper LWcad that realy rocks when it comes to modeling and snapping.
Throw in the incredible character animation tools, fluids and even sculpt and paint of blender and you have a very nice arsenal of tools.

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 10:35 AM
Yep. I used Blender for years. It is a nice little app. I know what you mean though, for years and years I could not afford anything. It is an expensive proposition to own some of the software out there. This is why things like Houdini Indie are attractive. That is something that I'd like to get a hold of and start exploring. That and I am waiting for the NC Renderman to come out and have a play with that in Maya. So much software so little time.

In general I think we will see more interesting options in the future as far as choices.

jboudreau
02-05-2015, 03:11 PM
Maya is currently listed as USD $2310 pa or $290 pm.

Wow That's insane!! Creative Cloud is only $49/month and you get the whole entire suite of software (Master Collection etc) Autodesk is crazy I would never pay almost 300/month

3dsmax is $2,575.00 or $290/month

I hope the LW3DG never goes down this road.

Jason

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 07:11 PM
Yeah I was not happy with those prices either. Actually if you do it annually it comes down to under 200 USD per month. But still it is a lot of outlay. I think it starts to get more economical if you have need for motionbuilder and Mudbox and get a year on a suite. But still, yeah. I think the prices are a little steep. Even considering that it is 3DC.

On that note, check out Mudbox at 10 bucks a month. That is not bad. Great painting app and decent at sculpting.

3D Kiwi
02-05-2015, 08:36 PM
It makes the death of Softimage easier to take, I doubt I would have kept using it at those prices.

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 09:00 PM
You wouldn't have to anyway. As mentioned the rental is still only an option for current owners and nothing has been officially announced of that changing. I have the latest copy of Softimage and it is still a great piece of software. Softimage still has a few years of mileage in its current state, and even in a static state will never replaced by other options I have available as I see it (for a long while anyway), based on my needs. Houdini on the FX side is the only thing that can give it a run for the money and you can rent that by the year for a great price, so it is something on my to do list. Get in and find out what that is all about.

3D Kiwi
02-05-2015, 09:22 PM
My understanding is after feb 2016 you cant buy perpetual licences any more and can only go on rental, but if you have a perpetual licence that you bought before feb 2016 you can continue to pay maintenance for that licence after feb 2016. Ill have another read in case im wrong. But i cant see them doing maintenance for ever and everyone will end up having to rent.

- - - Updated - - -

My understanding is after feb 2016 you cant buy perpetual licences any more and can only go on rental, but if you have a perpetual licence that you bought before feb 2016 you can continue to pay maintenance for that licence after feb 2016. Ill have another read in case im wrong. But i cant see them doing maintenance for ever and everyone will end up having to rent.

Surrealist.
02-05-2015, 11:21 PM
My understanding is after feb 2016 you cant buy perpetual licences any more and can only go on rental, but if you have a perpetual licence that you bought before feb 2016 you can continue to pay maintenance for that licence after feb 2016. Ill have another read in case im wrong. But i cant see them doing maintenance for ever and everyone will end up having to rent.

You are correct on both counts. There is still and option for another year. And any perp license you get before Feb 1 2006 you can keep on a yearly upgrade subscription. And yes, of course they are going to eventually go rental. When is not certain, but I am sure there will be notice.

But at the current prices, they are going to have to sort out a bit of math if they expect all perp owners to start paying more than 2X yearly for the same software. Not sure how they are going to handle that one. But time will tell.

ncr100
02-05-2015, 11:48 PM
Oh, found this:

http://static-dc.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/docs/pdfs/PerpetualLicensePublicFAQ.pdf

More in depth and answers some of the questions I had just been asking yesterday.

This:

With its shift away from software “ownership” or ...

They quoted the word ownership. I want to swear, something to the effect of screw them - less choice, more profit, DRM everywhere, no ownership, everyone is a serf. Creeps.

Megalodon2.0
02-06-2015, 12:34 AM
They quoted the word ownership. I want to swear, something to the effect of screw them - less choice, more profit, DRM everywhere, no ownership, everyone is a serf. Creeps.
It's the same thing with Adobe. But because their pricing is "so wonderful," many just seem to accept it. It won't STAY wonderful and eventually you'll have hundreds/thousands of files that won't be able to be opened by anything BUT their software. This is just a BAD precedent.

creacon
02-06-2015, 03:35 AM
The problem with Autodesk is not only the subscription model.

- Pricing differences between the US and Europe is huge, the Euro is at an all time low, but Maya is still 22% more expensive in Europe (used to be 40%).
- The resellers here hardly know the product their selling, so no support from them.
- The Autodesk support is a laugh, you end up in India (I think), receive mails in poor english, it took me 4 mails to get the guy to understand the question, they contacted me again 3 months after our deadline to tell me they took care of the problem.
- Bugs don't get fixed, they are part of the next upgrade of your subscription, which most of the time introduces new problems, and requires all plugins to be recompiled.

We, as a studio don't feel like an Autodesk client, we feel like a victim.
The only part we use in Maya is the rigging/setup/deformation animation part. No modeling, no rendering. And as soon as someone comes up with a viable alternative, we'll be the first in line to test it out.
Too bad Newtek doesn't have a clue about CA, Genoma is barking up the wrong tree and without undo CA is a no-no.

creacon

Surrealist.
02-06-2015, 03:47 AM
This:


They quoted the word ownership.

To be fair on that point you have to look squarely at the law. No one actually owns software legally other than the party who created ( and is thus holder of) the intellectual property. It is a legal impossibility. It is because software comes into a special case where you actually can not factually/legally sell it to an end user. It is not like something that is manufactured and taken away by the consumer. That is the entire basis for the EULA. It says exactly what it means. You are not an owner but a user. This is entirely different. Because at any time you violate the EULA, you can be legally stopped from using the software. Are the cases rare where you would see this enforced? Yes. But it is the way it is. So when they quote "ownership" that is what it means. It means the difference between being allowed to use software perpetually as long as you abide by the ELUA or are required to continue to pay fees to access the software and also as long as you abide by the ELUA. Software ownership is a misnomer if there ever was one. If you owned LightWave you could walk in to the offices and take all of the code and go your merry way. That is ownership when it comes to software. You can not own someone's intellectual property. (unless you buy it outright of course and then you become the owner) You can license it. That is all it ever is.

Extra bonus points if you can properly fill in the blanks to this EULA:


PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE. BY INSTALLING THIS SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, RETURN THIS PACKAGE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT WITHIN 15 DAYS FOR A FULL REFUND.


1. Grant of License

The enclosed computer program(s) (the "Software") is licensed, not sold, to you by ________. (_________) for use only under the terms of this License, and ____________ reserves any rights not expressly granted to you. You own the disk(s) on which the Software is recorded or fixed, but the Software and all copyright rights therein, foreign and domestic, is owned by __________ or its suppliers and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.

For all practical intents and purposes we "own" perpetual licenses. Because we are allowed to use them indefinitely under certain conditions.

Megalodon2.0
02-06-2015, 04:09 AM
To be fair on that point you have to look squarely at the law. No one actually owns software legally other than the party who created ( and is thus holder of) the intellectual property. It is a legal impossibility. It is because software comes into a special case where you actually can not factually/legally sell it to an end user. It is not like something that is manufactured and taken away by the consumer. That is the entire basis for the EULA. It says exactly what it means. You are not an owner but a user.
BS legalese. We OWN the license and can use it for as long as we want to. I've NEVER heard of any company rescinding a license - and since it's not common knowledge I sincerely doubt that it is a REAL problem. In the EU they can sell their OWNED licenses of the software. Here in the US we used to be able to sell our licenses of Adobe. (And yes I know, NOT the versions that we upgraded to other versions.) But for all intents and purposes, we OWN "the software." Obviously we can't make copies and sell those copies. Just like we can't make a Mickey Mouse figure and legally sell it.



For all practical intents and purposes we "own" perpetual licenses. Because we are allowed to use them indefinitely under certain conditions.
Yes. Which is something you can't now do with Adobe CC and soon with AD software.

JohnMarchant
02-06-2015, 04:31 AM
Well i hope this is all not trying to answer the software piracy angle because if it is then AD has failed miserably.

Surrealist.
02-06-2015, 05:11 AM
BS legalese

Well sure it is for all intents and purposes just like I said. I agree with you there. Most of us will never run into an issue with this. But it is a legal fact that the people writing the copy are aware of that and would get reamed by the legal department if they did not put quotes on it. That is really all I was pointing out.

ELUAs are real though and they do wind up in court sometimes. Sometimes the software companies win sometimes they loose. But it is real.

lardbros
02-06-2015, 06:40 AM
I'm not sure where people are looking, but 3ds Max on its own is $185/month, $460/quarter, or $1470/year. Or, you can buy it as a perpetual license for $3675.

Its the Ultimate Design Suite that appears as $290/month.

Still wouldn't be happy if I was personally paying for 3ds Max... I hate this forced subscription stuff. A shame my company pays for all our subs... I wouldn't if I was a freelancer.

Surrealist.
02-06-2015, 06:53 AM
I think that was the disparity by the country - some places in Europe it is much more than that.

safetyman
02-06-2015, 08:22 AM
I think the point is being missed on the whole ownership thing. If you buy a "boxed" copy of something you can use it forever as long as your computer can run it and it doesn't hamper your workflow. Who cares if AD says it still belongs to them... as far as I'm concerned I can use it until I can't (need to upgrade, too old, slow, etc.). AD realizes this and is forcing folks to jump in to their new sub model. It's a d-bag move, but better for them and their stakeholders, which is all they care about really. Hurrah for big business.

The other thing I wanted to point out, i.e. theorize is, and I'm flying a little blind on this one so maybe you all can offer your opinions; The larger studios (Pixar, DreamWorks, ILM/Disney, etc.) are adopting their own tools and will eventually have very little need for AD products for the most part. This is more economical for them since they don't have to shell out money for dozens or hundreds of licenses -- they can use their own tools that are tailored towards their workflows. AD will soon not be able to cater to their biggest customers without some other changes. This leaves game studios (?) and the smaller shops that don't have the resources to create their own tools. Where does this leave AD? Could we see a major shift in the 3d software market down the road? Is AD so high on themselves that they don't see the bigger picture? I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Surrealist.
02-06-2015, 09:51 AM
Regarding the ownership thing. I don't think it is an argument, or point of disagreement. I think everyone here agrees with you on that. It was just a legal thing, the use of quotes in that reference, that is all there was to it.

Regasrding AD use of products in the market. I don't believe the in-house tools are at that level yet. Off the shelf software is still in heavy use and will be for some time.

I do believe changes are coming though. I think there will be a shift in the market. And from my view it looks like they have been trying - in their own way - to shift with that. I think it is going to continue in this way. I think the future holds more in store for us as artists.

In general the only thing keeping something like Maya at the top is really no one is offering an alternative. I think that could change. But I am not sure who has a firm grasp on what it would take as well as resources to make that happen. All of the contenders seem to be eking out a niche market. No one is making any sort of concerted effort to do it. Houdini. Now, if they could pull a character animation rabbit out of their hat, and they really poured effort into it, they might be able to make a run for it. Cinema 4D is in good use, but it seems more like a niche market to me. And nothing else really comes close.

If Blender gets a serious face lift and pulls out the stops, it could make a run for it. But it would have to take about 10x the resources they have now for another 5 years or so. Just guessing. And again is that happening? No. Not really and not going to happen. In two years it will have an impact on the market - which will be great for all of us - but it will not be making a run on the hill.

It is just like, well no one seems to be trying to knock the king off the hill. I think it could be done. But I don't see anyone trying. More like a lot of people saying that when the giant crumbles it will be good because all of the smaller software companies can pick up the scraps. But I don't hear anyone saying that software X is on the way. I do hear people saying "software X is as good as or better for me" but that is not the same thing.

If AD went out of business tomorrow, I figure I'd have a good run for at least 2 to 3 years on the software I own now. In that time I would expect Houdni to be the place to look first, followed by maybe Modo for CA stuff, Maybe. And possibly even Blender.

In effect I 'd be where I was 2 years ago trying to figure out what I thought was the best tool out there and that led me to Maya eventually. I would not enjoy reliving that because there is not much alternative if you want to do the kinds of things I want to do. That is just me.

safetyman
02-07-2015, 05:46 AM
I agree with you on all counts, however, I do believe that the bigger studios will eventually break free from AD completely, or at least become MUCH less reliant on their products. It just makes better business sense, especially since it's tough economically to compete these days. You do what you can to survive and if you can cut the cord with third party expenses, so much the better.

Surrealist.
02-07-2015, 06:38 AM
Well there is another thing to consider. And that it that even though there are the in-house tools being used and developed, it is not that simple. It is not like just eventually everyone will turn their backs on 3P software. Some of the largest 3D software companies are working with the largest studios, (Disney) FX houses (ILM) and universities (Carnegie Melon I believe it is) to develop software and releasing some of that technology to the public or releasing it with updates in software available in commercial packages. When you consider what Pixar/Disney is doing with Renderman for example, and open subdiv which also includes Autodesk developing along side this you have already a lot of tools that are in house which develops into software released to us. And in fact a lot of the best software comes about because it is developed in house first. Vray, Renderman... even Blender are all software that originated as studio tools. So I don't think there is such an isolation between the two things. I think what is more likely to happen is that these developments will broaden. And we will see more things like open subdivision, free NC Renderman. I think it will become obvious to these companies that the best thing to do is make software more accessible and have their in-house tools available to people outside of their studios. And these tools will continue to find their way into commercial packages. And because Maya has so many seats it is usually the first to get the benefit of these things like open subdiv, free Renderman etc. So I don't know, I would look more to these companies to continue to broaden their ideas of business model and make software more easily accessible.

Aside from that I think there is room for ideas to come from small private sector. I really like what David Ikeda is up to. He is an inspiration.

lardbros
02-07-2015, 09:19 AM
I agree with you on all counts, however, I do believe that the bigger studios will eventually break free from AD completely, or at least become MUCH less reliant on their products. It just makes better business sense, especially since it's tough economically to compete these days. You do what you can to survive and if you can cut the cord with third party expenses, so much the better.

I'm just not sure about this...
We only use Autodesk, as they're a large company, and my workplace seems to buy into products purely down to the size of the company that owns them. In some cases this may mean that it's a more stable company, making lots of money, and the product won't go tits up. On the other hand, you're at their beck and call, every decision they make, it's out of your hands. The company I work for doesn't care what they spend on software, otherwise instead of spending millions on MS office suites, they'd use open office.

Also, on the flip side... I do think the larger studios get assistance from Autodesk in some form or another. We pay for maintenance etc, but every single bug report I've logged with Autodesk, has never been fixed. I'm talking MAJOR bugs, that crash 3ds max. They've been ignored completely, and in fact, they still exist here today, despite me logging the calls 5 years ago.

Anyway... I'm sure Autodesk provide great support to the large, awesome vfx studios out there, it's in their interest to fix their bugs as they will mention how they worked with Autodesk while they do their (sponsored) presentations at Siggraph :)

Call me a cynic, but unfortunately I don't see the big companies turning away from Autodesk too soon. I could of course be totally wrong, and I hope I am!

Netvudu
02-07-2015, 10:54 AM
If it means anything, I know for a fact that the support AD gives to the large studios is more or less as useless as the one you just described.
That´s one of the reasons many of those studios are moving FX departments towards Houdini which has an impressive support (to everyone, not just large studios).
It is difficult to leave something like Maya behind, though, because there are not so many actual alternatives for riggers and animators...yet.

lardbros
02-07-2015, 11:18 AM
If it means anything, I know for a fact that the support AD gives to the large studios is more or less as useless as the one you just described.
That´s one of the reasons many of those studios are moving FX departments towards Houdini which has an impressive support (to everyone, not just large studios).
It is difficult to leave something like Maya behind, though, because there are not so many actual alternatives for riggers and animators...yet.
Interesting, as they always say how much they help their customers during large vfx shots/shows. Better to hear it from the horses mouth rather than Autodesk themselves. Like Framestore talking
about Arnold at Siggraph... They helped each other tonnes during the course of Gravity.

Unfortunately Autodesk counter this with impressive marketing campaigns and lies :(
We've literally had zero support from them... EVER!
It amazes me that when I tried to post a bug report before we had support, they whinged and demanded that we paid for maintenance so we could log a bug report... Still isn't fixed... And I don't think they care!

Surrealist.
02-07-2015, 09:17 PM
BY the way what are those 3D max bugs? Can you help me recreate them? And are you guys using 2015 latest service pack?

Not inferring it'd be fixed but just curious to make sure we are on the same release.

I am gonna report them here:

http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/troubleshooting/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/ENU/123112/files/report-a-bug-html.html

Also bring them up to my AD Rep who uses Max and see if he can recreate them as well. If so I can have him report it and even try and track it down.

vonpietro
02-07-2015, 11:12 PM
i dont like subscription based.
what happens if i dont use it for 6 months, and then get a gig and start using it again, i'm paying double now for the same software.
sorta.

I'd much rather own a software, because say i dont use it for years, i dont have to suddenly buy it again to use it. They keep updating photoshop, but i dont need new - i need it to do what it's done for years, and my adobe version 5 is great for just that, and i dont have to keep throwing money to use it. (very unhappy with adobe subscription crap)


not to mention the (all your work is tied to it crap and since you let it lapse you can't open your files anymore) What kind of crap is that.

Megalodon2.0
02-08-2015, 12:09 AM
It is difficult to leave something like Maya behind, though, because there are not so many actual alternatives for riggers and animators...yet.
Perhaps, but what's to stop these studios from using the perpetual licenses they own and adding on functionality for many years to come? And then adding something like Houdini if they need to? For the smaller studios I can see the need to keep up with Maya, but the big guys that develop their own tools may be able to use existing Maya for years to come.


i dont like subscription based.
what happens if i dont use it for 6 months, and then get a gig and start using it again, i'm paying double now for the same software.
sorta.

I'd much rather own a software, because say i dont use it for years, i dont have to suddenly buy it again to use it. They keep updating photoshop, but i dont need new - i need it to do what it's done for years, and my adobe version 5 is great for just that, and i dont have to keep throwing money to use it. (very unhappy with adobe subscription crap)


not to mention the (all your work is tied to it crap and since you let it lapse you can't open your files anymore) What kind of crap is that.

Yeah. I've said it MANY times before. You buy software when your business is doing well and hold off when business is not doing well. Imagine having to rent the software just to open and edit your files when your business is in the midst of another recession? Too many people seem to think that it can't happen to them and believe that the "price is so low, it won't matter if there's another recession." If they've never been seriously touched by an extreme downturn, they will be VERY surprised when it does happen and they find the rent they once thought would be easy to pay is now a burden. It WILL happen, but it won't affect me since I won't rent software.

lardbros
02-08-2015, 04:47 AM
BY the way what are those 3D max bugs? Can you help me recreate them? And are you guys using 2015 latest service pack?

Not inferring it'd be fixed but just curious to make sure we are on the same release.

I am gonna report them here:

http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/troubleshooting/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/ENU/123112/files/report-a-bug-html.html

Also bring them up to my AD Rep who uses Max and see if he can recreate them as well. If so I can have him report it and even try and track it down.

Hey Richard,

Thanks for trying to help! They may not affect everyone, as a few of our guys still using light tracer and a sky done for their stuff.

Anyway...
Bug 1:
Send a scene off to network render, in which you had the Scene Explorer open, and it'll crash all of the nodes. Close it before you send it, and it won't crash!
This may have been fixed in 2015, as the scene Explorer experience has been totally revamped, but we can't bring ourselves to move over to it fully yet.

Bug 2:
Light tracer rendering on a render node with 64 cores causes crashing on the farm.

These are the two main ones I sent to their bug system, but I've never heard anything from them. Also, I have a feeling that hair and fur doesn't work on a node with 64 cores either. They told us to remove the hair and fur plugin from the install, so that it wouldn't try loading it! Great fix eh? :(

Thanks if you can help, and even better if you can reproduce these. They have been around for a number of years.

cresshead
02-08-2015, 09:03 AM
Perhaps, but what's to stop these studios from using the perpetual licenses they own and adding on functionality for many years to come? And then adding something like Houdini if they need to? For the smaller studios I can see the need to keep up with Maya, but the big guys that develop their own tools may be able to use existing Maya for years to come.



Yeah. I've said it MANY times before. You buy software when your business is doing well and hold off when business is not doing well. Imagine having to rent the software just to open and edit your files when your business is in the midst of another recession? Too many people seem to think that it can't happen to them and believe that the "price is so low, it won't matter if there's another recession." If they've never been seriously touched by an extreme downturn, they will be VERY surprised when it does happen and they find the rent they once thought would be easy to pay is now a burden. It WILL happen, but it won't affect me since I won't rent software.

THIS

rental only option from autodesk isn't cheap...£1500 per year to rent 1 app or £2880 for suite per year...stop paying = stop being able to open the apps for ANY reason.

that just is a NO..if rental were £400 a year then "maybe" i'd find it an option but £1500 at it's cheapest by buying 12 months up front is not "cheap"

robertoortiz
02-08-2015, 09:15 AM
Perhaps, but what's to stop these studios from using the perpetual licenses they own and adding on functionality for many years to come? And then adding something like Houdini if they need to? For the smaller studios I can see the need to keep up with Maya, but the big guys that develop their own tools may be able to use existing Maya for years to come.



Yeah. I've said it MANY times before. You buy software when your business is doing well and hold off when business is not doing well. Imagine having to rent the software just to open and edit your files when your business is in the midst of another recession? Too many people seem to think that it can't happen to them and believe that the "price is so low, it won't matter if there's another recession." If they've never been seriously touched by an extreme downturn, they will be VERY surprised when it does happen and they find the rent they once thought would be easy to pay is now a burden. It WILL happen, but it won't affect me since I won't rent software.
I agree 100 %
these moves by Autodesk strikes me as being somewhat TONE DEAF of the realities of what is going on on the Cg world. Studios are closing left and right, artist are forced to move to some of the most expensive cities IN THE WORLD.
I mean COME ON Something has to give.
Ok if you are laid off for an extended amount of time, ans you have a mortgage payments + kids, how the hell are you supposed to keep up your skills?
When I hear that this will keep HOBBYIST out of the market, for me it is CODE for PEOPLE who are not ins a studio thus CANNOT PAY.
And can a small studio/ small educational institution keep up with the money these subscriptions require?
And jusat wait untilthey force you to have your WORK FILES in the cloud and start making IP CLAIMS.
That is next trust me.
It seem to me that the only TONe Autodeslk is listening is the one of their investors.

jasonwestmas
02-08-2015, 09:23 AM
I like this open source stuff raining down from above for all companies to use. I think in the long run it will force the larger companies to get creative for a change. I mean creative in a workflow development kind of way and not in a deceptive marketing kind of way. And they will have to get creative because they may well be charging 3-4 times more money than the competition especially if they want to release new tools on an annual basis.

Surrealist.
02-08-2015, 09:27 AM
Hey Richard,

Thanks for trying to help! They may not affect everyone, as a few of our guys still using light tracer and a sky done for their stuff.

Anyway...
Bug 1:
Send a scene off to network render, in which you had the Scene Explorer open, and it'll crash all of the nodes. Close it before you send it, and it won't crash!
This may have been fixed in 2015, as the scene Explorer experience has been totally revamped, but we can't bring ourselves to move over to it fully yet.

Bug 2:
Light tracer rendering on a render node with 64 cores causes crashing on the farm.

These are the two main ones I sent to their bug system, but I've never heard anything from them. Also, I have a feeling that hair and fur doesn't work on a node with 64 cores either. They told us to remove the hair and fur plugin from the install, so that it wouldn't try loading it! Great fix eh? :(

Thanks if you can help, and even better if you can reproduce these. They have been around for a number of years.

The first one obviously, you are right they may have addressed already, and it would be difficult to get an audience for that and since I am not using an earlier version, I can't test it. I have a network license but currently no render nodes hooked up. And that answers why I would not be able to help with the second one. At lest right at the moment. When I get my rendering set up, yeah I can have a look. In the mean time I will send them over to my rep and see if he can chase it.


I have seen some nasty bugs like this eventually get squashed and I have seen Autodesk take an interest in these kinds of things, myself personally. That is my experience. I have even seen them very alive on the forums, at least for Maya where I have witnessed interaction and bug tracking. So I would not give up. I think some things just take persistence. Would be great in a perfect world if all things got handled and you'd think something like this would get immediate attention. But I am sure you are aware, this happens all the time with software. How long have we been screaming for things with LightWave?

David Ideka a former dev for LW has shed quite a lot of light on why these things happen and how. Programing is far from a perfect proposition. And I think sometimes certain things just can't be fixed. Not that they don't care and not that they are not working on it - in some way. Could be in this case features created bugs that required rewriting the explorer. Just guessing but it is my understanding that this happens all the time with software dev. LightWave is just full of things like this and is the main thing that holds back the many very very basic features we have been asking for for a decade and why we still won't see many of them any time soon.

So I shoot this over to my rep and see what he can chase down.

oh and also maybe you can try using the current bug tracking system and see if you get any luck.

tischbein3
02-08-2015, 09:30 AM
THIS

rental only option from autodesk isn't cheap...£1500 per year to rent 1 app or £2880 for suite per year...stop paying = stop being able to open the apps for ANY reason.


So don't do it... I mean if current pace of their software updates is an indicator for future versions, you can savely keep your current license, and skip maintenance, (because now there is no reason to keep it) and rent a new license some years later if you really need a certain feature.

Surrealist.
02-08-2015, 09:52 AM
I agree 100 %
these moves by Autodesk strikes me as being somewhat TONE DEAF of the realities of what is going on on the Cg world. Studios are closing left and right, artist are forced to move to some of the most expensive cities IN THE WORLD.
I mean COME ON Something has to give.
Ok if you are laid off for an extended amount of time, ans you have a mortgage payments + kids, how the hell are you supposed to keep up your skills?
When I hear that this will keep HOBBYIST out of the market, for me it is CODE for PEOPLE who are not ins a studio thus CANNOT PAY.
And can a small studio/ small educational institution keep up with the money these subscriptions require?
And jusat wait untilthey force you to have your WORK FILES in the cloud and start making IP CLAIMS.
That is next trust me.
It seem to me that the only TONe Autodeslk is listening is the one of their investors.

I don't see data being forced onto the cloud ever. That would factually be illegal in the west. And just off the top it violates intellectual property rights big time. So that is not likely to ever happen.

Institutional Education versions of software are free from Autodesk.

This if anything speaks to me of a company that does have its ear to the ground. They are making changes - in their own way - that reflect the very things you are talking about. They do see the changes coming and they are probably in a bit of a panic knowing that it is going to be more difficult for people to get into 3D software. They have just made it free for all schools and that right there chops into a huge revenue when you consider that most schools are teaching Maya and other AD products. So what would possess them to just chop that arm of revenue off? Changes coming to this industry. And the pay off down the road of more security in the workforce as far as choice of software - from their point of view. So it is a sacrifice that pays off.

And as it is true that they are listening to their investors, it goes both ways. Businesses like this are about people not all about money. It takes hard work and dedication to making the best tools around. And to do that they also spend a lot of money, probably more than any other company. The result is in some of the best 3D tools around. Not the best. But in Maya's case still the best choice for many. And for a reason. And it is getting even better.

But I do agree about the prices. They are bit steep.

As for the motives, it feels to me more like trying to stay with the changes. And as Jason points out, changes are coming. They will have to fully see the light on that as far as prices go. If they don't, they won't be able to continue in this fashion.

And my belief is that regardless of what we all agree on, rental is coming. And it is going to be that any company that does not offer it will not be up to speed and will not be able to compete. LightWave eventually will have to join in. It is inevitable. Surely they won't make it the only option. But it is coming.

tischbein3
02-08-2015, 10:08 AM
When I hear that this will keep HOBBYIST out of the market, for me it is CODE for PEOPLE who are not ins a studio thus CANNOT PAY.
And can a small studio/ small educational institution keep up with the money these subscriptions require?

Ohmm we are on a forum for a software wich does provide cheap access to a good round of features a hobbyist will ever need. Even if they want more, they can use it alongside blender

Don't see a problem on this front.

lardbros
02-08-2015, 12:26 PM
I'll give these bug reports another go, don't you go wasting any of your time Richard. It seems the system for reporting has changed, and these are probably extremely low priority now.

Surrealist.
02-08-2015, 01:24 PM
OK, well yeah give'm another go for sure. Seems fairly blatant to me, so I don't see why it can not at least have an audience. The system has changed a lot in the last 2 years so maybe you'll have some luck.

tburbage
02-08-2015, 11:22 PM
You have a year to buy a perp license. And after that you can keep it. (and keep also your yearly subscription plan or not up to you) You are not required to switch to rental. They have only announced that new licenses will be rental in 2016. That gives people a year to decide which way to go. And anyone choosing to stay perp can.

As it is now there is a choice so people can decide. After 2016 that choice goes away but only for new licenses. People who already have perp before that date can keep going that way.

The part I don't recall really seeing spelled out is what your annual subscription cost will be after that 2016 deadline. I suspect we will see a hefty price increase when we have to renew in 2016...

Megalodon2.0
02-09-2015, 12:22 AM
I don't see data being forced onto the cloud ever. That would factually be illegal in the west. And just off the top it violates intellectual property rights big time. So that is not likely to ever happen.
Really? You don't think that large companies can lobby Congress and alter the laws? You don't think that things like this have already happened that hurt the individual and help the corporation? If they think they can get away with forcing the customer to rent their software instead of buy, then I seriously doubt they can't come up with a way to "entice" people to use the Cloud for their files. For some it won't, but super cheap storage can have a big effect on some people/companies.


Institutional Education versions of software are free from Autodesk.
If you are not a student, then you cannot LEGALLY acquire these versions, right?


And my belief is that regardless of what we all agree on, rental is coming. And it is going to be that any company that does not offer it will not be up to speed and will not be able to compete. LightWave eventually will have to join in. It is inevitable. Surely they won't make it the only option. But it is coming.
Rental is here. The question that remains to be answered is will the choice to OWN be removed? The only way that it can be is if WE allow it. I have a small business and I will never rent the software I need. If Lightwave EVER went rental-only I would simply use it for a few more years all the while learning Blender and ultimately moving over to Blender. The same with ANY software. There will come a point at which software developers will need to entice users because the rental cost will ultimately end up being too high. And just wait till we have another severe recession. Then see everyone moving to purchased software in droves. I don't believe that rental only will end up being THE way we deal with software. But again, it depends upon how many CHOOSE to sell their souls. ;)


Ohmm we are on a forum for a software wich does provide cheap access to a good round of features a hobbyist will ever need. Even if they want more, they can use it alongside blender

Don't see a problem on this front.

Cheap is relative. If cheap were the only serious issue, we would all be using Blender instead - not "alongside."

Surrealist.
02-09-2015, 02:02 AM
Really? You don't think that large companies can lobby Congress and alter the laws? You don't think that things like this have already happened that hurt the individual and help the corporation? If they think they can get away with forcing the customer to rent their software instead of buy, then I seriously doubt they can't come up with a way to "entice" people to use the Cloud for their files. For some it won't, but super cheap storage can have a big effect on some people/companies.


I was quoting Robert Here. Specifically stating that companies would force people to use the cloud for data. This is very specific. And if you understand the laws of copyright and trademark, that will never ever happen. To make that happen they'd have to lobby to have the copyright laws rewritten completely, stating that a software company can own your intellectual rights without you signing over those rights to them. That would have to happen first before any entity even the devil himself would ever be able to force you to keep data on a system that they fully control the access to. The key word here is force as in the only option. If that means that intellectual property that you own the rights to could be kept from you. And that you kept it there because you were "forced" to keep there and then lost it as a result. That is what I am talking about. And there is no way in hell that is going to happen.




If you are not a student, then you cannot LEGALLY acquire these versions, right?


Of course. Again Robert stated "where are the students and educational institutions going to come up with theses fees"... something to that effect.

Answer: There are none. Non issue in that sector as of a few months ago.



Rental is here. The question that remains to be answered is will the choice to OWN be removed? The only way that it can be is if WE allow it. I have a small business and I will never rent the software I need. If Lightwave EVER went rental-only I would simply use it for a few more years all the while learning Blender and ultimately moving over to Blender. The same with ANY software. There will come a point at which software developers will need to entice users because the rental cost will ultimately end up being too high. And just wait till we have another severe recession. Then see everyone moving to purchased software in droves. I don't believe that rental only will end up being THE way we deal with software. But again, it depends upon how many CHOOSE to sell their souls. ;)

I don't think it should be the only way either. We agree there. But I like the option. I currently use PS. At the price it works for me. And just like you sure, if I get pushed to a level, I'll make decisions as needed. We all have different levels of tolerance or different things we are or are not willing to accept. I plan on making use of rentals in my business. I see it as a plus and a way to adapt. I differ from you in not having adopted a hard fast rule in that regard. So there, we agree. It should be a choice.

safetyman
02-09-2015, 09:01 AM
AD is trying to remove all choice for commercial companies about their software; you either go subscription, or you don't play. Period. This, to me, is a very dangerous road for companies on both ends. AD will profit mightily from this in the short term, but it will eventually blow up in their face as more and more companies try to wean themselves away.

I hope it happens sooner rather than later because NewTek could take advantage of this situation NOW if they were smart. Quit adding another rig type to Genoma and develop some much needed CA tools. Quit modifying the loop cut tool and add in some non-destructive modifiers. [Being a little silly here, but you get my point.]

One problem is, as has been said, is that AD is dug in like a tick. They have so many established users and schools now that they are in the driver's seat. It will be difficult to unseat them. Thank goodness we didn't switch to Maya a few years ago when we had the opportunity. We would be in serious trouble right now since subscriptions are totally out of the question for us.

Another problem related to the above is the AD and Adobe syndrome, which is their feeling that they are the only game in town and they don't have to listen to their customers any more. Moreso with Adobe at the moment, but it will happen to AD, trust me. Don't believe me? Just check out Illustrator CC versus Illustrator CS5 (two full versions different). Show me the major changes. Show me that CC is worth the upgrade/subscription price. Once you get people over a barrel with this subscription thing, you have less incentive to make major changes. "Don't want to continue with our subscription? Good luck getting to all your files. Bug report? What bug report? That's not a bug, it's a feature. Etc., etc."

tischbein3
02-09-2015, 12:52 PM
Cheap is relative. If cheap were the only serious issue, we would all be using Blender instead - not "alongside."
what other issues do you mean ? care to go into details ?

VonBon
02-09-2015, 12:55 PM
Well this reminds of the day I tried to reinstall my "Perpetual Version" of Photoshop CS2 (because CS3 was crap) and it wouldn't activate.
Adobe told me that they no longer support this version of the software. I'll more than assume that Autodesk will do the same with it's
Perpetual Licenses purchased before 2/1/16 at some point. Make sure and read the EULA. Probably a bad idea to purchase a perpetual
license from them if it requires a online activation. And believe, when they have enough people signed up, they will increase the subscription fees annually.

souzou
02-09-2015, 01:07 PM
Well this reminds of the day I tried to reinstall my "Perpetual Version" of Photoshop CS2 (because CS3 was crap) and it wouldn't activate.
Adobe told me that they no longer support this version of the software.

They turned off the activation server but you can download an install that will still work. See this thread:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1195856

VonBon
02-09-2015, 01:15 PM
And if FX houses/Studios are cutting back or closing, how are they going to afford a subscription model for software?
Lets say the average game may take 3 years to make, movies I'm not to sure about but it seems as though it will cost
more money for production companies than having the option to purchase perpetual licenses. I'm assuming that AD's
Design Suites rely heavily on large to medium sized companies in the effects industry. They will have have some type
company rate for subscriptions.

VonBon
02-09-2015, 01:56 PM
They turned off the activation server but you can download an install that will still work. See this thread:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1195856

That link brings up a good point. What do you do when your software is no longer supported by
newer versions of Windows?

VonBon
02-09-2015, 01:59 PM
Also with the CS2, it would work when I first install it on Win 7, then after awhile it would just
get hung up on the loading screen and never start.

Surrealist.
02-09-2015, 02:28 PM
The software industry will only change to the degree that people offer competitive tools. That is all that this is about. None of us can predict the future, honestly. But one thing is for sure. If a better software gets made, it will find audience. Nothing will cause the market to shift from a sellers to a buyers market more than supply. That's economics 101.

Megalodon2.0
02-09-2015, 03:49 PM
what other issues do you mean ? care to go into details ?
No need to. We all know the shortcomings of LW. Yet some of us - myself included - continue to use it. I like using the software and have been using it since LW3 on the Amiga. But that would end if NT/LW3DG ever decided to go rental-only.


That link brings up a good point. What do you do when your software is no longer supported by
newer versions of Windows?
You do what we do - keep a machine or two that can run the software. I doubt LW5.5 would run on Win7, but it runs fine of XP and we have at least two machines that will run that software. It's more difficult if you're a hobbyist, but being a business I need to make sure the software we NEED is able to run. There will come a time that this won't be feasible, but that will be a LONG ways off.


The software industry will only change to the degree that people offer competitive tools. That is all that this is about. None of us can predict the future, honestly. But one thing is for sure. If a better software gets made, it will find audience. Nothing will cause the market to shift from a sellers to a buyers market more than supply. That's economics 101.

Spot on!

cresshead
02-09-2015, 07:53 PM
I agree 100 %
these moves by Autodesk strikes me as being somewhat TONE DEAF of the realities of what is going on on the Cg world. Studios are closing left and right, artist are forced to move to some of the most expensive cities IN THE WORLD.
I mean COME ON Something has to give.
Ok if you are laid off for an extended amount of time, ans you have a mortgage payments + kids, how the hell are you supposed to keep up your skills?
When I hear that this will keep HOBBYIST out of the market, for me it is CODE for PEOPLE who are not ins a studio thus CANNOT PAY.
And can a small studio/ small educational institution keep up with the money these subscriptions require?
And jusat wait untilthey force you to have your WORK FILES in the cloud and start making IP CLAIMS.
That is next trust me.
It seem to me that the only TONe Autodeslk is listening is the one of their investors.

you're blinded by your own short sightedness of media and entertainment

autodesk is CAD they make software to build buildings, design cars, products and construct roadways
autodesk are just rolling out a company wide mantra - rental.

media and entertainment is a tiny..insignificant slither of income...and they all but OWN that industry so can dictate how their software rolls out.
I don't agree with their roadmap..i'm a 3ds max user but they just arn't listening...
we're the little ants being stepped on..and they are the giant unaware "ants" even exist.

simple as that.

Megalodon2.0
02-09-2015, 09:06 PM
simple as that.

I don't know about that. While the entertainment software isn't anywhere near as large a money-maker for AD, if there is a severe enough backlash from studios and everyone else they may have to make changes. If they lose most of that business, it WILL decrease their stock price and make shareholders VERY unhappy. It will all depend upon the reaction from those who use the software. Does anyone know what the reaction is with the CAD users regarding rental-only?

Surrealist.
02-09-2015, 10:46 PM
Good Question.

A few clarifications though for those talking about how this will or will not affect the large studios.

It is helpful - if you don't know already - to understand some terms. "Standalone" means one workstation. One installation. Most studios, though probably have some standalone licenses, I would gather mostly get Network licenses which can float around the studio from machine to machine and are also necessary for network rendering.

So that should shed some light on this statement:


Autodesk is gradually transitioning new software purchases for our products to subscription options only. In the first phase of this transition, new seats of standalone desktop software products will generally be available only as a Desktop Subscription beginning February 1, 2016.

http://www.autodesk.com/products/perpetuallicenses

This means that it currently does not affect any network license purchases based on the definition of what Standalone is. For example my license is a Network license. With that I also get a separate license key to install software on another machine as a Standalone. So when they say "Standalone" I am fairly certain this is intentional wording.

Digging further into this PDF:

http://static-dc.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/docs/pdfs/PerpetualLicensePublicFAQ.pdf


1.2 Who is impacted by these changes?
Any company or individual who wishes to purchase new software licenses of most standalone Autodesk products after
January 31, 2016 will only have the option to purchase as Desktop Subscription or term-based licenses.


1.4Does this change apply to Autodesk Suites such as the Autodesk Design and Creation Suites?
New perpetual licenses for Autodesk Design & Creation Suites and other suite offerings will continue to be offered beyond February 1, 2016. Any transition to a subscription-only based offering for Suites will be communicated well in
advance.

A list of Design and Creation Suites here:

http://www.autodesk.com/suites

Included in that list is The Entertainment Suite:

http://www.autodesk.com/suites/entertainment-creation-suite/overview

So, anyone wishing to purchase suites after this date still can. They are a much better bargain all around considering the competition. And there is no date released as to when this will change. But, sure it is coming.

Just some additional info. I think the impact on studios will not be as much as feared, at least immediately.

But again, look, unless we are going to develop our own software we have what other people make. And that is it.

Nothing stopping the most brilliant minds in 3D from banding together to create a new 3D tool for artists. But the problem is, no one is doing that. People seem happy writing plugins and various other things. Imagine if the creators of the best LW, Maya and 3D Max plugins put that energy into creating a new application? What is actually stopping people from doing that? Money I guess. Or maybe leadership. No one is taking the reigns to do it.

David Ikeda has the right idea. Starting a new app from scratch. I'd say if you want to start something new. Toss some money his way.

Oedo 808
02-09-2015, 11:21 PM
David Ikeda has the right idea. Starting a new app from scratch. I'd say if you want to start something new. Toss some money his way.

Have you got any thoughts to share as to why you think that this right idea didn't work when he was part of the LightWave Group?

Surrealist.
02-10-2015, 12:06 AM
The two are not connected in my mind when stating that. By right idea I mean starting a brand new app now in 2015 with all of the legacy and mistakes other apps have made in the past. Learning from those, respecting what worked and what tools exist. Not dismissing ignorantly other tools and what they can do based on some preconceived bias. But rather entering into the game knowing well what the playing field is and making a good base plan that has to be in place for the next 10-20 years. And as a part of that plan making room for as much flexibility as viably possible in the beginning. But also approaching the task with a good realistic working knowledge of what can and should be improved on and how. And how an artist wants the tool to respond and perform as well as the feedback and artist needs and wants.

All of the other apps on the market both benefit and are hindered by the fact that they have been entrenched in a code base and decisions made 1 to 2 decades ago. Many of those decisions can not be overturned. But lived with and worked around. New technology can be infused but some changes and fixes are either extremely difficult or impossible.

Starting a new app now means you have all of this experience to draw on as well as a fresh view based on existing technology and what artists want today and will likely expect and need into the future.

When you are coding in an app that originated 2 decades ago, your hands are somewhat tied. I don't mean just LightWave. Even Maya I imagine has a long list of these kinds of things.

What David Brings to the table is the correct frame of mind to look into the future and to make plans as well as start with a technology that could have an impact on the way artists are allowed to work.

You mix all that together in a painting/sculpting/modeling/animation app that allows you to keep a non-destuctive workflow from one end to the next and you have something.

Imagine you can be sculpting on millions of polygons, rig that, pose it, animate it, paint on it and go very far into the process before you have to let technology get in the way and retop UV map and the rest of it.

This has nothing to do with his working relationship with NewTek and it is not even my place to say what that was if I knew. That is up to him to say or not say.

I am simply commenting on discussions we have had over at Facebook. Basing my opinion on just knowing him as an individual and what he is planning and working on now. And as far as I am concerned that is all that matters.

If I had the money, I would back him in a heartbeat. Assuming he would even allow that.

Oedo 808
02-10-2015, 02:29 AM
Thanks, the reason I asked is that this isn't the first time I've seen you being quite enthusiastic about him and I wondered what it was about his work that had you so eager to support him financially and to encourage others to do the same. Not that there's anything wrong with sharing a vision, but you can understand how such enthusiasm might seem a little out of place if you were just the average LightWave user.

safetyman
02-10-2015, 08:38 AM
Don't overlook Zbrush as an alternative. It has some things going for it already: A HUGE userbase that is very loyal and very established; no subscription BS (heck, they haven't charged for upgrades in years); and they are integrating traditional modeling tools that long-time 3D modelers have been using for ages. True, it won't replace Maya or Max any time soon, but Pixologic has it's entire leg in the door at this point, so stay tuned.

Surrealist.
02-10-2015, 09:37 AM
Yeah I have been seeing that too. A few years ago they started adding some animation capability.

The problem Zbrush I feel is that they are suffering in the worst way from what I have described above.

They suffer largely from what Zbrush suffers from and that is a legacy framework within which it seems to me that everything must be developed. For that reason I see the potential animation workflow as quite convoluted. If they could even pull off an interface that could handle it properly.

stiff paper
02-10-2015, 10:17 AM
For that reason I see the potential animation workflow as quite convoluted. If they could even pull off an interface that could handle it properly.
Maybe they could... I don't know... make it two completely separate modules... one that's just for making models and one that's just for doing animation...

Surrealist.
02-10-2015, 10:24 AM
Innovative idea. :D

jasonwestmas
02-10-2015, 11:06 AM
Yeah I have been seeing that too. A few years ago they started adding some animation capability.

The problem Zbrush I feel is that they are suffering in the worst way from what I have described above.

They suffer largely from what Zbrush suffers from and that is a legacy framework within which it seems to me that everything must be developed. For that reason I see the potential animation workflow as quite convoluted. If they could even pull off an interface that could handle it properly.

I can think of a half dozen things that zbrush would be better at than skeletal animation.

Surrealist.
02-10-2015, 11:56 AM
How do you mean? You mean as an alternate solution for animation?

jasonwestmas
02-10-2015, 12:31 PM
nah, no animation at all, that would just get in the way. I like tools that are highly interactive and as a user I appreciate specialized applications much more than the ones that try to do everything because it never turns out ime.

Surrealist.
02-10-2015, 01:52 PM
Yeah I was thinking that that was what you must have meant but the wording threw me for some reason.

safetyman
02-10-2015, 03:39 PM
Maybe Pixologic will merge with Mixamo or something, then they'd have an animation foot in the door.

waverguy
02-12-2015, 08:18 PM
Will Newtek move to the same type of subscription model?

robertoortiz
02-12-2015, 09:36 PM
I Sincerely Doubt it for the immediate future. They don't have the market share to pull off a stunt like that.
But other apps like C4D?
Hum wait until SIGGRAPH, specially if their ties with Adobe become closer.

lightscape
02-12-2015, 11:43 PM
Will Newtek move to the same type of subscription model?

That would be an insane move for any company other than autodesk and adobe.

Surrealist.
02-13-2015, 02:15 AM
Well I don't see NewTek ever moving to subscription only. But almost everyone else has a rental and/or an indie option. Both will be inevitable if NewTek wants to stay competitive.

Even C4d has already traveled that route. Bundled with After Effects, it is not only available in a lite version it is also therefore a rental. Houdini has rentals and indie. Quixel Suite and Substance Designer also have indie versions.

What companies are vying for is market share. They are all doing it in their own way. It is not just Adobe and Autodesk. Pixar has even gotten into the mix with lowered pricing on Renderman and a NC version for free. And over the last year we have seen Fusion for free. Mari Indie and new features added to Modo Indie.

This is not just some fad or a few corporations trying to dominate. It is industry wide. And for many years before Adobe went cloud only there were web based apps available on a fee basis.

Quietly in the background of all this noise you even have Lagoa:

http://home.lagoa.com/

Creator of Lagoa on ICE in Softimage. Just a small company. They have been cloud-only since inception. But they were hardly the first. This kind of thing has been going on for years.

And the history of the concept goes way back. Have a look here:

http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/A-history-of-cloud-computing

And even though you are using the software on your desktop, the concept is the same. Software as a service. And these concepts started back in the 60s.

Granted, many people don't like rental only. And I am sure NewTek knows this.

But they'd be equally foolish not to offer something similar as an option.

jburford
02-13-2015, 06:39 AM
I Sincerely Doubt it for the immediate future. They don't have the market share to pull off a stunt like that.
But other apps like C4D?
Hum wait until SIGGRAPH, specially if their ties with Adobe become closer.


The World according to Garth (Shrek), is do not look for that in the any time forceable future.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=1223400&page=1&pp=15&highlight=rental

Cheers

safetyman
02-13-2015, 08:17 AM
I'll quote one of the posters in that forum, which sums up what I've been trying to express since this whole subscription thing started (note that I corrected some of his misspellings):

"I personally consider that the subscription model is signaling the death of the innovations.

Each year, as Maxon shows their new version, it must contain enough new and interesting features to convince u to shell out the money.

Not so with a subscription. You simply pay or your software stops working. In every company adopting this model, a bean counter will manage to convince the board of directors that investing in R&D is a waste.

This, of course, is especially true in companies like Adobe that completely control a market.

But the effect of this money coming in without having to force yourself to excel is real and will change the software industry."

lightscape
02-13-2015, 08:23 AM
Here's a radical idea. Why don't we all tell our clients that our service and final output is rental based and that the work we did they can only use for a given time. :D
Models, animation, will self destruct in 60 days after creation.
We really should pass on the cost to clients but sadly too many people doing cg nowadays.

Surrealist.
02-13-2015, 11:15 AM
The only way any software concern can "control" the market is by offering tools that people want and need more than any other tools. As long as a company has the "best" tools they can "control" the market. It is back to that supply and demand thing. As secure as a position might seem, it will die a very quick death in this fast paced and competitive field. I think there is something to consider. And that is we as artists are constantly being asked to do more for less. The bar goes up, time shortens and the prices seem to go down for the same thing. There is a tremendous amount of movement in the software industry to keep re-inventing itself. And this force that drives us to be more competitive also drives software companies to stay ahead of the curve. I see these as pretty much the only factors to worry about. And if there is any trend at all it is toward making it easier for us to get software and for less money. 3DC software prices have dropped significantly in the last 5-10 years. And the quality of the tools we use today far surpass the tools we had at our fingertips only a few years ago. The doom and gloom people are predicting does not work for me at all. There is far too much demand for better, faster and cheaper when it comes to content creation. And a company that does not roll with that both in the best pricing and the best tools, is dead in the water as far as I can see. On a positive note SD just raised its indie income limit to 100K. I would say expect more of the same in the future.

tischbein3
02-13-2015, 11:44 AM
The sad reality is, that not everyone has managed to use multible 3Dcc software. And I think the sad truth is, a lot will rather pay the extra amount of money than actually consider cheap alternatives, or even create their own pipeline.

(btw hope they will change the indie income for SP also)

Surrealist.
02-13-2015, 12:01 PM
I think it is working out just fine. People who can get buy on cheap alternatives, do. Those that can't don't. I think it is a small minority of people who could for example use Blender, but who stick with something like Maya, just because. Not that these people don't exist. I am sure they do. But they are a minority, if in fact they actually could use Blender and not Maya without sacrificing vital tools.

I think these things work themselves out. And it does affect the market. If there was no Blender - try to imagine this for a second - then what incentive would there be to offer a Maya LT for instance or a Modo indie? Think about it. These things do not come about because companies out of the goodness of their heart see that some people are struggling. On the contrary, they see that these people are not buying software but using something free. The response? Drop the price and try to entice that market to a "better" toolset.

VonBon
02-13-2015, 03:35 PM
Well, if the day comes where I'm given no choice but to Rent,
is the day when I get out my peg leg, eye patch and bandanna
and sail the web as a Pirate with my crew of Hackers. :yingyang:

Surrealist.
02-14-2015, 11:12 PM
Another factor to consider is that there is a distinction I think between a technological dominance in the software market to an overall dominance in the software market. The days when software companies had complete dominance in the market are long gone.

I know this is going to fly in the face of what a lot of people think, but I think all of this rental business is in response to a growing OSS market. Google that if you want to research it.

So I predict if everyone does ever go all rental you can have OSS to blame which is a bit ironic. And since there is no sign of decline of development and use of OSS, and the recognition of it as a business model, I see it as inevitable. The only way the old school software companies can compete in this market is to offer rental. And when that starts to make more sense, or likely, when it seems like they will have to force the hand to keep a position in the market, then they will turn to rental only. I see what Adobe did as not only premature but borne out of panic and fear. Definitely not dominance overall in the market. It was bold to be sure. But inevitable. The reason other companies are going in this direction I believe is because they have market people doing the numbers. I seriously doubt they'd ever come out and admit this publicly. So we may never really know for sure.

But if you want to know what I am referring to, please research it for yourself. And do the numbers. The average price of software over the last 10-20 years and also the growth of OSS Software. And no, it does not matter at all if none of the large studios use Blender. And all pro graphics people will not turn to Gimp and Inkscape. They don't have to. The number of users overall of OSS is enough. Compare that to a time when everyone had to buy (or steel) software someplace to use it and you get a clear picture of what is happening I think.

Maya may dominate technically for some time to come. But software companies will never entirely dominate the entire market like they had prior to 10 years ago.

tischbein3
02-15-2015, 06:44 AM
Sorry for the late reply.....



I think it is working out just fine. People who can get buy on cheap alternatives, do. Those that can't don't. I think it is a small minority of people who could for example use Blender, but who stick with something like Maya, just because. Not that these people don't exist. I am sure they do. But they are a minority, if in fact they actually could use Blender and not Maya without sacrificing vital tools.
My personal experience does show it the other way round, yes there is a certain interrest in learning it, but not enough to actually invest significant time in it. And no I'm not blaming "the interface" for it, but more that people are less willing to leave their comfort zone when trying to get used to blender. Not sure why.



I think these things work themselves out. And it does affect the market. If there was no Blender - try to imagine this for a second - then what incentive would there be to offer a Maya LT for instance or a Modo indie? Think about it. These things do not come about because companies out of the goodness of their heart see that some people are struggling. On the contrary, they see that these people are not buying software but using something free. The response? Drop the price and try to entice that market to a "better" toolset.
Might be, might be also that once one started they other, in fear of loosing market shares, did the same. Not really sure on this move. (And honestly I don't think its actually a wise one).




Another factor to consider is that there is a distinction I think between a technological dominance in the software market to an overall dominance in the software market. The days when software companies had complete dominance in the market are long gone.
Agree.


So I predict if everyone does ever go all rental you can have OSS to blame which is a bit ironic. And since there is no sign of decline of development and use of OSS, and the recognition of it as a business model, I see it as inevitable. The only way the old school software companies can compete in this market is to offer rental.
Rental is the try to ultimatively bind existing customers to their product. But whats the use of such an incentive when the alternative is actually free ? In fact you do OSS a favor in pushing them in search for alternatives....no, I do think the reason they go rental is the simple fact that a significant amount of their current userbase simply does not upgrade. They are satisfied with their current investment. To get them again back on track without disturbing their current (restrictive) maintenance path, they needed something new: Voila subscription...comming with a faq wich reads "we don't want to disturb our current market" all over it. Now people on old versions do not have to relicense their software for an insane amount of money (or look for alternatives). And I do think this strategy will work out in favor of them.



But if you want to know what I am referring to, please research it for yourself. And do the numbers. The average price of software over the last 10-20 years and also the growth of OSS Software. And no, it does not matter at all if none of the large studios use Blender. And all pro graphics people will not turn to Gimp and Inkscape. They don't have to. The number of users overall of OSS is enough. Compare that to a time when everyone had to buy (or steel) software someplace to use it and you get a clear picture of what is happening I think.
Agree. Although I still think you are 5 years ahead of what the general 3D public thinks.

safetyman
02-15-2015, 08:46 AM
Rental may be the way these companies are heading, but it puts a certain segment of their users out of the picture. If you only use the software occasionally to get certain jobs done, it doesn't make sense to bite that bullet. If you're a hobbyist, it's hard to justify the monthly cost. It would seem that this will push the less-than-hardcore folks to use other tools, whether it's LW, Blender, Modo, etc.

jasonwestmas
02-15-2015, 09:22 AM
hmm I've never talked to someone who said they were a casual max or maya user. I guess there are a few.

Surrealist.
02-15-2015, 02:32 PM
My personal experience does show it the other way round, yes there is a certain interrest in learning it, but not enough to actually invest significant time in it. And no I'm not blaming "the interface" for it, but more that people are less willing to leave their comfort zone when trying to get used to blender. Not sure why.

Yes, you mean from a personal experience, I can understand. Like I was saying I think these people do exist. But you also have to ask yourself honestly would Blender give you all you needed and more without commercial software? (people not upgrading that is) And if the answer to that is yes, but for some other reason you stick with what you are using and spending money upgrading or even yearly subscription of AD products, I would say you are in a minority. The majority of people using those products could not depend on Blender. And that includes LightWave users.

So what I am referring to generally is the fact that most people who use Blender and stick with it or come to it from other apps find it does all they need and more. I see this all the time over on the Blender forums. Yet another Maya user now switching to Blender. And the only reason I can fathom is he /she is an idiot, or they simply do not require all of the features Maya has to offer, and it makes no sense to them to keep paying money.

It is the minority in this group, who pay anyway.

The point being that there is this other market, made up largely of new people to Blender - because it is here and why not rather than pay money - and people who do a little bean counting and ditch Maya/3D Max/C4D.

For both of these people, AD answers with Maya LT specifically targeting this crowd (though without mentioning Blender) In marketing.

They have regurgitated the 90's "indie" moniker now and tagged it onto "Artist" and "Developer".

Translated from focus group marketing speak ( and don't think for a moment that there are not focus groups on OSS software to study these people) is....

All you people who we are loosing to OSS software we are targeting you now. We have to. We are loosing so much revenue to this market that it is worth it to pay a marketing firm or sick our marketing team on this problem.





Rental is the try to ultimatively bind existing customers to their product. But whats the use of such an incentive when the alternative is actually free ? In fact you do OSS a favor in pushing them in search for alternatives....no, I do think the reason they go rental is the simple fact that a significant amount of their current userbase simply does not upgrade. They are satisfied with their current investment. To get them again back on track without disturbing their current (restrictive) maintenance path, they needed something new: Voila subscription...comming with a faq wich reads "we don't want to disturb our current market" all over it. Now people on old versions do not have to relicense their software for an insane amount of money (or look for alternatives). And I do think this strategy will work out in favor of them.


Yeah up til the other day I was musing on this I would have agreed. But something just did not make any sense. The main thing is that this reasoning, well it is based on something as old as software. Why then, what must have changed in the market to get them all up in a tizzy about getting these users back and as I have been saying not continuing to loose people?

Rental is the alternative. And when you look at what they are saying. "making software easily accessible". That right there says it all. They are telling us without coming out and saying it that the reason they are doing this is to compete with something more accessible. What can be more accessible than free? Nothing of course. But rental is all they can come up with short of switching to an OSS business model where revenue is generated with ancillary services and products, rather than the software itself. This was the original concept behind Blender before it failed to deliver.

I know people feel the way you do about this. And these things are also true. It does have those effects you say. But it is not why they are doing it. I think marketing did a good job coming up with these carefully-worded promotions. They are targeting the OSS crowd. There is really not much doubt in my mind about this now that I have given it some thought.

There will come a time I am absolutely certain when we will look back at these days and say "remember when we had to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for software, just to get up and running?"

Because in that time OSS will have exploded and also too many people would be unwilling to shell out large chunks of money upfront even if it means owning. I actually predict perpetual licenses will decline well before rental is a widespread reality.

Anyways thanks for sharing those responses and more interesting thoughts. :)

cresshead
02-15-2015, 06:39 PM
Another factor to consider is that there is a distinction I think between a technological dominance in the software market to an overall dominance in the software market. The days when software companies had complete dominance in the market are long gone.

I know this is going to fly in the face of what a lot of people think, but I think all of this rental business is in response to a growing OSS market. Google that if you want to research it.

So I predict if everyone does ever go all rental you can have OSS to blame which is a bit ironic. And since there is no sign of decline of development and use of OSS, and the recognition of it as a business model, I see it as inevitable. The only way the old school software companies can compete in this market is to offer rental. And when that starts to make more sense, or likely, when it seems like they will have to force the hand to keep a position in the market, then they will turn to rental only. I see what Adobe did as not only premature but borne out of panic and fear. Definitely not dominance overall in the market. It was bold to be sure. But inevitable. The reason other companies are going in this direction I believe is because they have market people doing the numbers. I seriously doubt they'd ever come out and admit this publicly. So we may never really know for sure.

But if you want to know what I am referring to, please research it for yourself. And do the numbers. The average price of software over the last 10-20 years and also the growth of OSS Software. And no, it does not matter at all if none of the large studios use Blender. And all pro graphics people will not turn to Gimp and Inkscape. They don't have to. The number of users overall of OSS is enough. Compare that to a time when everyone had to buy (or steel) software someplace to use it and you get a clear picture of what is happening I think.

Maya may dominate technically for some time to come. But software companies will never entirely dominate the entire market like they had prior to 10 years ago.

don't just write OSS...what the frak does that stand for?
you exclude people from the conversation by doing so....which isn't clever.

so....

Operational Support Systems?

or....

Megalodon2.0
02-15-2015, 10:10 PM
don't just write OSS...what the frak does that stand for?
you exclude people from the conversation by doing so....which isn't clever.

so....

Operational Support Systems?

or....

Nah... he "obviously" mean Office of Scientific Studies. :stumped:

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 12:05 AM
lol sorry guys... the only reason I did that is because I have seen it done here so many times I figured you guys have read it as many times here as I have - here on this forum. I have also seen it on all of the other forums. I had to sort out what it meant and in context I figured then other people would/could too, or had already.

Open Source Software.

The hint was in the graphic I posted "Open Source is eating the Software World".

If you Google "growth of open source software" or other strings you'll find that all kinds of statistics and studies exist.

The main point I think I am making there is a lot of people have a dismissive attitude toward OSS. That it is a market not to be concerned about. That it will never have an impact on the professional software market. And large companies or NewTek need not worry about lowering themselves and catering to this market. All the people who write off Blender for example as "well it will never be accepted by the big boys so it is irrelevant to discussion". When in fact not only to I feel this is not so, clearly it is very obvious to me that the marketing reflects it is having a huge impact on the market.

And Adobe of all companies is aware as anyone of the power of getting free software into the hands of millions of people. Free Adobe and Flash readers. All of the free media readers for example have pro versions and or support Pro software. This in particular has two functions of course, on a practical level it means the more media readers in the hands of people the more people will use the format and thus support the programs that create them. PDF QuickTime/Flash for example. It also has benefit of being able to up sell. And this last benefit, is in essence the Open Source Business Model. The concept is you offer something for free (not open source code necessarily but free none the less) and you use this as a marketing tool to sell other services or up sell to a pro version. Celtx used this model. Most of these web builders do it. Wix, Yoloa and so on.

It works its way back from this main problem today. You want to have a web based business, you need a captive audience. One of the most successful ways to do this is to offer something for free that people heretofore had to pay for. They flock to your site, sign up and get it. Then you use ads on your site and email promotions if you allow (notice the option every time you sign up for one of these) and sell your other services.

Blender is no different. They have of course some government backing. But they also rely on donations and sales of other products or services. The government I believe there backs the sales and donations for open movie projects. So if they get 200K in sales they are matched 200K and get the 400K for the project. This in tern finances more development during production and spins off with more money raised on DVDs tutorials and so on.

Ironically even the BF (Blender Foundation) has realized that a steady monthly stream of revenue is a good idea and launched their own Cloud Service. The ironies are many.

This one I love, OSS creates a big impact on the software industry, Adobe (ironically one of the founders of the idea - financially speaking - with PDF/Flash) panics (well they would, they realize how much financial power can come from this) and forces everyone onto the cloud. People get ticked off and threaten to go Open Source with Gimp Inkcape etc. As if this will show them what a bad idea it is. Well I imagine they were just smiling thinking they already knew what percentage of people would react this way. And further secures for them that their fears were real. That it was only a matter of time before these people left anyway.

And Adobe is not at all a stranger to Open Source. They understand it well:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/20/adobe-unveils-new-open-source-initiatives-targeted-towards-media-companoes/

Again pointing to a keen awareness of what is happening in the software industry and why they reacted as they did - in my opinion.

I think the worst thing that could have happened to the software industry financially is Open Source Software. A lot people actually despise it for this reason I imagine.

And to the point it is not just the safe heaven people think it is as corporations start feeling so strong they can do anything, it is actually the cause of the problem in the first place and what corporations are doing that looks like strong arming is in fact utter panic over what OSS is doing to the market. So when they retreat back to OSS it is more like just feeding the beast.

I have mixed feelings about it what with my use of Blender/Gimp and how these were there for me when I had no other options. But for me when I had enough money saved (ironically made using open source software) I bought my way back into commercial software because all along I was well aware of what I was using and what it could and could not do for me.

That's me.

But I think it is an interesting issue. And for me I see the rental movement as far more centered around OSS than people are talking about - or admitting (in the case of large corporations).

That is my take on it anyway for what it is worth.

gerry_g
02-16-2015, 04:06 AM
the Adobe parallel is bad, Flash straddles the pro and consumer market, pros generate Flash content with Adobe products, consumers watch it/play it with free Flash players which are ubiquitous and therefore Adobe owns the market, there is no similar parallel for 3D save for Game Console Makers playing both ends against the middle by charging Dev's a license fee and percentage of revenue and then stuffing game players with overpriced games because they the Console Makers subsidised the initial console purchase. 3D unlike 2D content publishing where it is pretty much Adobe or nothing seems genuinely more open with a better choice of vendors, here we have a bunch of people beefing about the way a product they are very unlikely to ever use changing the way it levies a finical purchase price they are very unlikely to ever willingly consider paying.

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 05:18 AM
No parallel was made. I am simply comparing this to the open source model. The parallel in this case is clear. In both cases the success of the paid-for products and/or services depend on the prevalence of the free software in the market. They go hand in hand and this is in essence what an open source business model is. People get the business side of OSS software confused with the "openess" of development on the code.

And in relation to players in particular, you can not have the most popular encoder if you do not have the most-popular player.

The only parallel I am making here is that clearly they understand this. And they understand the OS Business Model. They have been involved in both areas. They both have the parallel of offering something for free and then up-selling. QuickTime, Adobe and Real player all have pro versions, in the case of Realplayer this is a perfect example. They are primarily a player market. And the pro version offers more features. That is the open source model in essence.

So if it was not clear, you take a company that has been involved in this kind of marketing of products for decades and you show them the OSS charts of growth and I am saying, they panicked. Or had a tremendous foresight depending on what side of the fence you are on.

Marketing speak such as "no up front costs" and "easily accessible" all come from research of the OSS market. That is very clear to me. It might not be accurate. But it seems a lot more likely to me than. "They think that they are so powerful they can get away with anything." Anytime force is used it is borne out of fear.

If they really felt dominant and felt they could do anything, I imagine they would have simply kept the ship steady, raised prices and completely ignored Gimp Inskape and all of the other OSS on the market. That kind of move could only come from a company who felt it could get away with anything because no other options exist. This kind of thing reeks more of days of old.

Forcing into rentals to me shows a weak position.

And I imagine Autodesk feels it too.

All software companies seem to be currently. And for good reason. Times are changing. (for better or for worse)

I think for artists, in the direction of better. My opinion.

gerry_g
02-16-2015, 06:13 AM
Ok was a little off target but open source the great white saviour striking terror in the harts of the corporate monoliths, please !, name one piece of open sauce software you have constantly used for the past ten years, exactly, outside of say Blender and possibly one other (at most) you said it yourself as soon as you could afford to you jumped ship you went for the pro paid way of life because they make a profit and they therefore tend to stick around and keep you serviced, open sauce stuff is made by people who generally give up and go do something else when they finally realise they need to make a profit in order to pay the bills.

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 06:50 AM
Yeah a lot of people agree with you. And I understand fully. I don't think it is realistic. But I understand.

I don't think it is an entirely accurate description of what OSS is. This characterization you voice is exactly what I was talking about earlier. And yeah a lot of people agree with you. But I think it is incorrect assessment of what it is. If you research it, and what roll it plays in the business world you will see in only a few minutes of reading that it is far more than what you and others are describing. By a long shot.

Now in my situation is not exactly has you have simplified it. And I only brought it up to demonstrate there is another market out there. I moved to commercial software because I researched for 2 years to find out what I needed in my pipeline. Many others would do the same research and come up with Blender. I did not. But Blender is also a moving target.

For other products such as Microsoft Office (also available for rental) I will never have the need for. And Open Office does far more than I will ever need. Celtx screenwriting software is all I will ever need any time soon. The same can not be be said for Gimp. For me. It was such a relief to come back to Photoshop.

So the thing is for some people 3D software does not hold the same sway in their pipeline. Some small studios completely rely on Blender.

And so to answer your question. Two of the OS products I use everyday are still under development, still going strong. And for me are more than enough. Celtx success as an "open source" business model has now moved them into a completely web-based service. Celtx stand alone is no longer supported. So I use the last version. I am fine with that. But the point is, they used this same "free software, pay for other services model" and it worked.

And most of the OSS that I am aware of has been around for a long time and is till going. And by the charts, if you care to research them, it is growing quite strong.

I would not characterize it as a white savior. More like a socialist maggot, slowly eating away at what was once a capitalist strong hold om the software market. But to avoid being a hypocrite, I can not really come out against it, even if it does fly in the teeth of many of the things I personally believe in. I am grateful for what it gives me.

And regarding Blender again. I still use it, teach it. And it will continue to be in my pipeline and used within my studio for economical reasons. This takes seats sadly away from Maya which I also plan to add using the rental model. Works for me. And so there you go. In my case. Open source software taking me away as a customer to more than one major company.

Multiply this. You have the stats and the effect.

Lito
02-16-2015, 09:03 AM
I can't agree with your supposition, while I do believe there is some small effect with OSS it is IMHO not the main cause of the rental movement in professional software. The biggest effect OSS has is on the new generation of users of that particular software. But as others have pointed out you don't get a job with OSS. If you want to work in that particular field you have to use something else other than OSS. The rental movement is just simply the pipe dream of most companies, a steady income from it's user base period. The threat of OSS is minimal at best reason being is OSS wants to become the product they are emulating. Gimp wants to be Photoshop, and Blender wants to be Max/Maya. The best these OSS can be is a cheap knock off, and that is the problem with them when large institutions look at them. They don't see them as actual usable products because there is something that's better in their minds, what the OSS is basically copying the features from. So no matter what there is no real threat from OSS due to the perception of OSS in general.

What OSS has done to professional companies is make them take the "education" market seriously and put out free/trial/academic versions of their software. The only reason these free/trial/academic versions exist is because the professional companies don't want OSS to take root. That's why in the past they ignored the students pirating their software for so long. They didn't mind because they were using their software and when those users went to the workplace they became their main consumer base. OSS has changed that, now you can actually legitimately use other pretty darn good free software and it's not their software. The last thing these companies want is students using OSS as their main tools when learning because if they can do everything their product does then when these students graduate, they might be able to teach or influence their professional customers that they can do the exact same things for free when they go to the workplace.

The rental market is being used as a steady income generating device for the companies implementing it. It takes care of the main problem of software, that the customers can use their software for years without upgrading. It also reduces the R&D budget and makes profits higher. R&D is expensive and with the normal licensing model, if only 30% of the users needed that functionality then only those 30% would actually buy the next version. And they would have to spend a little more money to make a "wow" feature to help entice customers to upgrade. That is huge problem, so they solved it by making it so the software would stop working if you didn't upgrade. They couldn't put it in that context because it would cause a revolt, so they disguised it with the terms, monthly fee and always up to date with the latest features. The maintenance fee was the first step to the rental movement, but it still had the issue that the customer could still use the software for years without buying an upgrade. So they had to still R&D new "wow" features.

IMHO the rental market is the worst thing to happen to the software market. It's going to destroy innovation. Adobe and autodesk have zero incentive to innovate now. You can already see the effect in Photoshop. There hasn't been a major "wow" feature since CS5 was released IMHO. There have been improvements here and there, but nothing that said, "ooh I need that". You will see that in time, a program like Photoline will become the innovator and Adobe the one copying their features into Photoshop. And the reason for this change will be because Photoline has to innovate so people will buy/upgrade their product while Adobe will pocket the "R&D" money to placate the shareholders. Adobe will work on non-sexy under the hood changes because they require little R&D, but innovative ideas will be few and very far between because that is expensive. The rental movement is the professional software's welfare fund. They want to gain money for the minimum/no work required. You want to see the future of Software as a "Service" you only have to look at every single cable company in existence today. High and rising fees with no innovations, hoping every day no upstart like TIVO or Netflix comes along so they have to spend their precious profits on innovative ideas to counter them.

safetyman
02-16-2015, 09:41 AM
EDIT: Lito beat me to the punch on some of this. Good to know. :)

I believe there's a whole generation of kids who are growing up using Blender rather than downloading pirated software, for several reasons: A) It's easier for someone to get into who hasn't been tainted by "standards" like Maya; B) It's not illegal, which for folks serious about getting into the business is a lot safer; and C) Blender has it's tendrils into multiples areas, like architecture, gaming, engineering, graphic design, as well as 3D/animation. Maybe AD can thank Blender for discouraging piracy to some extent, but it could spell a shift in users if they're not careful. I did a Google search with "Blender 3D", "Maya 3D", and "3DS Max", and interestingly the amount of results was very close. Not very scientific, I know, but still.

Another point I wanted to make... Here's a novel idea: Wouldn't it be much cheaper for some large companies (and maybe some smaller ones) to add to Blender's functionality to suit their individual needs? Hmmm, it's already being done with tools like Fluid Designer (http://www.microvellum.com/product/fluid-designer-2/). I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't happening in many other areas as well.

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 10:14 AM
I can't agree with your supposition

Well, yeah good points. I agree about the development end of rental. I think you make some good points there. I still think there is incentive to compete, but I also see what you are saying.

Regarding OSS though have you actually looked at the statistics of open source software?

I think you make some assumptions about open source software that are just not true. When you say, "But as others have pointed out you don't get a job with OSS". Well were exactly? You mean in the studio system? You have to qualify that. And also you have to consider that software companies - or the marketing staff actually - think broadly. And when they come up with marketing words like "indie developer" it is because they researched this and found out who they are, what they are doing and what software they are using.

And for 3D software many have been turning to Blender. Not just to Maya or Modo or Max. I have seen this explode in the last 3-4 years.

I actually work for one such developer. Have been for the last 3 years. Start up company. All the 3D is Blender. And the game engine is Ogre.

All paid positions. A going comercial concern. All open source software.

Now you get global and start thinking broadly. How many developers is this? How many start up companies go with open source software?

Well there are numbers and statistics to this answer. And marketing people get paid to research it and find out.

You could not make a comment like "minimal" effect without baking that up with statistics. Marketing teams think in statistics and trends. And when you compare those statistics to empty seats of software it adds up to millions of dollars. That is money they should have seen but will never see.

I agree with you about the education system however. Do you think they are disconnected though? I don't.

I think OSS could not be having an effect on the eduction system yet not have an effect on the private sector. OSS affects both equally. If the OSS numbers are big enough to have an effect there they are big enough to have an effect on enterprise, otherwise if what you say is true, the effect on education would also be minimal.

You are right they don't want people learning it. And they also don't want people starting up companies with something else either.

They answer as I said... thier buzz words... "no upfront costs" "easily accessible software on monthly terms". All targeted at start up companies, and small-sized studios looking to expand and/or keep costs at a minimum.

They are also as you say targeted at people who have not upgraded, now making it "easy". So you are correct there as well I think.

cresshead
02-16-2015, 12:32 PM
lol sorry guys... the only reason I did that is because I have seen it done here so many times I figured you guys have read it as many times here as I have - here on this forum. I have also seen it on all of the other forums. I had to sort out what it meant and in context I figured then other people would/could too, or had already.

Open Source Software.



oh...right...okay

at least we know what the heck you were on about now...just stick to english and whole words ..if you must put in an acronym then explain it once...then refer to the short version after that.

it's good to include everyone in a conversation if possible

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 01:35 PM
lol yeah Thanks for the FYI

AFAIK that is the ay to do it... and IMHO it should always be. :D

Megalodon2.0
02-16-2015, 03:15 PM
And for 3D software many have been turning to Blender. Not just to Maya or Modo or Max. I have seen this explode in the last 3-4 years.

This could be for MANY different reasons and not necessarily those you suggest.

First and foremost, Blender has been improving considerably during this time period - having many features (not yet mature of course) that software such as LW does not have. If I were starting out in 3D right now, I would choose Blender hands down. Second, with the termination of Softimage (and previously trueSpace) I would guess that many people are tired of learning a piece of software (and investing heavily in it) only to have it relegated to history - and again - Blender is moving forward very quickly. And then you take the move by Adobe - and the speculation that 3D software will be rental-only - and you have the perfect storm of people not wanting to held hostage by one company just to open and edit their files. As I've said here previously, if NT/LW3DG EVER chooses a rental-only method of delivery, then I will definitely begin moving over to Blender. No questions asked. I won't be giving any other paid-for software another look. Right now I have LW and Modo as primary software and I would rather migrate over to Blender than provide any company with revenue to help stick it to me.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

jasonwestmas
02-16-2015, 03:21 PM
This could be for MANY different reasons and not necessarily those you suggest.

First and foremost, Blender has been improving considerably during this time period - having many features (not yet mature of course) that software such as LW does not have. If I were starting out in 3D right now, I would choose Blender hands down. Second, with the termination of Softimage (and previously trueSpace) I would guess that many people are tired of learning a piece of software (and investing heavily in it) only to have it relegated to history - and again - Blender is moving forward very quickly. And then you take the move by Adobe - and the speculation that 3D software will be rental-only - and you have the perfect storm of people not wanting to held hostage by one company just to open and edit their files. As I've said here previously, if NT/LW3DG EVER chooses a rental-only method of delivery, then I will definitely begin moving over to Blender. No questions asked. I won't be giving any other paid-for software another look. Right now I have LW and Modo as primary software and I would rather migrate over to Blender than provide any company with revenue to help stick it to me.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What the heck, do it now, begin to move to blender. That way you can know what you are getting into.

Lito
02-16-2015, 03:36 PM
I think you make some assumptions about open source software that are just not true. When you say, "But as others have pointed out you don't get a job with OSS". Well were exactly? You mean in the studio system? You have to qualify that. And also you have to consider that software companies - or the marketing staff actually - think broadly. And when they come up with marketing words like "indie developer" it is because they researched this and found out who they are, what they are doing and what software they are using.

What I mean by that is given 2 people to hire, the one you most likely are going to hire is the one that has photoshop experience vs gimp experience even if the work shown is about on par with each other. It's not that they are alienating the gimp user, it's just simply cheaper (less training) to hire someone who has the photoshop experience in this example if that is what they are using in their pipeline.

As far as the statistics go I haven't really looked through it, but yes the use of OSS is increasing but I guess I haven't looked in a while or noticed anyone looking for OSS experience.

Megalodon2.0
02-16-2015, 03:46 PM
What the heck, do it now, begin to move to blender. That way you can know what you are getting into.

That's good advice. Unfortunately I'm "one of those" who tends to stay in their comfort zone AND I don't particularly like to learn new software - unless I have to. For the time being, LW is doing fine for me. I do have Blender and it is installed, but learning it is way down on my list. Unless I'm "forced," I'll hold off learning Blender for some time to come. Hell... I don't even know LW as good as I would like to. ;)

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 08:10 PM
This could be for MANY different reasons and not necessarily those you suggest.

First and foremost, Blender has been improving considerably during this time period - having many features (not yet mature of course) that software such as LW does not have. If I were starting out in 3D right now, I would choose Blender hands down. Second, with the termination of Softimage (and previously trueSpace) I would guess that many people are tired of learning a piece of software (and investing heavily in it) only to have it relegated to history - and again - Blender is moving forward very quickly. And then you take the move by Adobe - and the speculation that 3D software will be rental-only - and you have the perfect storm of people not wanting to held hostage by one company just to open and edit their files. As I've said here previously, if NT/LW3DG EVER chooses a rental-only method of delivery, then I will definitely begin moving over to Blender. No questions asked. I won't be giving any other paid-for software another look. Right now I have LW and Modo as primary software and I would rather migrate over to Blender than provide any company with revenue to help stick it to me.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yeah this is all very true I think. I was only speaking of one aspect of it from one point of view to make a particular point. And I agree with you here. It is a complex issue and there are many factors at play. I think they all contribute in one way or another. It is just that I never really looked at how the OSS angle played into rental before. I could be dead wrong. But as I looked at it and started looking at some of the stats, it became more and more compelling as an argument.

But I can say as a person who uses Blender and have been using it for 6 years or more now, that I have a fairly good finger on the pulse of the business side of Blender. And I have seen it grow since the release of 2.5. And I know and work with a number of clients in the business who use only open source software. I have also had a close watch on the job ads for Blender and have interacted with scores of potential clients. So this gives me an intimate perspective of who these indie developers are and what they are up to and have watched a certain explosion of adds for Blender artists to work for small start up companies. It is a small cottage industry - if you will. Or small offices usually. It ain't big studios. But it is an industry.

And I can tell you pretty much that the reasoning I speak of is 100 percent true for each of them. It has nothing to do with other software as much as a growing reputation for what can be done with Blender. And by and large these are not 3D people. They don't know what Maya or Max or Modo can or can not do. They have never even researched it. They have not used Softimage or dealt with Autodesk or even visit the forums to learn much of these things at all.

Most of them are not even artists. They are business people with a plan. And so Blender is a software with a reputation that it works "as good as or better" than professional software. They know enough to know they need 3D software, the prices of the alternatives. Blender is free. Slam dunk. They just go with Blender. They learn it enough to deal with certain aspects of the program and work it into their pipeline and then hire artists to do the rest.

This can be frustrating at times because of these non-artist assumptions. And I often have to educate them that no, Blender actually can not do that. You have to use X software.

So the point here is that this same person now goes to check out Blender it is free, Then they go have a look at Maya LT. This is what it says on the site: "Get started with an easy and affordable way to build games" And it is $30 USD bucks a month. Now you have them thinking - at least.

Before what did you see: Maya $3,675 + maintenance subscription $625 per year. Initial purchase 4,300 USD.

That is enough to stop any further research right there. Back to Blender. Yeah it rigs characters and does all this other cool stuff and exports to game engines. Good enough.

Now with rental some of these people will at least say, hey wait. Pull out a credit card, All the big studios use Maya, may not need all of that, but at least we are using a top of the line program and what the heck only 30 bucks a month.

All I am trying to say is these are the people they are marketing to here. And this - in their eyes - is the effective solution to loosing this market to Blender. It is the only thing they have that they can do.

And so these are not industry professionals schooled in 3D they are small business looking to start up at very low cost.

Surrealist.
02-16-2015, 08:24 PM
What I mean by that is given 2 people to hire, the one you most likely are going to hire is the one that has photoshop experience vs gimp experience even if the work shown is about on par with each other. It's not that they are alienating the gimp user, it's just simply cheaper (less training) to hire someone who has the photoshop experience in this example if that is what they are using in their pipeline.

As far as the statistics go I haven't really looked through it, but yes the use of OSS is increasing but I guess I haven't looked in a while or noticed anyone looking for OSS experience.

Job ads. OK. Yes. I agree. Looking down the list of ads on any posting board and you always see the software use and experience as a definite requirement - in most cases. And Blender, though not prevalent in a lot of these places yet also has the same requirements. Companies hire for Blender all the time. You have to use Blender. This is the requirement. Just as anything. I usually see several per month. More than I see for LightWave. These are bonified salary jobs working on location at a business. Not just all freelance positions. And on that note we all know here that as a freelancer doing work for clients, you don't have to have any particular software beyond what you know will get the job done.

So I am just saying you have to qualify that. Are these jobs in the studio - large or small - realm? Mostly no. At this time.

But this is a growing industry. That it exists at all and takes away large numbers of seats from Maya and Max is not missed by Autodesk. They are not so easy to dismiss software that is taking away scores of potential seats per year. I actually don't know the numbers on this. But just do a little simple math and it is probably in the thousands per year.

chikega
02-16-2015, 10:19 PM
"... richer future." for Autodesk. :)

Megalodon2.0
02-17-2015, 01:04 AM
And I can tell you pretty much that the reasoning I speak of is 100 percent true for each of them. It has nothing to do with other software as much as a growing reputation for what can be done with Blender. And by and large these are not 3D people. They don't know what Maya or Max or Modo can or can not do. They have never even researched it. They have not used Softimage or dealt with Autodesk or even visit the forums to learn much of these things at all.

Most of them are not even artists. They are business people with a plan. And so Blender is a software with a reputation that it works "as good as or better" than professional software. They know enough to know they need 3D software, the prices of the alternatives. Blender is free. Slam dunk. They just go with Blender. They learn it enough to deal with certain aspects of the program and work it into their pipeline and then hire artists to do the rest.

This can be frustrating at times because of these non-artist assumptions. And I often have to educate them that no, Blender actually can not do that. You have to use X software.

So the point here is that this same person now goes to check out Blender it is free, Then they go have a look at Maya LT. This is what it says on the site: "Get started with an easy and affordable way to build games" And it is $30 USD bucks a month. Now you have them thinking - at least.

I think you may be over-generalizing things here. You make it SOUND like small businesses that need 3D are run by mindless idiots who don't know anything. I also think you're taking for granted their mindset which is "free is what we need."


Before what did you see: Maya $3,675 + maintenance subscription $625 per year. Initial purchase 4,300 USD.

That is enough to stop any further research right there. Back to Blender. Yeah it rigs characters and does all this other cool stuff and exports to game engines. Good enough.

Now with rental some of these people will at least say, hey wait. Pull out a credit card, All the big studios use Maya, may not need all of that, but at least we are using a top of the line program and what the heck only 30 bucks a month.

All I am trying to say is these are the people they are marketing to here. And this - in their eyes - is the effective solution to loosing this market to Blender. It is the only thing they have that they can do.

And so these are not industry professionals schooled in 3D they are small business looking to start up at very low cost.

I think that any small business owner will actually DO the research or ask knowledgeable people what they need. Oftentimes Blender IS all they need. And as a small business owner myself, I certainly would not want to be held hostage by a company that provides rental-only software. Many of us understand that business has ups and downs - and you buy software when you have good revenue and hold back when your revenue slows. To be tied to a software that you MUST continually pay for just to open and edit your files - no matter how well the business is doing - is not logical. Not to mention the fact that many of these small business don't even need the power of Maya or Max. You're also ignoring the fact that Maya (or Max) is not the only game in town. C4D, Modo, LW and quite a few others are still available and (aside from C4D) are not anywhere near the cost of Maya.

AutoDesk is also aware that their upgrades have been less than stellar over the years - as people have also mentioned about Adobe. IMO, it MAY be OSS that is partly to blame for their move to rental-only, but also their inability to seriously improve their software is fueling their NEED to lock users in. Adobe was able to do it with low prices initially - that will ultimately change. We'll see how AD does it with Max and Maya. I'd love to see the Foundry and LW3DG seriously improve their software and begin taking away market share from AD. Of course if they go rental-only as well... Blender WILL be the go-to app. Not for big studios of course - at least not until Blender has the flexibility of Maya - but small studios are a perfect fit for Blender.

Surrealist.
02-17-2015, 03:56 AM
Yeah I agree on a lot of points there.

Just to clarify, I am just reporting what I know from dealing with these people directly. I never said they were mindless idiots. But I merely point out that 3D is not their field.

And I am not ignoring other 3D packages. This is a thread about Autodesk. So I am putting this into the context of what I believe is their marketing strategy based on what they believe the customer will be thinking. It matches what I know personally about these people.

So the assumptions I make are just connecting dots. And maybe I am wrong about some of the connections, but we will never know that because none of these companies will talk about it publicly. But I am convinced that internally this is a huge factor. Along with the other things you and others have said. I think it is a complex thing with a lot of angles at play. But a very large factor is this OSS thing which makes the projected move to OSS as a response all the more ironic.

However when the dust does settle. Me personally I think we as artists will be better off. I guess I am a cup half full kind of thinker.

safetyman
02-17-2015, 10:02 AM
Like it or not, FOSS will start eating into AD's and Adobe's market share. It's gonna happen as a direct backlash to their subscription policies (and maybe because of their business practices, who knows). I'm hoping that LW will gain market share as a result of AD forcing their customers into a corner, but they know more about how to market themselves than I do.

The thing about Blender that is really nice is that the Blender Foundation has a path, a roadmap for the future of their software. They aren't just a bunch of programmers who get together every week and say, "oooo this would be a nice feature, let's do that." They have a vision well down the road of what they want to focus on and they do it, and it's an actual job for the programmers, not a hobby. Combine that with the hundreds of thousands (or maybe even millions) of Blender users and you get a recipe for success IMO.

Surrealist.
02-17-2015, 11:13 AM
Yeah well my response, again. It has already happened. I suppose we are arguing the chicken or the egg here. But that statistics clearly show this already happened before rentals were introduced. Rentals came after. That is something that can not be disputed. I mean you can have the opinion that it does not matter. But you can not dispute the numbers of users of Blender and the rise of indie developers before rentals were even announced. This happened to explode just before AD introduced Maya LT. And a good year before Adobe went all rental. And also not just these companies. Just about every other company is using the term "indie" version. Or offering something with a similar name.

Some companies currently offering this just off hand:

Side Effects
Quixel (ndo dDo)
Substance Designer
The Foundry (modo mari)
Black Magic (fusion)
C4D (LT version budled with After Effects)

Some of these were announced after Adobe went rental. A few of them in the past year. Some of them went before.

But the consistant thing that happened before all of this was Blender and open source software began to grow significantly.

Granted this is mostly targeted at IT stuff, but it is a strong indicator as to what is happening.

Ten Figures and facts about open source software:

http://blog.nxcgroup.com/2013/ten-facts-and-figures-about-open-source-software/#.VOOAhS73O5I

Just look at these numbers:



In 1998, only 10% of organizations were using open source software (OSS); by 2011, more than 50% of organizations surveyed by Gartner, the world’s leading information technology research company, reported using open source software.
62% of organizations reported using open standard application programming interfaces (APIs).




There has been a 140% increase in interest in purchasing open source software over the past four years.
By 2014, 2,000,000 open source projects are projected – twice as many as in 2012.
Major companies around the globe are using open source technology, including Facebook, Google and more.



The global software market is worth close to $300 billion, with open source growing at an average yearly growth of 22% and expected to exceed $8 billion in 2013, according to market research from the International Data Corporation (IDC).
In 2012, Gartner reported that on average, 29% of deployed code was open source.
Gartner predicts that by 2015 at least 95% of mainstream IT organizations will leverage open source solutions within mission critical software deployments.
The “2012 Linux Jobs Report” by Dice and The Linux Foundation found that the need for open source programming language skills had hit all-time highs.
They report that there were almost 2,000 jobs posted daily in 2012 for personnel skilled in JBoss, and job postings for programmers with Android skills and experience were up 33 percent from 2011.


When studies like this are done and released I am going to bet money that the marketing teams at Adobe and Autodesk are all over it.

So you have a growing use of things like Open Office. Gimp, Blender, Inkscape and on and on going right along for the ride.

In my opnion not insigificant and also more to do with the cause of what is happening. As nice as it is to have someone to point the finger at. And as easy as it is to say well I hope everyone runs to OSS software because of what AD Adobe are doing... well, I don't know. Numbers support it was a reaction. Not first Blood.

Megalodon2.0
02-17-2015, 02:18 PM
But a very large factor is this OSS thing which makes the projected move to OSS as a response all the more ironic.
Though the irony is, you MAY have it backwards. It may end turning out that more and more people turn to OSS - Blender - than move over to rental-only. Companies like AD may end up pushing their customers away rather than enticing them to rent. I can EASILY see this for many smaller studios with a basic pipeline as opposed to studios who have complex (and set-in-stone) pipelines. For me, I certainly would move to Blender. And perusing the Adobe forums there are many with the same mindset. If you're a small company just starting out and (perhaps) not focusing specifically on 3D, then I would not lock myself in to one piece of software that I would be required to pay forever. Of course that's just MY POV. We'll just have to wait and see how the dust settles.


However when the dust does settle. Me personally I think we as artists will be better off. I guess I am a cup half full kind of thinker.
I used to be before CORE, then I became allot more pessimistic. Perhaps in the long run these rental-only companies will end up having to reinstate perpetual licenses because the once smaller players will be stepping up to the plate and hitting triples and home runs by seriously improving the software and forcing ownership of software BACK. It's going to be an interesting few years.

robertoortiz
02-17-2015, 08:21 PM
There is another factor to consider.
Real time engines are getting faster and faster and the animation workflows that we have come to depend on will be reconsidered from the ground up by a generation not willing to spend 6 months learning a program.
I would bet that in 5 years we will see some new players.