Autodesk acquires Solid Angle (Arnold)

[Rodney]

Autodesk has gobbled up yet another company. This time the makers of the Arnold renderer, Solid Angle.

 

Here's an interview delving into the decision to sell to Autodesk (the owner and originator of the Arnold renderer) courtesy of MIke Seymour at FXguide:

 

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/autodesk-buys-arnold-2/

 

Two primary takeaways:

- This will be the first time Autodesk has an in house high end renderer (other renderers have been licensed. Ex: Mental Ray/NVidia)

- According to the article "Rendering is certainly one of the hottest areas in 3D right now".

 

This no doubt ties in with Autodesk's longer term plans for render in the cloud.

Recent deals like the one with Google and ZYNC underscore this.

[robcat2075]

from the article:

 

...A publicly listed company cannot discuss concrete forward plans...

 

 

 

I'll note that that is not a law or anything, that's just some absurd PR BS the clueless reporter swallowed.

 

 

 

also from the article:

 

"...this image is hair - with extreme motion blur, rendered in Arnold...."

 

Hmmm... hair... motion blur... maybe we could do that with A:M already?

 

[Fuchur]

Autodesk has gobbled up yet another company. This time the makers of the Arnold renderer, Solid Angle.

 

Here's an interview delving into the decision to sell to Autodesk (the owner and originator of the Arnold renderer) courtesy of MIke Seymour at FXguide:

 

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/autodesk-buys-arnold-2/

 

Two primary takeaways:

- This will be the first time Autodesk has an in house high end renderer (other renderers have been licensed. Ex: Mental Ray/NVidia)

- According to the article "Rendering is certainly one of the hottest areas in 3D right now".

 

This no doubt ties in with Autodesk's longer term plans for render in the cloud.

Recent deals like the one with Google and ZYNC underscore this.

 

I'd say it ties in with Autodesk's plan to get rid of all possible competitors... I just don't like them for what they are nowadays...

They are close to a monopol company.

Not as bad as for instance Google (since Google is it in several very important markets and Autodesk is it only in the 3d-market. (not even in the CAD market) but still...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[detbear]

The Arnold renderer has been around for a long time. It's never been sold as a product however. I was told

that if you wanted to use it, you would simply make a request to Solid Angle stating your reasons for wanting to use it.

I hear that they were very helpful and actually allowed most legitimate requests access to Arnold.

All Major studios have been using it. Animation Mentor has even been teaching it and using it in their VFX

program since it started.

 

But now that Autodesk has it, they will probably rent it out for a whopping fee.

 

Arnold is such an impressive software that I'm sure Autodesk has been after it for a long time. Solid Angle probably

got an impressive offer. One that they obviously couldn't turn down.

 

This is concerning to me. A few years ago, a company developed a fluid simulator that was just as good as Real Flow. Then

Autodesk bought it up, never to be heard from again. Well....They may have incorporated it into their Maya viewport 2.0 fluid

stuff... I don't know.

 

I'm surprised they haven't tried to buy A:M...

[Rodney]

The Arnold renderer has been around for a long time. It's never been sold as a product however. I was told

that if you wanted to use it, you would simply make a request to Solid Angle stating your reasons for wanting to use it.

I hear that they were very helpful and actually allowed most legitimate requests access to Arnold.

 

You may want to consider the source of that information as suspect.

Somethings doesn't sound right.

According to the guy in charge himself (from the article):

 

but pricing for now remains exactly as it was. You can still buy permanent licenses - again nothing has changed.

 

 

Perhaps your source just stated Arnold wasn't sold publicly.

There is that a lot of the high dollar products in the animation industry that have no set price (more in the past... still a few nowadays). With those all prices are negotiated on a case by case basis with the company deriving a majority of their income from consultation (service and support) fees. When we see 'contact us for a quote' as the only price listed we can be reasonably sure that the price is out of range from the average person of interest. But this isn't true across the board because the company gets to determine what that person can bring to the table. That quote might consist of a trial phase an educational offering a contract to demo the product... to wear a tshirt... whatever. But the purpose behind the process is clear... the company is in business and has to manage their products and services to stay in business.

 

(If free) It would be a lot easier (for them) to say 'Arnold is still free but by invitation only' or whatever if that was the case. But instead they mention (without detailing specifics) about sales.

 

it ties in with Autodesk's plan to get rid of all possible competitors...

 

This may be true to a large extent. Businesses can be ruthless but most strategic plans don't involve removing all competitors entirely from the field as that leads to an environment/industry that cant even sustain them. There is little doubt that they want to have freedom of movement in any domain they wish to reign. The bottom line here would be that Autodesk operates at the strategic level. They are in it to win it. Companies that don't have such strategic plans may find themselves in for the short gains.

 

I'll note that that is not a law or anything, that's just some absurd PR BS the clueless reporter swallowed.

 

Not clueless but definitely biased. Mike Seymour does a good job of trying to look outward into the industry but one must remember that fxguide (and therefore Mike Seymour) has close ties with The Foundry. Most of what is reported there will come through that perspective. This is why Arnold's top dog takes extra time to reassure the articles's readers that 'nothing has changed' and that Arnold will still support other products to include Katana which is a premium product of The Foundry. In all cases bias must be considered. We tend to be biased toward A:M around here... we focus on the positive rather than the negative... same/same.

 

Personal aside: I think Mike does an excellent job reporting for fxguide and Wired magazine online about the animation industry. He may be biased but he's also a smart guy.

 

But regarding any real or potential PR BS... well, yeah... Mike Seymour is an industry spokesman; the consummate PR man. But clueless? I'd have a hard time buying that.

(Disclaimer: I don't know what laws exist in the land down under concerning publicly traded companies but it might relate to 'insider information' that lets a select few individuals (usually those with shares) in on financial deals before the public gets access... thereby raking in the profits that would otherwise go to everyone... or mitigating/transferring losses by leaving everyone else holding the bag while getting out of the game. There are certainly laws against such in the United States).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll note that that is not a law or anything, that's just some absurd PR BS the clueless reporter swallowed.

[Rodney]

Arnold is such an impressive software that I'm sure Autodesk has been after it for a long time. Solid Angle probably got an impressive offer. One that they obviously couldn't turn down

 

There is an interesting trend going on in business these days and it appears to consist in large part of targeting the human element at it's weakest point to make the sale. (In a way there is nothing new here however. It's just being done on a global scale)

 

The recent (I think classic) example of this might be of Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm.

Lucas was recently reremarried... considering the path he should take with young child in the nest... where to focus in his old age... considering his mortality... his legacy.

Disney strategically moved in and took full advantage of this and gave Lucas a timely solution to all of these needs.

 

On a lesser scale the sale of Arnold to Autodesk echos a similar sale.

(According to the article) The owners father was working well into his retirement. The owner was overworked and distracted by the business side of things... no time for his beloved R&D. The human element... mortality... waiting in the wings. Autodesk strategists stepped in with a solution that answered all of those needs.

 

It's not hard to see where things are going based on current trajectories but considerably more difficult to chart paths that constantly change.

The danger of corporations is that they don't (corporately) have the flaw of mortality flowing through their veins.

As such those that aren't similarly incorporated eventually find they aren't playing at the same game.

 

And it's all a bit like animation itself where timing is everything.

[robcat2075]

If he is knowingly passing on the PR BS that may say worse of him than if he is cluelessly passing it on.

[Rodney]

If he is knowingly passing on the PR BS that may say worse of him than if he is cluelessly passing it on.

 

Point taken. But how deeply do we want to explore this?

As the one to call BS you have certain responsibilities.

[Roger]

I have mixed feelings about Autodesk. 3D Studio 3 was the first actual 3D application I used extensively, and I have some fond memories of that time of my life but AM is going to allow me to finish my film and barring some eventuality where the software was completely unavailable, I'm sticking with it since I'm happy with what I've got.

 

However, Autodesk hasn't lowered their prices in the 20 odd years it has been since I first started fooling with 3D (has it really been that long...yikes) and I don't think they are going to lower their prices, since they've "borged" most of their competition or eliminated them completely.

Now that they are the 800 pound gorilla in both the CAD and 3D animation markets, I doubt they will. Who is really left these days? Autodesk (3DS Max, Maya), Lightwave, AM and Cinema 4D? Oh and Blender? I think Softimage got bought out by someone, not sure if that was Autodesk or someone else.

[Fuchur]

Softimage (XSI) has been bought by Autodesk and was discontinued. (I think between one to two years ago)

Left is Lightwave (but they are not in best shape...), C4d, Houdini, Blender and of course A:M.

There are specialized applications available, but all in one products are more or less rare.

 

See you
*Fuchur*

[Roger]

With commodity hardware that will run these software packages in the range of $500-$1500, I don't see how anyone can still sell a $3500 package in this day and age. Is their support really that much better? I can't imagine that being the case.

[nemyax]

Left is Lightwave (but they are not in best shape...), C4d, Houdini, Blender and of course A:M.

Well, you can't "buy up" Blender, so that one's safe. And there's also Modo, which is going quite strong.

If rumours are to be believed, Autodesk has only about 3000 current paid-for licences for Maya and about 2500 for Max. Their media and entertainment business seems to be ailing lately, what with all the greed and mismanagement.

[pixelplucker]

Trouble with companies like Adobe and Autodesk is they do try to take out the competition and people complain yet no one actively boycotts their products...

[detbear]

Perhaps your source just stated Arnold wasn't sold publicly.

There is that a lot of the high dollar products in the animation industry that have no set price (more in the past... still a few nowadays). With those all prices are negotiated on a case by case basis with the company deriving a majority of their income from consultation (service and support) fees. When we see 'contact us for a quote' as the only price listed we can be reasonably sure that the price is out of range from the average person of interest. But this isn't true across the board because the company gets to determine what that person can bring to the table. That quote might consist of a trial phase an educational offering a contract to demo the product... to wear a tshirt... whatever. But the purpose behind the process is clear... the company is in business and has to manage their products and services to stay in business.

(If free) It would be a lot easier (for them) to say 'Arnold is still free but by invitation only' or whatever if that was the case.

So what was/ is the Price then

[Rodney]

Trouble with companies like Adobe and Autodesk is they do try to take out the competition and people complain yet no one actively boycotts their products..

 

I don't know. I know a lot of folks that won't use either Adobe or Autodesk products. It is true that the primary reason they don't is price (use is costly) but still, these folks have little or no interest in using their programs. I occassionally fit into that mold myself, especially when having to open my wallet.

 

If you mean folks that constantly blog and chat and rally against the companies I'd say few do that regularly although there are some pretty vocal users of both that constantly and very publicly question every move they make and generally ascribe intent of their decision making as evil and/or incompetent.

 

With commodity hardware that will run these software packages in the range of $500-$1500, I don't see how anyone can still sell a $3500 package in this day and age.

 

Not too hard to see... you may be looking at this from a single user perspective.

One must remember that the primary customers of Adobe and Autodesk (probably moreso Autodesk) are companies and not individuals. Their business models for individuals follow a path that maximizes volume sales in such a way that they can classify those as business users too. I'm not privy to how that might roll out in the bean counters conference rooms but we could easily imagine that when modeling their sales they might consider individual cities as businesses and when sales slump in a particular city focus can turn to that 'client' and their marketing machine gets to work.

 

Consider also that when selling a high priced product you might have to work a bit harder to sell that product but if you can make one sale at the high end that might equate to thousands (hundreds?) of sales at the low end. This is why companies have volume discounts.

 

This fits in to Ken's observation that people haven't rallied against the machine in order to see better behavior from them.

 

Storytime

I come from a very small town next to a bunch of other small and very small towns; sparsely populated by farmers and their farm lands.

Every now and again the subject of Walmart moving into the area arises and these small towns resist the idea.

I'm a bit torn myself. On the one side I'd like to see Walmart move into the area because jobs are scarce and the area needs to keep young folks from moving away. There is little opportunity nor incentive to stay short of piece of mind and freedom from joining the rat race. But I also know that Wally World moving into the area would be devastating for the small businesses (at least in the short term) and many would go out of business. Ha! We're moving forward Grandad... with or wit'outcha!!! There are some really tough decision to be made on those small city counsels. I don't live near my hometown currently because, while I think they would thrive, my family (wife and daughters) would very likely leave me and move back to Japan.

 

So what to do about all this corporate progress and providing for the common good of the individual?

Is it inevitable that the little guy will be crushed under the weight and force of the massive behometh?

I confess I don't have the answers.

Maybe we should ask Martin.

[detbear]

Ahhh....I see. I stand Corrected..

 

They must have added there marketed version after I was given that info. I see their price for

nodes. Not too bad a deal for that high end rendering ability.

[Rodney]

For what Kevin refers to and to see what so-called high end renderers tend to cost here is a link:

 

https://www.solidangle.com/arnold/buy/

 

$8 a day might be a pretty good deal.* I must assume it is especially so for clients with high expectations.

A lot of things factor into evaluation and I'm not sure I have much of an opinion one way or the other (related to renderer expense).

Whether something is expensive or not directly relates to added value plus perceived value minus long term reflection minus anticipation of what is imminently to be released.

This is why some folks wait as long as they can to upgrade... maybe something will be added to the product that will make my purchasing dollars even more valuable!

As I don't have a lot of content to render I don't have much of a reference point from which to calculate value.

 

As with most renderers I'm sure much of Arnold's results follow a garbage in/garbage out train which suggests that it's important what is fed to any renderer.

Surely one of the reasons Solid Angle kept a tight reign on who used their product in the past related to the level of quality they wanted to see presented from that renderer; real and perceived value to be maintained.

How will this change as more folks gain access to Arnold that aren't able to input the quality into the renderer?

That remains to be seen.

 

Ultimately, I see this as a good (if not someone inevitable) move that will be good for rendering in general.

There is a lot of talk of CPU vs GPU and the pros and cons of each. Will Arnold move to the GPU? That seems unlikely.

While there is little doubt the gems of code will be extracted to improve other Autodesk products and services a likely scenario would be for Arnold to take it's place in the rented renderer space (ref: cloud rendering/Zync) where it can munch through pixels behind the scenes without needing to be installed on the local machine. Why does this scenario appear likely? Because Autodesk leadership is committed to moving to the cloud and such a path helps maintain and manage real value.

[Rodney]

For those of you with a high interest in rendering you will learn much from studying the workflow of other renderers and this can and will inform your use of A:M's renderer (in both positive and negative ways).

In many (most?) cases A:M can meet the needs of its users in rendering but as with other renderers what comes out of the renderer depends on what gets put in.

 

I am constantly amazed by the number of folks who see 'high end' rendering on the internet and wonder 'why can't we do that in A:M?"

In many cases... certainly not all... we can render an equivalent in A:M but it still takes knowledge and experience to set up a good rendering. This is underscored by the number of tutorials and classes (most of them paid instruction) that others put into the field to walk people carefully through the arcane steps of setting up lights and rays and bounces and backdrops and whatever else is required to ensure our results will appear on the screen as anticipated.

 

There are other aspects of chasing after the perfect renderer to consider as well.

Unless I am mistaken, Arnold is (of itself) a command line renderer that interfaces with other programs through plugins.

These other programs are generally not free and most are are not cheap. If you've purchased them you already know this.

So there is additional cost beyond the render software itself to consider in the equation.

Rendering with Arnold may only set you back $8 a day (one pricing scenario with minimum of $350*) but if you forget to include at least one seat of the software required to put a user friendly interface on top of it you've done yourself a disservice.

This also doesn't preclude the need for high quality models and additonal time dedicated to setting up the scene that will be rendered. And, don't forget, the expectation is that within any project at least YOU will want to receive some form of compensation; even if only the accolades of your friends, family and peers.

 

Now, my suggestion to the bottom feeders (that'd be most of the folks who hang with us here like you and me) is to learn everything you can from these other rendering solutions and those that tirelessly seek the perfect rendering and apply what you learn from that to what you will setup and render in A:M. If folks did this we might be further amazed at what A:M is capable of rendering.

 

Researching other renderers is certainly not a requirement. Only a suggestion. There is much to be learned in rendering.

But when doing so, I hope we can consider how best to accomplish a reasonable equivalent right here in A:M

 

*I suppose this might make $350 the base price for one image rendered out of Arnold (of any type and quality) not including cost of software used as as the preferred interface. As renderers go that's not entirely bad. Using the same factoring, A:M's cost for that first image (of any type and quality) would be $79.