I have always wondered this. It is common knowledge that 99% of people hat Autodesk (and 99% of that 1% are fanboys)*, but I had always thought those people were overreacting until I saw Andrew Price's interview with Ton Rosendaal. In the middle of the interview, Ton mentions that Autodesk spreads lies about Blender's license to keep studios from using it. Andrew was horrified. The worst part (if it is true) is that Ton didn't seem to be concerned at all by it. Also, I heard that Autodesk said they were going to keep Softimage around right before they killed** it. Also, is it true that they give their software minimal, mandatory, and expensive updates and require their users to pay for essential bugfixes? How much of that is fact and how much is just panic and exaggeration? Is my fear that they will buy Houdini rational?
*Based on what I have heard people say.
**"killed" is an emotionally charged term, but that's how those outraged Softimage users said it.
On the one hand, it's impossible for a non-sentient, non-conscious entity to be evil or good or to have any other human trait. We tend to anthropomorphize corporations because they are, after all, run by people. But when it comes to corporate behaviour, it has only one ultimate aim: to bring profit to shareholders. And to this end, those who run corporations will find themselves involved in behaviour that is inherently evil.
So the answer to your question is: yes and no. Autodesk isn't evil, but it does carry out evil actions in the name of profit. It's not the only corporation to do this, however. In fact, the corporation was invented as a way to distance corporation shareholders from the stench of evil inherent in the world of business.
@rontarrant So you believe the rumors? Do you think it is immoral to buy as many of their competitors as they can just to eliminate the competition?
williamatics Whilst I'm not the person you asked this to I believe absolutely. Behavior like that can lead to a monopoly which is never good for the consumer, so not even looking at it from a moral standpoint it's still a negative thing from our point of view, because there will be less competition therefore less desire from the corporation to improve and keep customers happy, "We've all you got so take it or leave it." The only saving grace is that Blender is free and will presumably never be bought out by them so they'll have at least some form of competition, but will it be enough to get them to play fair, if the rumours are true? Probably not, but we can hope.
Welcome to reality folks, a company's primal purpose is to generate profit. Whether this is good or evil is up to another type of debate. As soon as money is involved it triggers various type of behaviour. It can be one very eager salesperson who wanted very badly a customer, it could also (and I suspect that) simply lack of knowledge about what creative common and open source really means.
That being said, I'm tired of this childish war between free and paid software. My first job was in a software company, a rather expensive one yes but also very performing. Before that, they were leader on their field, and competitor was scarce. Now, things have evolved and this typical 90's and 2000's business model is no longer up to date and things are changing.
Also, consider that Autodesk doesn't only works with CGI but also industrial companies, like automotive and architecture. This type of customer has no problem affording pricy software, as long as support goes along.
Once again, I'm not here to tell that it's right or wrong. It's the way it is and I ) believe that one should be very pragmatic about that: does it work ? - Yes/No. Will the cost be worth it ? Yes/No, and so on.
Things are changing thankfully, and hopefully for the best: I (warning, personnal opinion 😁 ) like the business model Unity or Allegoritmic has, i.e to pay depending on your revenue. I think it's a bit more fair. Software like OpenFOAM (flow simulations) is completely free, and the company makes profit only on the support. That's also something to consider ...
tbrbn Yeah I really do like that kind of subscription-esque "pay what you make" kind of fee, Allegoritmic is my personal favorite, though that's because I'm downloading Substance as we speak haha. I agree about the "war" too, you have people using programs such as 3DS Max and Maya thinking they're better simply because they're paying hundreds, if not thousands a year for their software but on the flip side you have people who automatically assume it's better to use Blender because it's free and that it shows more skill, which is a load of guff. Obviously (at least I hope) these people are a minority. Despite that though I'm definitely glad Blender is free, because I'm very certain there are many people in this industry who when starting out couldn't afford one of the bigger brands.
I still find some of the rumors surrounding Autodesk... questionable, though at the end of the day they're just that. Rumors. Naturally I hope they're not true.
On the bright side about buying things up as I said is I highly doubt Blender will ever be bought out by them so they'll at least have some competition, but that is merely my $0.02.
thecabbagedetective I'm not afraid they'll buy Blender, I'm afraid they'll buy Houdini.
"Ton mentions that Autodesk spreads lies about Blender's license to keep studios from using it. "
i guess if studios are incapable of using a search engine then they deserve to be taken advantage of.
williamatics Immoral? From Blender's POV, definitely. From AutoDesk's? Not so much.
And I arrive at this opinion because morality is not an absolute. Consider: killing is immoral, but what about mercy killing? Is killing a war criminal the same as killing a kitten? Or a fly? Or some vicious creature that's about to eat your child?
Monopolies are great for the person/people who have the monopolies, but horrible for everyone else. It's not right that Blender stands alone against AutoDesk, but at least someone is. There should be a dozen alternatives to Maya/Max/etc., not just one. And at least one of those should have a Y-up orientation to its workspace :)
As to your first question, I'm not sure which rumors you're referring to. Gotta link?
williamatics Yeah I understand that, I was just referring to your point about how Autodesk buying up competition in the fact that they'll at least always (or at least likely will) have some form of competition with Blender. Not exactly the most knowledgeable about these kind of things admittedly but I think Houdini is fine for now.
This has nothing to do with moral, its how business works in today's liberal economy. Volkswagen owns most of the European car brands, all household products belong to either Unilever or P&G. There's no moral at all, it's a jungle where all compagnies try to survive. One can of course opinion on it, you are entitled to believe that what Autodesk do lacks ethic, but in their mind , the best way to "survive" is to "kill" the competition.
My opinion is that it's not smart, competition is healthy and forces you to improve your product. Patenting everything or simply eating your competitor leaves you in your confort zone and might backfire.
In this interview, Ton says everything that "inspired" me to create this thread. But back to my burning question: Will Autodesk buy Houdini? That is one of my greatest fears.
williamatics You can read annual reports and learn more about the strategies of these respective companies. That being said, this type of information ("We intend to purchase XX% of YY company shares") isn't shared very often as it's sensitive information. Best way to know is to directly ask Autodesk's board of directors and top management...
I have officially come to a conclusion:
AUTODESK IS EVIL AND I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE BUY ANY OF THEIR PRODUCTS.
williamatics How could they buy blender? I thought Blender was public domain, open source?
@rontarrant
Autodesk has 1 thing going for them, most municipalities and corporations use autodesk products, and they require that their service contractors submit drawings in autocad format. This helps them maintain their monopoly.
Therefore, education is required to help educate municipalities and state and federal government about the benefits of using blender in lieu of using autodesk or microstation products. Autodesk does have their software tailored for specific industry use, architecture, engineering, etc so this helps them sell administrators on using their product as it conforms to industrial standards.Just need more professionals using Blender and developing applications and more education with public sector.
ddoulos4iesou I never expressed concern that they would buy Blender. What I'm worried about is that they'll buy Houdini.
ddoulos4iesou Sounds like a lot of work, about the same amount of work as convincing the federal government that Linux and Openoffice.org will serve their needs just as well (or maybe better) than Microsoft. It may be true, but since governments are actually corporations and corporations tend to stick together (right or wrong) we may be here a while. :)