Jump to content

C4D Feedback summary response


Hrvoje

Recommended Posts

 

This whole thing reminds me of the 2D print and design days When Quark Express was THE software package in every studio, printer shop and freelancers armoury. Quark thought they they were above everything, didn't have to listen, could charge virtually whatever they wanted. They were No 1.

Then along came InDesign, an inferior product at the time, but students jumped at it because of cost. Five years later those students were the professionals and Quark was dead in the water, never to be seen again.

​While you're quite right that Quark were notorious for not listening to or communicating with their users, the reasons they fell from grace are not entirely of their own making. Much of their demise was due to a master class in marketing from Adobe. On launch, Adobe included InDesign in the box for free with its other products so, in no time at all, there was a copy of InDesign in every studio in the land, whether the studio was interested in it or not. Adobe then started doing a lot of PR/advertising quoting how many studios were now 'using' InDesign.* How many of those studios were actually using InDesign rather than it just sitting in the box was another thing altogether. No matter, Adobe was able to foster the idea that there was a stampede of users switching from Quark to InDesign. This then became self fulfilling. I lost count of the number of studios who switched for no practical reason other than they thought that was the way the industry was going. They already had InDesign, they tried it, it worked without any great disadvantage compared to Quark and it would future-proof them, given everyone else was jumping ship. And, of course, if you interact with others in the industry, as many design houses do, you start to receive InDesign files so the very least you have to do is incorporate it into your own workflow, even if you don't switch entirely. The demise of Quark was swift - it was maybe 2 to 3 years before the tipping point was reached. And here's where the parallel is valid - Quark slept through the whole thing. By the time they woke up, the damage was irreversible.

K

* They also put a lot of effort into persuading large publishing houses to switch which helped momentum.

Link to comment
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thank you Hrvoje for your good effort, at least someone tried and as you could read, C4D users don't have their "tongue" in their pocket when it comes to express themselves.

Now let's wait and see if something will be taken into considerations ;o)

 

 

Cheers

Regis

Link to comment

​While you're quite right that Quark were notorious for not listening to or communicating with their users, the reasons they fell from grace are not entirely of their own making. Much of their demise was due to a master class in marketing from Adobe. On launch, Adobe included InDesign in the box for free with its other products so, in no time at all, there was a copy of InDesign in every studio in the land, whether the studio was interested in it or not. Adobe then started doing a lot of PR/advertising quoting how many studios were now 'using' InDesign.* How many of those studios were actually using InDesign rather than it just sitting in the box was another thing altogether. No matter, Adobe was able to foster the idea that there was a stampede of users switching from Quark to InDesign. This then became self fulfilling. I lost count of the number of studios who switched for no practical reason other than they thought that was the way the industry was going. They already had InDesign, they tried it, it worked without any great disadvantage compared to Quark and it would future-proof them, given everyone else was jumping ship. And, of course, if you interact with others in the industry, as many design houses do, you start to receive InDesign files so the very least you have to do is incorporate it into your own workflow, even if you don't switch entirely. The demise of Quark was swift - it was maybe 2 to 3 years before the tipping point was reached. And here's where the parallel is valid - Quark slept through the whole thing. By the time they woke up, the damage was irreversible.

K

* They also put a lot of effort into persuading large publishing houses to switch which helped momentum.

​Yep you are right, I do remember Quark xpress 3, darn it I'm getting old oops ;o)

And this is what happened, Adobe Indesign won… In our industry, everything is moving so fast, the words spread so quickly around the net that damages in term of image and reputation can be irreversible. Very hard the way to climb the stairs of success, but so easy to fall...

Cheers

Regis

Link to comment
 

In our industry, everything is moving so fast, the words spread so quickly around the net that damages in term of image and reputation can be irreversible. Very hard the way to climb the stairs of success, but so easy to fall...

​That's a very pertinent point. At the time of Quark's decline bad word on the net was practically non existent, certainly nothing like the force it is today. And yet it still dropped like stone. Today things are more precarious that they've ever been.

K

 

Link to comment

​While you're quite right that Quark were notorious for not listening to or communicating with their users, the reasons they fell from grace are not entirely of their own making. Much of their demise was due to a master class in marketing from Adobe. On launch, Adobe included InDesign in the box for free with its other products so, in no time at all, there was a copy of InDesign in every studio in the land, whether the studio was interested in it or not. Adobe then started doing a lot of PR/advertising quoting how many studios were now 'using' InDesign.* How many of those studios were actually using InDesign rather than it just sitting in the box was another thing altogether. No matter, Adobe was able to foster the idea that there was a stampede of users switching from Quark to InDesign. This then became self fulfilling. I lost count of the number of studios who switched for no practical reason other than they thought that was the way the industry was going. They already had InDesign, they tried it, it worked without any great disadvantage compared to Quark and it would future-proof them, given everyone else was jumping ship. And, of course, if you interact with others in the industry, as many design houses do, you start to receive InDesign files so the very least you have to do is incorporate it into your own workflow, even if you don't switch entirely. The demise of Quark was swift - it was maybe 2 to 3 years before the tipping point was reached. And here's where the parallel is valid - Quark slept through the whole thing. By the time they woke up, the damage was irreversible.

K

* They also put a lot of effort into persuading large publishing houses to switch which helped momentum.

The Indesign success was a conjunction of several things. Just to be included in the box with other best sellers is one reason but it's not enough, far from it. Look at Pagemaker, Golive or even Premiere (before Final Cut X), they were unable to compete despite Adobe marketing.

First, Indesign was truly powerful and innovative, it introduced a bunch of features never saw before. Secondly, the arrogance of Quark and the immobilism QuarXpress which become rapidly outdated, till now it just catches features Indesign has since the very beginning. Third, the rise of the pdf format in printshop, this point was very important as printers were very conservative (at least in Europe) and a lot accepted nothing but Xpress files because of their workflow. And last it's true, the Creative Suite has given the final blow.

The funny thing is that Indesign seems now to be the fifth wheel on the Adobe wagon, its development comes close to a stand-still since several releases because of the lack of any competition. So could history repeat itself? Who knows...

Link to comment

 Thanks for sending us the Feedback Hrvoje.

Thanks for your involvement Hrvoje, truly. But at least that MAXON was completely unaware about their users requests until now there are nothing new of what users already asked for years.

​I have to chime in here. I have no idea why you think that MAXON is completely unaware about their users requests? We (= MAXON Productmanagers) might normally don't post in forum, but we read them. And forums are not the only place where we get feedback. We visit trade shows like NAB, Siggraph, IBC, GDC, ..., we visit several Customers all over the world, we collect Feedback from our Distributors, Betatesters, MAXON Employees, we read forums, we get feedback via the Web Feedback Form, customers send us Emails, we see what is going on in the market and much more. All this was resulting in about 9000 feature requests last year alone. You may understand that we can't include all of those. Feature requests are a very important part during our planing phase, but not the only one. There are many factors that have to be taken into account and this sometime means, that we can't put a feature onto the roadmap, even if everyone is asking for it. We then will reconsider that feature later, checking if the circumstances changed.

Chao

Bernd

Link to comment

Welcome to the cafe Bernd. Bernd Lutz folks is one of Maxon's product managers.

As I've said before folks, Maxon were well aware of users requests for stuff like UV / Bodypaint enhancements, faster viewport etc. If members here interpreted the survey as the only survey to find out what people thought about Cinema 4D then they were wrong. Maxon have run surveys before and officially on their own web site. I recall filling them in a few times. Perhaps the only useful thing the survey highlighted was Maxon is perceived as having a communication issue with users. In my opinion they do have a problem with communication and dialog needs to be two ways and they need to be talking to us in the various social media platforms and not just listening. Getting their product manager to make a post in what's arguably the largest Cinema 4D forum is a positive start.

Rest assured that Beta testers over the years have been very vocal in what they wanted to see fixed and upgraded.

Nigel

Link to comment

 Thanks for sending us the Feedback Hrvoje.

​I have to chime in here. I have no idea why you think that MAXON is completely unaware about their users requests?

​Surely that's obvious - users have watched MAXON spend its finite resources implementing headline grabbers such as sculpting while neglecting essential production tools such as Body Paint. I don't recall anyone in the endless feature request/new release speculation threads at the Cafe asking for sculpting (not to mention that for anything other than casual sculpting most will reach for zbrush), yet the neglect of Body Paint has been a recurring theme (as it surely must have been elsewhere).This is just one example.

Whatever the reality of the MAXON feedback gathering effort, there remains a perception that users are being ignored. This, in itself, is an indication that something, somewhere is broken. And, while your appearance here is most welcome (let it be the first of many), to start your first post with "I have no idea why..." might only serve to reinforce that perception. Most of us know you'll be collecting feedback from one source or another - for instance, we're all aware that you have beta testers. We're just wondering what you're doing with it.

On the communications front, the very fact that it took the departure of 3DKiwi to spur you into putting in an appearance here speaks volumes in itself.

Link to comment

 Thanks for sending us the Feedback Hrvoje.

​I have to chime in here. I have no idea why you think that MAXON is completely unaware about their users requests? We (= MAXON Productmanagers) might normally don't post in forum, but we read them. And forums are not the only place where we get feedback. We visit trade shows like NAB, Siggraph, IBC, GDC, ..., we visit several Customers all over the world, we collect Feedback from our Distributors, Betatesters, MAXON Employees, we read forums, we get feedback via the Web Feedback Form, customers send us Emails, we see what is going on in the market and much more. All this was resulting in about 9000 feature requests last year alone. You may understand that we can't include all of those. Feature requests are a very important part during our planing phase, but not the only one. There are many factors that have to be taken into account and this sometime means, that we can't put a feature onto the roadmap, even if everyone is asking for it. We then will reconsider that feature later, checking if the circumstances changed.

Chao

Bernd

​With all that feedback from so many disparate sources I wonder how it is possible for you/MAXON to ignore the object handling performance, BodyPaint, Xpresso/TP and Pyrocluster for so long?

Presumably your 9000 feature requests are from people who want amateur level Motion Tracking than long standing issues fixed? Personally I think it's too late for BodyPaint, I've made other arrangements with 3rd party software and I suspect most other serious users have too. Why not just come out and say you're not actively developing it anymore?

I along with many here use C4D everyday and everyday I'm reminded of the areas of C4D that are tired and in dire need of updating but your/MAXON's choice of updates that you've been bringing don't seem to match with my usage and experience. What the feedback has shown is I'm not alone and the top 5 Cons are pretty much in alignment, so you say,

 I have no idea why you think that MAXON is completely unaware about their users requests?well maybe this feedback data will show you've been following the wrong requests.When you decide to bring a Motion Tracker to C4D over and above long standing issues people might begin to look at the competition and think, wow look at Houdini's finite elementfeatures or look at 3D Coat's PBR viewport and painting etc etc and begin to think, well if MAXON thinks Motion tracking is important then maybe I should begin to think about moving to another application that has the features and performance I want. I'm invested in C4D to the tune of thousands of £s and a similar number of man hours I wantto remain working with C4D as there's so much to like but if I can't be confident that MAXONis going in the right direction then it's going to be difficult to continue with that investment.There is not only an issue with the direction but the speed of development, I think there is acompelling argument to pick up the speed and deliver much more in your yearly upgrades for the money.

Link to comment

​I have to chime in here. I have no idea why you think that MAXON is completely unaware about their users requests? 

Hi,

I think there is a misunderstanding due to a linguistic error of my own and you do well to correct me, sorry for my english. I rather wanted to say unless (instead of "At least that") MAXON is completely unaware. In fact it's quite the reverse and I know you will learn nothing new in those feedbacks users already ask for years.

That said if you confirm you listen your users, it seems obvious there is a priority issue at MAXON about what users need first, combined with a lack of communication.

Thank you for your response anyway,  I nearly feel honoured ;-)

Ed.

EDIT

In other words, ok you are fully aware so what are you waiting for? 

Link to comment

This topic which is now spread over multiple threads and has gone on for a very very long time (longer than I've owned Studio) is downright weird. Is it possibly a linguistic problem? In English, when we say something like I'm fully aware of your concerns it generally implies the intention to act on those concerns, to respond to them in some fashion. Now we get one individual after another from MAXON insisting that users complaints are being heard and that MAXON takes them seriously but without any indication that MAXON is doing anything whatsoever to address the complaints. Maybe it's a difference between German and English. I'm not sure, but it makes no sense to look at that survey and see the same list of Cons repeated over and over again and then come on to the forum and express indignation at the idea that MAXON is not listening without explaining what, if anything, MAXON is doing to address these issues.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer if we didn't hear more from MAXON along these lines. What's the point? It's the same thing repeated over and over again. 

Link to comment
  • 3DKiwi unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community