Blender free, why?

#1

Ok, this is not really a CG question, but more of a business question I guess.
I am just confused… why is Blender free?? I mean there still must be a huge development team for that software, and through its last few releases… seems like it’s coming closer and closer to high-end packages like max, maya and lightwave??
So anyone know what might be their business strategy?

#2

You should take a look at Blender’s site. This question is asked and answered.

Why is Blender free?

Blender was originally developed as in-house 3D software by the Dutch animation studio NeoGeo. As a spin-off of NeoGeo, co-founder Ton Roosendaal founded a new company called Not a Number to market and develop Blender, while making Blender available to anyone via the internet. Sadly, NaN’s ambitions and opportunities didn’t match the company’s capabilities and the market realities of the time, and after a turbulent corporate history, Not a Number was shut down in October 2001. (Read more about Blender’s history here)

In 2002, Ton Roosendaal started the non-profit Blender Foundation with the goal of resurrecting Blender as an open source software project. A deal was reached with the company’s investors to initiate a fund-raising campaign to buy back the rights to Blender, at a cost of �100,000. Thanks to an enthusiastic group of volunteers including several ex-NaN employees, along with donations from thousands of loyal Blender supporters, the �100,000 target was reached in seven short weeks. Blender was then freely released to the world under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

Not sure this answers your question. However, the reason why Blender is likely still free IS to promote this idea of an open source alternative to the commercial apps. The Blender Foundation seems to take in some money, afaik, from training and short film DVD sales. Not sure that adds up to much, but the community is more than passionate enough to keep this project going.

#3

Hi,

the reason it is free is that when NaN went bankrupt during the dot com bust, the CEO of NaN/lead developer (Ton Roosendaal) of Blender negotiated with the shareholders to sell the software to the community for a lump sum of 100k euros with Blender to be licensed under the GPL.  Since this was more than would be raised in bankruptcy hearing it was agreed upon.  After its release individuals began to contribute to it because they wanted/needed 3D software and couldn't afford other packages, or they were idealogically inclined to use open source.

The capabilities have steadily grown to where now it is competitive for most of its tools with other 3D packages as you note above.

Due to the GPL license it will always remain free, although in the future you will likely be able to buy support contracts etc. in order to speed the rate of development.

Currently the Blender Foundation sells training materials (books, training DVDs) and does open content movie and game projects.

LetterRip
#4

The Blender Foundation also cannot sell Blender as a Non-Profit Organization that offers Software. But they can get income from donations, T-Shirt Sales, and the sales of their DVD’s and books.

I think Non-Profit Organizations are actually allowed some kind of “profit” but it is capped I believe and has to be used in a certain way. Ton Roosendaal I believe lives off a “salary” or pay allowance from Blender Foundation’s income.

#5

CGIPadawan,

Blender Foundation is based out of the Netherlands, and while a public benefit corporation in Netherlands is similar they have different laws and rules they must abide by. Also there are actually two entities - the Blender Foundation which owns the copyright, trademark, etc. and the Blender Institute which licenses the trademark, etc. and is hired by the Foundation to do things. Think ‘Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation’.

LetterRip

#6

I’m actually very interested in Blender, and as far as it being free, also look at Linux distrobution as well as other Open Source projects that are on a large scale. Open source really is the future of computing, it’s just not ready for mass consumption, but it gets closer every year. I’m impressed with what Blender is capable of. However, I am hoping someone with the time and know-how completely re-invisions the interface, because while I’m sure it’s very familiar to those who spend most of their time in it, it seems needlessly and radically different than many major CG packages, which is only a barrier to entry for many with existing 3D experience. Being open source, it should be a relatively easy task.

#7

Jettatore,

I’m impressed with what Blender is capable of. However, I am hoping someone with the time and know-how completely re-invisions the interface, because while I’m sure it’s very familiar to those who spend most of their time in it, it seems needlessly and radically different than many major CG packages, which is only a barrier to entry for many with existing 3D experience.

The development version of Blender (currently 2.50 alpha2) has a completely redesigned interface that is much friendlier for users coming from other packages, and it much more logically organized than previous versions, it has also been designed to allow custom mouse and keybindings so that users from other packages don’t have to relearn hotkeys as much.

Being open source, it should be a relatively easy task.

All told it will have been about one and half years of full time work by three developers to do it, plus contributions from numerous other developers, as far as ‘tasks’ rank in difficulty it was a rather enormous and difficult one.

LetterRip

#8

I have spent time time looking around 2.5 release, and I know they did a lot of hard work to get Blender to where it is. However, honestly, my thoughts on the interface feeling entirely foreign remain even with all of the updates.

#9

Heh, that has been beaten to death. The kind folks at the Blender Foundation aren’t likely to design an interface that adheres to standard interface practice.

#10

The default mouse bindings are unlikely to change if that is what you are having difficulties with :slight_smile: However before 2.50 final we will hopefully have bundled key/mouse bindings that are similar to defaults to other programs.

LetterRip

#11

Thanks for the clarification! :slight_smile:

As a Blender user myself, I await with abated breath the true release of Blender 2.50.

#12

If you are quite familiar with 3D already, and you know the names, functions and usage of common tools, tasks and work flows, then you shouldn’t be scratching your head when you come into what should be familiar territory, feeling like an utter newbie. Blender leaves me scratching my head, all too much. This however, is only a critique of the interface and nothing else. Since blender is entirely open source and the tools are working and well coded, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to create a new front end that re-organized the interface into something much more familiar to existing 3D users. This would go a long way towards getting the software adopted by more users, as well more users and interest ultimately means better development and support.

#13

Open source really is the future of computing…

No, it’s not. It’s good that some software is open source. For some, it’s good that it isn’t.

#14

I see everybody looks the direction Blender 2.5 is taking interface wise. Well not me. After using it for quite a few years I dread the day of switching to new version. It is really hard to concentrate on work when you have to look for some button somewhere.
I really like 2.49 interface. It is very economical. I can have many function right in front of me without loosing to much work area. I actually would like to see the development of other software packages with similar interface - something like Gimp, Inkscape and sound editing software but with Blenders interface and especially node system. Yeah, I know, it will never happen.

#15

Well, if you’re used to scrubbing the floors with a toothbrush, getting a mop to work with might be a daunting experience. :wink:

But jokes aside, everyobe knows the #1 reason why Blender isnt used more is because of its mind-boggling interface. It had to change.

#16

That is not true. The interface is not the reason. Boss in a large CG studio does not care if his employees have nice and easy interface. The important is quality and cost. And cost of proprietary software is not so high in comparison to the cost of salaries. So there is no incentive to change well working pipeline to a little cheaper Blender centered and develop almost from scratch new tools, which is not cheap.

#17

While it is doubtful you would get an existing company to replace their pipeline with Blender, it is certainly possible to get companies to use Blender alongside their current applications. The past four major studios I’ve worked for have all used a mix of different applications. But if the interface is too different from existing packages, it is difficult for an artist to move between them and keep up any sort of efficiency. I’ve worked with Lightwave, Modo, Maya, Houdini, and Renderman all at the same time on the same production, and their interfaces are similar enough that after a few minutes of use I re-acclimate to each app’s user interface. Blender is different enough to make this transition painful.

This is a similar reason that Hash’s Animation Master isn’t widely used along side other packages; it does things differently enough (on the technical/format side) that it just doesn’t integrate well with other packages.

When I was implementing the pipeline at DNA, I didn’t care what modeling app was used as long as it kicked out useful OBJ files at the end that I could then bring into the main pipeline. Similarly, I wouldn’t care which packages were used for animating an element as long as the correct baked mesh format was kicked out when animation was done. And I don’t care which simulation or rendering packages are used, as long as they kick out the correct image format at the end so it can be brought together in comp. There’s no reason different elements can’t be done with different packages, as long as there is some point in the pipeline that the different work can all be easily integrated back together.

(These are all personal opinions mind you… my employers may have different views.)

I hope to find some time to tinker around with Blender once the new interface is released. I’ve played with the app a little in the past, but if I can’t map my own hotkeys, I’m not interested. I have certain key mappings I like (with ideas pulled from Max, Lightwave, Maya, and other apps), and if I can’t use those keys with my muscle memory then my productivity in the app seriously suffers.

Cheers,
Michael

#18

could you please define what that means? :rolleyes:

#19

Oh, come on, MDuffy. LightWave has similar interface to Maya? The scare factor of Blenders interface comes from low industry population of Blender and its veeeery low price. Many users try to guess how good is software before they learn it so to not waste time and energy on some soft which will be unusable. So when they see its free and doesn’t take many hours to install so they think it is not so good as those expensive ones and then they think it is not worth to try. This is my story. When I first tried Blender it took me 10 minutes without reading any manual to “guess” it is unusable and not worth learning. I went to software which is used by professionals and I couldn’t say its not worth learning because others use it and if it sells for such a price so it must be state of the art. The problem is in perception. The fact that many new users prefer to pirate Max or Maya comes from their hopes at finding a job with time. But the truth is one can switch software in just a few weeks if one knows everything about 3D.

#20

I know you’re thinking that I’m talking out of my ass, and that I don’t know anything. But at my school, there is a class on this. My boss (my job is workstudy), teaches this, and the vast majority of his research involves user interfaces and 3D visualization (and combination there-of).

But to answer your question, I specifically mean the standard look most GUI programs have, especially 3D programs. Blender deviates from the usual, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I was just saying that it wasn’t a normal interface. You can’t deny that it isn’t normal, no matter how much you love the program.

That it can most certainly do! There is even a tutorial on how to map the keys in Blender 2.5 like Maya’s… somewhere.