Houdini Indie

[syme]

Given the endless work in progress nature of software I much prefer the 'rental' model over the perpetual license for one particular revision model with maintenance and upgrades costing an extra fee.

 

 

 

What software do you rent?

 

 If you really want to own software in the same way other artists own their tools, you need to write it yourself or purchase the source code and the rights. Even open source software isn't 'owned' in the traditional use of the word.

 

 

 

I don't agree with that philosophy. Just because I don't want to rent software doesn't mean I have to then purchase Visual Studio and spend the time and effort to write the software myself, nor does it make sense to think people can buy the Houdini source code.

 

Point is I don't like the idea of renting software and I don't rent any software.  I want to be able to purchase software at the level it is, use it for as long as I want to and upgrade to a new version whenever I feel it's right to do so.

 

I purchased Apprentice HD11 because it had a perpetual license versus a yearly pay or lose it.  I go back to it every so often to learn more and use in personal projects on my own time frame.   Would I pay $300 a year to do that?  No, I didn't pay $99 a year for Apprentice HD12/13.  If the HD license for 12/13 were perpetual, I would have purchased them...I'm simply not going to rent software. If for whatever reasons I wanted to skip 12 for 13 or skip 13 for 14, I want to have that option WITHOUT losing my ability to use what I already bought.

Edited August 8, 2014 by syme

[AaronAb]

I rent plenty of software, the adobe stuff which has lately turned out to be a better value than I expected, UE4, Maya on occasion and now Houdini Indie, and in the past I have even leased computers. Renting is nothing new and there are entire businesses that exist to facilitate the renting and leasing of expensive capital resources for lots of different industries.

 

 

 

I don't agree with that philosophy. Just because I don't want to rent software doesn't mean I have to then purchase Visual Studio and spend the time and effort to write the software myself, nor does it make sense to think people can buy the Houdini source code.

 

 Well the legal reality is Houdini is the property of Side Effects software and we just license it. The same goes for every other piece of software out there. If you want to own it in the same way you own the other things you drew analogy to, you need to develop it yourself or acquire the legal rights to it.

 

What they offering with Indie is a huge value, getting software of this caliber and with this level of support at this price is amazing. Unlike apprentice HD you can use Indie commercially, so the software license paying for itself is more than possible.

 

 I have to admit I really don't get the resistance to software rentals/subscriptions. Software development is an ongoing process with ongoing costs in development and support it really does resemble a service more than a product. Software rentals give artists the chance to independently access the means of production, which is liberating.

 If you don't like the direction that professional CG software is taking  there are open source tools which may match your philosophical needs better.

[Guest tar]

 

 

.  The fact that YOU apparently can't answer the question of what software YOU rent, strongly suggests that you don't rent any software.  So, why not?  If it's Small Business 101 for everyone to simply rent everything for any reduction in cost, why do you not rent any software, why don't Carpenters, Plumbers,Mechanics, Artists of other media not all rent their tools?  There are reasons why it makes sense for other businesses to buy versus lease property for example...I was just giving my opinion as to why I thought it didn't make sense to "lease" this Indie software in scope of the details known.

 

 

I'm my opinion all purchases, for any competitive businesses are rentals or leases as they amortise / depreciate. That includes plumbers tools etc.  It is well known that corporations only lease their equipment.

 

Most smaller businesses don't lease as they are not fully aware of the fiscal advantages as they do not calculate all the expenses properly.  They think ownership is the correct way to reduce running expenses, which is incorrect. 

[syme]

I rent plenty of software, the adobe stuff which has lately turned out to be a better value than I expected, UE4, Maya on occasion and now Houdini Indie

 

 

Adobe, you have no choice now.  UE4?  I have that and guess what, when you cancel the subscription, you don't lose the use of the version you have. That's the option SESI should take with the previous Apprentice HD and now Houdini Indie.  You rent Maya LT?  $50 a month?  Hopefully you will drop that and stick with Houdini Indie at what amounts to $24.83 a month, a much better option in my opinion.

 

Well the legal reality is Houdini is the property of Side Effects software and we just license it. The same goes for every other piece of software out there. If you want to own it in the same way you own the other things you drew analogy to, you need to develop it yourself or acquire the legal rights to it.

You are misconstruing what I mean when I say "own".  When I buy a hammer, I can use it for as long as I want and/or it lasts, I don't have to keep sending a check to the hardware store.  So, taking UE4 as an example, since you brought it up.  I purchased a subscription that gives me "ownership" of the license and use of the software for as long as I want and/or it lasts.  If I cancel the subscription, the software doesn't stop working.

 

 Software rentals give artists the chance to independently access the means of production, which is liberating.

 

 It's even more liberating to know that you don't lose the functionality of the software when you "buy" it versus renting it.

 

If you don't like the direction that professional CG software is taking  there are open source tools which may match your philosophical needs better.

 

Perhaps I will have to do that at some point if all commercial software companies go to a rent only option like adobe.  But if the subscription plans go away, I guess you will have to go to Open source then.

[syme]

I'm my opinion all purchases, for any competitive businesses are rentals or leases as they amortise / depreciate. That includes plumbers tools etc.  It is well known that corporations only lease their equipment.

 

Most smaller businesses don't lease as they are not fully aware of the fiscal advantages as they do not calculate all the expenses properly.  They think ownership is the correct way to reduce running expenses, which is incorrect.

 

 Uh, you went on about Small Business 101, not corporations.  We are talking Indie here, not major studios, so let's keep my original points in scope.

No plumber rents tools. Tools physically depreciate, software doesn't.  Corporations don't lease tools, so in your comparison, you are talking about leasing computers the software uses, not the software itself.

 

Ownership has the ability to create equity and be an asset, where renting anything can not.

 

Owning a house is a lot cheaper than renting and at the end of the day, you have equity, an asset that is transferable.  Not so with an apartment.

 

Let's simply agree to disagree.

[Guest tar]

 

 

 

Let's simply agree to disagree.

 

 

Agree! 

 

If you talk a lawyer or accountant about the fiscal and legal structures of businesses you will learn you are incorrect in almost 100% of everything you just wrote. 

[Guest mantragora]

If you talk a lawyer or accountant about the fiscal and legal structures of businesses you will learn you are incorrect in almost 100% of everything you just wrote.

[Guest tar]

krak krak!

[syme]

Agree! 

 

If you talk a lawyer or accountant about the fiscal and legal structures of businesses you will learn you are incorrect in almost 100% of everything you just wrote. 

 

You actually are not agreeing, because now you are simply making another declaration out of thin air and thinking that claim disproves my points.  It's rather childish but continue to delude yourself in thinking it's the truth. I tried to have a civil discussion with you but you have shown yourself to simply be an A hole.

 

If you ask anybody in the NBA, they will say Krak can dunk. As long as Krak declares it, it's true.

 

Edited August 8, 2014 by syme

[Guest tar]

You actually are not agreeing, because now you are simply making another declaration out of thin air and thinking that claim disproves my points.  It's rather childish but continue to delude yourself in thinking it's the truth. I tried to have a civil discussion with you but you have shown yourself to simply be an A hole.

 

 

When you can understand the difference between a 'small business 101' course and a legal structure of trading enterprise aka corporation, you 'A-hole' statement will carry a lot more weight..

[syme]

Declarations don't make a valid argument so you can't refute my points with appeals to authority, whether it be from you or all these non-sourced small business people, accountants and lawyers. I however can cite evidence of your A-holeness:

 

1.  "Small business 101."

 

2. "If you talk a lawyer or accountant about the fiscal and legal structures of businesses you will learn you are incorrect in almost 100% of everything you just wrote."

 

3. "When you can understand the difference between"

Edited August 8, 2014 by syme

[AaronAb]

 

 Uh, you went on about Small Business 101, not corporations.  We are talking Indie here, not major studios, so let's keep my original points in scope.

No plumber rents tools. Tools physically depreciate, software doesn't.  Corporations don't lease tools, so in your comparison, you are talking about leasing computers the software uses, not the software itself.

 

Ownership has the ability to create equity and be an asset, where renting anything can not.

 

Owning a house is a lot cheaper than renting and at the end of the day, you have equity, an asset that is transferable.  Not so with an apartment.

 

Let's simply agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 If you would have spent just a few seconds googling what Marty said, you would see that he is indeed correct. Corporations lease equipment all the time. There are companies that specialize in financing and arranging these leases. It takes very little effort to see that he does indeed know what he is talking about.

 

 Just one example: http://www.balboacapital.com/

 

Another thing, Indies also incorporate to protect their assets, limit liability etc. There is nothing that says you can't incorporate and still be Indie.

 

 Houdini Indie is a great deal for a lot of people, but you can't please everyone and it looks like you are one of those that won't be pleased. Sounds like the only real barrier to that though is a philosophical point of view and nothing else.

[syme]

 If you would have spent just a few seconds googling what Marty said, you would see that he is indeed correct. Corporations lease equipment all the time.

I never refuted that.  The scope of discussion was SMALL BUSINESS, Indie, not corporations.  However, I did refute that they lease tools, they don't.  "Equipment" isn't the same as a hammer, it's assembled machinery in manufacturing and the equivalent in other industries.

 

Houdini Indie is a great deal for a lot of people, but you can't please everyone and it looks like you are one of those that won't be pleased. Sounds like the only real barrier to that though is a philosophical point of view and nothing else.

I made specific and narrow crit about the Indie release.  I didn't say it wasn't great or that it wouldn't be a great deal for a lot of people.  Go back and read what I questioned.  http://forums.odforce.net/topic/20685-houdini-indie/?p=123407, there was no need for condescending remarks but that's what A-holes do.

 

Don't throw out that "can't please everyone" garbage.  Just because somebody gives a negative opinion about ONE aspect of something doesn't mean they dislike the whole thing.  You can't invalidate a person's opinion on something just because it's negative, just like you can't do the same simply because it's positive.

Edited August 8, 2014 by syme

[Guest tar]

I guess I've learnt not to talk business with Indie folk, it's like politics and religion

[syme]

When you should have learnt declarations and condescending remarks are no substitute for facts and logical arguments in a discussion.

Krak

Krak

[pclaes]

Thanks Sidefx for releasing this awesome version. 

I think following in the footsteps of unity with the $100k cap is a smart decision, it makes for a nice two punch combo with unity.

This is a nice limit to get people started towards a successful (side-)business before scaling operations and costs and upgrading to a full fx license. Seems correctly priced and capped for the indie community, considering what was before, this is an improvement for customers in my opinion.

[Guest tar]

Totally agree - for anyone doing commercial work, Indie is a no brainer.   

 

Apprentice -> Indie -> Fx > Facility is the true and only way of the vfx pro!

[SreckoM]

I never refuted that.  The scope of discussion was SMALL BUSINESS, Indie, not corporations.  However, I did refute that they lease tools, they don't.  "Equipment" isn't the same as a hammer, it's assembled machinery in manufacturing and the equivalent in other industries.

 

I made specific and narrow crit about the Indie release.  I didn't say it wasn't great or that it wouldn't be a great deal for a lot of people.  Go back and read what I questioned.  http://forums.odforce.net/topic/20685-houdini-indie/?p=123407, there was no need for condescending remarks but that's what A-holes do.

 

Don't throw out that "can't please everyone" garbage.  Just because somebody gives a negative opinion about ONE aspect of something doesn't mean they dislike the whole thing.  You can't invalidate a person's opinion on something just because it's negative, just like you can't do the same simply because it's positive.

 

 

 

So what exactly you would like?

[Guest tar]

When you search for syme on sidefx forum you'll see he's just very annoyed that the HD license isn't perpetual since H11.  

 

Put simply; the commercial benefits of the new Indie license don't benefit him, whilst for everyone else it's the best thing since sliced bread!

[danw]

It strikes me that given the fact I can lease Houdini Indie for 22 consecutive years before it passes the price that a single commercial FX license would cost me right now, it rather undermines the whole "but I won't have access to it once the license expires!" argument.

Do you think Houdini FX 13.0 will still be of much professional use in 22 years time?  I highly doubt that by 2036, I'm going to regret not having poured my capital into a license for a 22-year-old piece of graphics software that I can still use for commercial work.  Why not bank that same $4500, and use the exact same money to get every updated build for those next two decades?

If you want the same thing that Indie offers you (updated builds indefinitely), *with* the added bonus of a perpetual license (of very dubious long-term value), it would cost you around $60,000 for those same 22 years!

 

The only reason that I can see not to use Indie, is if you don't meet the license restrictions.  There really is no argument based on the value of the offer itself that remotely holds water.

The order-of-magnitude difference in value is only amplified further if you consider making use of the maximum 6-license limit.

 

The thought of a recurring $200 annual rental may deeply agrieve hobbyists, but for independant professionals who wish to work with cutting edge software, it's an absolute dream!

 

 

(Edit - I suppose the only other reason to dislike this deal is that it necessarily asks you to put your trust in a company to play fair for the coming years.  I do understand that argument (and I think it can hold up when considering some of the more ruthless corporate entities out there), but I would argue that SideFX have done nothing but build trust over the last 25 years that they have been in business, and for the moment, I see no reason why it wouldn't continue that way for the forseeable future)

Edited August 14, 2014 by danw