The Day the Music Died


Nothing more to add…Which is better. It never ends…


Well said, Icecaveman.

We must all call this Sarbanes-Oxley nonsense out whenever it is presented as a reason for subscriptions. It’s patently absurd.

Apple do not have a different business model, they sell software and customers buy that software. Sound familiar Dave?


Apple do have a different business model, and everyone here knows it. They sell really, really expensive hardware, and then use exclusive, pretty well-developed software bundled or sold at a low cost to keep folks in that ecosystem. Which purchase is going to hurt your wallet more, Apple Motion or the new iMac you plan to use it on?

Maxon don’t make and sell hardware. They have a big gang of software developers that make software, sell software, and need to be paid while doing so. This isn’t rocket science folks.

IceCaveMan, you’ve been running with Blender for a couple of months now. Today’s NVidia patron announcement should have you smiling, yet you’re still jumping into these threads and posting the most miserable, toxic rants imaginable. Move on and get over it, FFS, or you’ll still be finding a reason to drop in here come 2022, thinking of more dumb insults and posting them like a clown while everyone else is getting on with life.


What´s the difference between the Software-Sales Model between Apple and Maxon?
Does Maxon have to follow Sarbanes-Oxley and Apple not?
Does Sarbanes-Oxley only belong to companies which are named Adobe, Autodesk and Maxon?
Sarbanes-Oxley is only a helpful argument for those who want a continuous money-flow from our pockets into their cash-box.
If Apple can deliver Feature-Adds, every other Company can do it also.
If they realy want, they can (give away of Plus-PlugIns for free as an example).
Subscription allows the Software-Houses to stop development. As they are paid anyway.
Have a look at Adobe. Their Stock-Market Price is now a few 100% above before subscription.
Where, the hell, are all the killer features they have to deliver for that?
(Name me only 3 since they stopped selling software in a fair way)
In short: There is no difference in software Business between Apple and Maxon.


Well. We will see.
I bet my …, that it will be the same as with Adobe.
Start Subscription. Stop Development.
The more I think about…
Maxon is (was) still the most userfriendly 3D software in the market.
(and the replaced help system was a big part of that)
But technical it´s years behind competition.
I can understand the need of a continuous income (which MSA was).
I can understand the need of getting new customer groups on board
(and therefore winking with a “small” price)
But in the end, I think, Maxon can´t hold it´s position in the market, when even free software comes along with state of the art features.
So Maxon will go the Macromedia Way.
Adobe will be happy eating the next company.
Think, it´s long planed and the missing 3D-Software in this ridiculous “creative” (in the way of business) cloud is Cinema.
And from this point on, development stops also.
(these cloud-junkies will be happy with everything. Regardless of they need it or if its state of the art)
Horrible, how the image of Adobe has changed, since they turned Software Business from sell to rent.
When I went through forums of all kind - Anyone hates Adobe.
It was totaly different, nearby opposite years before.
I hope this will also take effect on finances one fine day.
Only a monopolist can go this way.
If Sarbanes-Oxley is here for protction, who will protect customers against monopolists?


Why is it that once you try to explain the legal resaons behind a decision that suddenly everyone is a specialist lawyer? Sarbanes Oxley does not make it impossible to add features in between paid releases, it just makes it very difficult and expensive and has pretty harsh consequences if not followed. For multi Billion dollar companies with legal, tax and IT departments each several times bigger than Maxon over all this is not a huge effort, for us it is. Everyone realy interested in this topic can easily read up on it.
Personaly i want to see those ressources spend on pushing the development of Cinema 4D, not lining the pockets of consultants and lawyers.


So how do you explain the paucity of features that turned up in R21?

The problem is you think your customer base is stupid, Nemetschek would have the consultants and lawyers necessary because that’s a requirement of being a publicly traded company. The lawyers and consultants don’t develop code.

If you wanted to provide better value to your customers rather than the shareholders you could.

Your customers can make of this what they will and some may even be suckered in by it. But something that you can’t write off against Sarbanes Oxley is the state of C4D in comparison to competing software.

When all those new users you expect to attract to C4D with your Subscription offer are ALL going to see vanilla C4D laid bare. Without the fluid simulation, the UV mapping and modern particle system it’s a far cry from the software that created all your trade show demo reels isn’t it?

The beauty of being a Public traded company with Lawyers and Consultants is we get to see the statements so it’s going to be a very interesting couple of years to see if you can hold onto new users.


You and the 4 simple folk who liked you post clearly have no idea about business nor how a corporation like Apple works. The pricing of Hardware and Software in Apple are not linked one iota. In fact Srek by claiming it’s an accounting legal nightmare just bulldozed your claims without me needing to. If the Hardware and Software pricing were indeed linked it would be impossible to legally account for these items.

I know for a fact the ProApps team are an independent unit who have their own targets and their products have their own accounting tracks. They are employed to write software that makes a significant profit for Apple if they didn’t Apple would close down their software development.


We can only bow to your great and unmatched wisdom


Look at About of R21. They removed developer team. Probably they’re going to outsourcing forces. Like Adobe and AD. Internal beta team. Most of pro-users were moved to others(houdini, blender, ad’s products…).
For me, sign was as Aixsponza(or members of it) moved to Houdini


Infograph, what nonsense are you going on about? Srek - great guy - didn’t rubbish my claims at all. Apple doesn’t need to make a profit from software. It’s the hardware they want to gouge you on. Everyone in the world and their pet dog knows this.

Check out Apple’s music or motion graphics software - or their OS, which they used to charge for years ago and now throw out for free - and check whether it’s cheaper than similar products from competitors.

Then check the hardware they sell, and check whether it’s more expensive than what various hardware competitors sell.

Then note how both these products are made by the same company.

And then finally - certainly a tricky bit for some - ponder which of the two, hardware or software, it feels like they might be trying to earn the most profits from, now and in the future.

Far from being left with egg on my face, this analysis of mine is so bold and groundbreaking, so new and novel, and yet so hard to refute, that the greatest minds on this forum have recognised it for what it is - a concise explanation of how part of the world works today. And it is these smart, well educated, handsome and just plain likeable folk who have given a thumbs up to my earlier post. And I don’t blame them, frankly.

If you want to argue that Apple are not really trying to profit from hardware of all types, and that they’re really trying to profit from the low-cost or free software that gets bundled or sold with it, I demand further evidence.


The way late-stage capitalism develops software is first get as many people on subscriptions as possible and then when growth hits a flatline it will set about reducing costs of production. This is usually done by opening offices in India and China and offshoring development to the vastly cheaper but incredibly well educated Indian and Chinese labour forces.


This is what’s known as a strawman argument. Look it up.


Infograph - apt user name as I can imagine Dr Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker standing in front of one attributing the rising costs of hamburger production to the annual negative effects of meteorite dust from space - keep these insights into Maxon and Apple business practices coming, I can use a good laugh.


If I was one of the fine noble, hard working German software engineers at Maxon…I’d be mass-mailing my resume and running for the exit. The fudge has hit the fan in Friedrichsdorf.

As for plugin developers…time to jump on board the rising empire. You know what it is.


I think things are pretty good at MAXON, I don’t think any dev will be leaving.

As for us plugin developers, if your suggesting we go to blender then that won’t happen. If you make a plugin for blender you have to open source all your code or go to the effort of creating a special bridge between your code and blender. So it’s a no from me at least.


I’m no anti-capitalist but am entirely anti this crony neoliberal form of capitalism that sees people as resources to pillage and extract wealth from or as a faceless unit of work.

I have a close family friend who is a contract software developer who works for many London banks. It has been his job to oversee the outsourcing of development jobs to India to the point he is the only UK developer. Whole teams of UK developers have been replaced by Indian developers. The neoliberal elite hate Western salaries and working conditions it’s a business cost they’d rather not pay as they’d prefer to pocket it themselves.

Not only am I attracted to Blender because of the great feature set and pace of development but I find the whole ethos of what Ton wants Blender to stand for so completely refreshing and worth supporting to the fullest extent.

*Before anyone tries to suggest otherwise, I fully support Chinese, Indian or whoever taking advantage of opportunities handed to them on a plate. Who wouldn’t?


The recent investment by the likes of Epic, Ubisoft ad Nvidia has certainly made me look at Blender differently (looking forward to 2.8.1). Maxon’s current missteps couldn’t be less well timed.


Blender is attracting huge amounts of investment one gets the sense that there is huge momentum building and opportunities will be enormous. I also see numerous studios, game and animation, switching to Blender. This last week nVidia became a sponsor which means two more full time developers can be hired.

I don’t see much evidence of piracy in the Blender community, but I do see several Addon developers making a considerable income developing stand out tools. The GPL license and having to open source ones code is no impediment to their business. I think you’re missing a trick if you write off the Blender market because of the GPL.


The one where nobody pays for anything or the hyper expensive one at $875 a month plus tax?