Combustion future, rumors etc.

i dont know how many times in these forums its been said that autodesk, like any publicly traded software company, cant comment on things like release dates, future features, etc because its a FCC legal thing. it has nothign to do with wanting or not wanting to anger customers or appease them or anything like that. its the law.

//gD

It's not as though anyone is demanding to know when V5 is coming out and what is going to be in it. We just want some assurance that the product is still in development. Not too much to ask and not a question that they could get sued over. A little info goes a long way. I thought seeing that post was at least some comfort amidst all the wild speculation. No company gives much info about upcoming products but Autodesk takes it to a ridiculous extreme particularly with respect to the length of time between releases and service packs.

[Alan Okey] "How is it that Adobe is legally allowed to comment on its plans to develop and release CS3, or to announce the "official announcement date" ahead of time?"

Because the SEC (not FCC) rules do not disallow announcing things and pointing to things that you are actually doing or are willing to commit all your resources to doing and can realistically achieve in the time promised. If you do this, you must include a forward looking statement with the release stating what the probabilities and limits are. What you can't do is make false assertions that are speculative at best -- and misleading as to their basis in fact, at worst.

Where the rub comes in -- at least for the customer -- is when companies chant the name and use the veil of the SEC as if it's some kind of invisibility incantation, so as not to have to release anything. Protecting stockholders is one thing but never coming clean with your customer base is both counter-productive and self-defeating in this Day of the Internet, where users can easily compare notes.

Adobe has gone the other way in this, even going so far as to open up its product development of programs like Photoshop and others to public beta programs on the Adobe Labs site. To that, I say bravo. It's about time that this industry began to open up beta programs to more than a few people -- people who are usually so busy that they do little real banging on the tool and therefore don't find even some of the most simple and easily found bugs. (How many times have you heard of bugs in software that was released and immediately the bugs start biting?)

In my opinion, Autodesk/Discreet has clearly made a decision to focus and support their high-end customers in the systems side of things. That is smart as it's where they do best and Tim Wilson and I were comparing notes yesterday and he thinks that there is at least 5 years left of milking that teat in the market. I think less but Tim's probably right. But there is little movement or motion in the products like Combustion and Cleaner, the ones that were moved to the AM&E moniker. I understand not cannibalizing your high-end with your lower-end tools but in the long run if you never compete and succeed in any other market, when all of the high-end goes away, well...

Want proof? Back when I first started with computers, a little while later came desktop publishing. I watched companies like CompuGraphic (who made high-end and expensive typesetters) and InterGraph (who at the time made very powerful and expensive publishing systems) scoff and jeer at the upstart 300dpi Laserwriters and people with PageMaker. It took a decade for boxes of software and laser fonts to replace them but they are gone with the wind, and frankly Scarlett, I don't think anyone gives a damn. In their place is a new market that allows me to create a magazine on a single computer, armed with a box of InDesign and a copy of Photoshop and Illustrator. Two weeks ago or so, one of our competitors shut down one of their magazines and told the crew that "Creative COW has taken too much out of the market, so we are shutting this one down." How on Earth can two guys in their pajamas and fuzzy cow slippers outwit heavily capitalized publishing conglomerates??? Easy. We listen to what the market is doing and saying.

Markets change and though it may take time, companies that do not change with them become irrelevant and this market is also full of them and the list of names is quite long.

Working with your customer base is always a good idea. Doing the kinds of things that alienate and create a sense of antagonism with them makes no sense whatsoever in a time when the internet makes the dissemination of information and the comparing of notes, so easy.

Excuse me, I have to go see what's happening over at the Adobe Labs this morning...

Ron Lindeboom

I agree with what you are saying Ron. I wish Discreet was more open with their development. One assumes that if you don't hear anything then then worst case is true. Maybe not the worst case but not a very good case anyway. If those guys were coming up with some great stuff they'd be crowing about it. I sure do wish Ken L. was still on the scene. It really helped to have an enthusiast out there selling and showing the company's commitment.

>>>> I don't know if you're aware of this or not but a swatch
>>>>of key management of the sytems products were fired a few
>>>>months agoI don't think anyone really knows what it means
>>>>except that AM&E is like this black box that hardly anybody
>>>>can see what's going on inside.

i visit the montreal offices about 5 times a year and i personally know every one of those people that got let go recently. i have worked under many of them under contract for various reasons and i consider a good number of them my close friends and colleagues. i also have dedicated over 7 years of my life to being a strong, strong advocate of combustion (including a 6 month solid stint writing a book for it). im on the side of combustion, i dont think there's any need for me to reiterate that.

having said that, i can also recognize as a *customer* of the product that combustion is barley a drop in the bucket to autodesk. its simple math when you stop and look at a motion graphics and desktop vfx tool for under $1K isnt a large part of their offerings. even so, i can tell you it continues to sell all on its own, with little to no marketing money (just like Cleaner does). i still use combustion on every single project i do and i, like any other user, woudl love to be coddled and have autodesk announce that c5 is coming and there are 20 developers working round the clock working on feature XY and Z... but its simply not their policy and never, ever had been. if people want to switch to another app or bad mouth autodesk, thats clearly their prerogative. fusion and nuke are both insane products that both have trial versions available. check them out! as a vfx artist, its a good idea to, if you can set aside the time during renders, etc. this is also why im evaluating things like mudbox, toxik, xsi and modo, among others. to put your eggs in one basket has rarely been a good idea in this industry, historically. im still using adobe pagemill3 and its been long dead. shake is a dead product and it continues to flourish. whatever version of combustion is out there, ill be using it for years to come; its a fantastic product.

//gD

The real point wasn't how much of Autodesk/Discreet is in 3ds max or systems. The point was how abysmally AM&E communicates with their customers and because of it has earned what many believe is the perception in the market that they have little regard for anyone other than the systems buyers.

I quite well understand that ultimately Autodesk's real customers are its stockholders but citing the SEC as cause for its "invisibility" is viewed by many as a little disingenuous. This, as Apple, Adobe and quite a few others have made public proclamations that they would easily be chastised for if the SEC rules forbid such a thing.

What is illegal is saying that you are going to do something that you do not intend to do or do not have the capability of doing.

That was my real point. As to how much of what is sold by which division/department of Autodesk is of less interest to me than what Autodesk plans to do with a great tool like Combustion.

Best regards,

Ron Lindeboom

This is pure speculation, but I think announcements and releases are regulated, as Gary has mentioned. When was the first preview of AE 7? Oct 2005 and it was released Jan 2006, 90 days from the preview. Sept 2006 Adobe annouces Acrobat 8, it is released in Nov 2006. I know these may not be the greatest examples, but I am going by what information I can find.

I believe the companies get away with some products, because they are doing open betas and testing. Perfect examples are PS CS3 and Lightroom. If Apple is so out there with information then what are the features of the application to follow Shake? Does anyone even know its name? What about FCP 6 and Motion 3? Has Apple killed them cause they haven't released any information on those products? It seems that various rumor sites have posted that FCP 6 will be announced/released at NAB, but where is Apple in the mix? Not saying a word from what I can see. Same thing with OS Apple and Microsoft probably get away with it when they are doing open testing and public RC testing. Have you ever heard of news about a service pack for any product from these companies being publicized more than 90 days out from release?

Again this statement is pure speculation, but as far as I know Autodesk has closed testing teams and since the product is not in the publics hands, or on its way there, they might not be able to say anything.

For you people throwing out other companies names, can you give specific examples? Or is it just how you feel the companies handle their products? I am not trying to cause a fight or anything, I would really just like to see what you are commenting on from the actual companies (and Mac Rumors and Think Secret don't count as sources from the companies). Also, I am not trying to be a fanboy or anything like that this is just how I process the information I have and am reading in these threads and software news.

Wow, I am wordy.
-Eric

Ron, I tried looking through blogs on the Steve Jobs keynotes, and I see nothing about software (atleast nothing on the Pro level of software). It all appears to be about new hardware and new ventures that Apple is taking on. Am I missing something? Was FCP 6 talked about, which according to rumor sites is to be announced/released at NAB? News about the Shake follow up?

-Eric

Like I said mainly hardware and new ventures. So, they really aren't doing anything different from Autodesk. Since the majority of what was stated doesn't exist in Autodesk product lines, correct? Well beyond their systems hardware. That is what I am getting at Apple hardware compared to Autodesk desktop software is like comparing Apples to Oranges, pun intended :P. When it comes to FCP, Motion, the Shake replacement product, Combustion, Toxic, etc there is no difference in the amount of information that either company is releasing.

-Eric

I am not talking about the laws any more. I am talking about what the company is stating. So far nothing on FCP 6 and Motion 3, nothing on Combustion 5. How does that make Apple any better than Autodesk? It doesn't. Both companies are keeping their mouths shut when it comes to their desktop production tools.

-Eric

I am not pissed off Ron, I am just trying to figure out the difference. Going by PR and what can be found on google, all of the companies are approaching their software the same way. If it is not in a public beta state there is no official word on the products, and even a beta is no gaurantee as features could be added or removed at anytime. I just looked at the Adobe Production Studio PR here. Which I don't know if you can consider the Adobe Production Studio as a product. It is a package of existing software bundled together. Also, no where in there does it indicate what versions of the software are included, this could be a loop hole. Should there be an issue with development of the products they could stick the current version in, since they have not commited to a specific version. The only software in the bundle that is not commercially available is Soundbooth, but that is in public beta, which again may be a loophole. I am not a SEC lawyer so I can't comment on the specific laws that govern announcements and all the regulations, etc. I even said that my comments were pure speculation.

The problem I do have is with saying that Adobe and Apple are better when there is no information on FCP 6, Motion 3, AE 8, Illustrator CS3, etc. They may issue press releases, but in no way are they specific. That is unless they are announcing the product, which seems to happen within a certain time from release, or the product is part of a public beta. Do you see where I am coming from? I understand what you are saying, but announcing Apple is switching to Intel Macs is in no way specific. When they do start stating features and numbers it seems to be within a 90 or so day period prior to release, in Apple's case it is the day of.

I just looked through some blogs of the Steve Job's 2006 keynote address. Again this is all speculation, because the blogs may not have everything that was said at the keynote. Everything announced there with numbers and specifications was released that day. June 2005 Apple Announces the plan to switch to Intel Macs and a roadmap. However, no where does it say it what intel chips will be used or pricing. So it is very vague statements. This year the specific announcement was the iPhone, which is more than 90 days out from release. Though he did state that they needed FCC approval, which again may be a loophole, ie we would release it, but federal regulation prevents it without approval.

Ken, has already stated that the next version of Combustion was in development, which seems to be allowed. However, what else is there to say if features and specifications cannot legally be publicly announced? I am not defending Autodesk, I want to know how the way the companies are operating is technically different.

Oh well I think I have rambled on for too long again,
-Eric

I think Mac support has also delayed the Windows versions. Here is some info I recieved from the Combustion Product Manager, before the reorganization.

I have made sure again that these bugs are still in the queue and I have re-iterated their importance to the dev team.
The focus recently had been on our Mac version for core-duo Intel machines but we should now have time to look into these.

As for upcoming versions I cannot say anything of course.

I do agree that the development time for Combustion has been overly extended, and it does seem that the Mac version has eaten up alot of the time. Though may we will get lucky and the next version of Combustion will be on a 24 month product cycle, which would place something happening this month. In the past the release schedule for Combustion has been C2 (1/16/02), C2.1 (1/6/03), C3 Win (10/14/03), C3 Mac (1/26/04), C4 Win (3/31/05), and C4 Mac (12/20/05). This indicates a 15-24 month product cycle, though it seems the Mac version has caused extended delays. Hopefully, all the work done for the Universal Binary version will fix this delay so it doesn't effect the development for non-Mac users. From my understanding the product development team for Combustion is not very large, though I could be wrong. Though I am also affraid that with the recent release of Vista there may be more delays to get support for the OS, especially since the OS lacks openGL support out of the box.

-Eric

[Eric Craft] "Going by PR and what can be found on google, all of the companies are approaching their software the same way. If it is not in a public beta state there is no official word on the products"

Not at all the case in my experience.

I won't say I'm the only former product manager in this thread, but I might be. I worked for companies with two very different approaches: Boris liked keeping things way open, and Avid kept things very close.

Yet both of them have announced features up to two years in advance of their release.

I was there. I wrote many of the press releases, did all the press briefings and customer visits and did the lion's share of the demos at Boris. I helped write a bunch of the press releases, did many briefings and customer visits, and did a ton of demos at Avid too, although there were others on that team who did much more.

And I got way, way specific, sometimes using pre-alpha software. But I've certainly been on stages in front of hundreds of press people showing features that we wanted them to tell the world about, 12-18 months ahead of time. We followed these up with trips to user groups and worldwide road shows.

In once case I can think of, the feature hasn't shipped yet, nearly 3 years later. (Shhh, don't tell.)

I can give plenty of examples, but I assure you, pre-announcement happens a lot.


[Eric Craft] "They may issue press releases, but in no way are they specific."

Did I mention massive press conferences, user groups and worldwide road shows?

Another example. OS and platform support is very much a feature, and very much part of the assessment of federal auditors. Adobe, Avid and Boris -- as well as dozens of others you can name -- have announced support for, say, OS X, Intel Macs, Windows 64-bit and Vista, etc. long before those platforms are available. Gaps of up to a year ahead of the planned product's ship date isn't at all unusual. Again, I did it myself at two of those companies.

[Eric Craft] "what else is there to say if features and specifications cannot legally be publicly announced?"

Again, they can be, and are.

There are specific rules governing the process -- announcing upgrade pricing, as one of many examples. You only risk trouble if you miss deadlines. Adobe doesn't miss deadlines, so they comfortably announce in advance. Avid makes many announcements in the 90-day window that is advised in order to minimize risk -- and has often missed those 90-day windows.

Any guesses which company pays a bigger price for their strategy? (Hint: check 2 year stock prices.)

Along the way, I've asked a couple of product management colleauges at Adobe if deferred revenue (the reason most often given for not pre-announcing) had much influence on their approach to announcements. None whatsoever, they said, and looking at their actions, I have no reason to doubt them.

What you're seeing today with CS3 is an interest in keeping the curtain drawn, combined with judicious teasing, to raise interest in the big announcement.

Here's one more tidbit to chew on. Adobe's already told us that the announcement later this month is for CS3. They've already told us that the release is targeted for the second half of the year. That most likely means early July....which is FOUR months after the announcement.

Here it is in a nutshell. A company keeps silent when they don't want its customers or competition to know what's coming. They make announcements because they DO want customers and competitors to know what's coming.

Pre-announcement a critical strategy for keeping customers on board when release dates slip, and for trying to take competitors off their game by engaging them in feature escalation ahead of schedule.

Both strategies work.

Now can we please stop the "they're not allowed to" thing? It's the company's call. If you don't like the way they treat you, tell them. Don't accept their excuses for disrespecting you.

tw

[Eric Craft] "I don't expect Autodesk to change anything on the information front, no matter how much I would like them to"

Well, that's the thing. Companies have their policies, and they're set from pretty high up the food chain. All you can do is ask. I've seen clearly articulated, firmly presented arguments have an impact on a case-by-case basis...but your mileage will vary.

Oh, and re: the product manager email about not being allowed to say anything? He can't say anything, absolutely true. The COMPANY can decide to break radio silence, but no product manager can go further than the company line, not even in casual conversation. Disclosure has to be carefully managed.

That is, I very much distinguish the PM's degrees of freedom and the company's.

So don't poke sharp sticks at the product guys. Find an even sharper stick and poke the boss. :-)

tw

Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous to claim that they can't acknowledge anything about their future products because they are a publicly traded company. How is it that Apple was able to provide a roadmap for the transition to their Intel-based products or features for a forthcoming operating system? Microsoft described features of Vista years before it was released (even features that ended up being vapor with no legal repercussions). Chipmakers describe the innovations that will be fueling their chipsets years into the future. Carmakers publicly reveal concept cars with features that might appear years down the road. Apple even says they are working on the next generation of Shake.
So what's the harm in officially saying "There will be a Combustion V.5" ?

Well said. Boy, do I share your cynicism. If I have to switch Digital Fusion is looking good since it is a smaller company and it is their main product. A lot to be said for that.

I think someday very soon everything will be owned by either The Coca Cola Company, Pepsicorp, Exxon Mobil, General Electric or Lockheed Martin. Or maybe we'll just have "Entertainment, Inc.," "Food Products Inc." and "War Inc." How about "Earth Inc.?"

I always loved the bit in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life showing a room full of business executives in a conference room identifying their company as "The Very Big Corporation of America." Too true.

>>I think someday very soon everything will be owned by either The Coca Cola Company, Pepsicorp, Exxon Mobil, General Electric or Lockheed Martin.<<

You got it all wrong. Microsoft...[G]