Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Linux

Alias In Acquisition Talks With Private Equity Firm 156

Posted by simoniker from the sydney-goes-to-hollywood dept.
TeachingMachines writes "Alias, the makers of the venerable Maya 3D animation and effects software, have announced their possible sale to an unnamed 3rd party, described as a 'leading private equity investment firm'. Alias is currently owned by SGI, and the transaction is still considered to be tentative. I, for one, hope that SGI holds onto Alias, as in its current state it is arguably the best 3D modelling and animation suite available, and it is available for Linux. Cross your fingers..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alias In Acquisition Talks With Private Equity Firm More

Alias In Acquisition Talks With Private Equity Firm

Comments Filter:

  • History.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:30PM (#8255226)
    ...says it'll be Apple.
    • Neither Apple nor Adobe quite fit the bill as "a private equity firm" considering they are both publicly traded, or am I wrong about the definition of a private equity firm?

      What about Quark? They tried to buy Adobe a few years ago. Last I heard they were still privately held with very deep pockets.

  • Adobe? Apple? (Score:3, Informative)

    by infowants ( 751601 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:30PM (#8255234)
    Rumour has it [macrumors.com] Adobe and Apple are looking to scoop up Avid...

    • My source is that "SGI's interest in selling was motivated by Alias's user base's shift away from SGI hardware"
    • Apple seem to be trying to monopolise (yet again) the high-end Audio/Visual market.

      I am an Logic Audio user, but now Emagic has been bought out by Apple, there is hardly any chance of another Windows version being released.

  • Not just great software, but a great business too (Score:5, Informative)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:31PM (#8255243)
    I think Maya is one of the most revolutionary products in software history not just for its tech capabilities, but the way they sell it.

    To curb piracy of their full value product, they released a Personal Learn Edition [alias.com] that made all the features of the full product available, but put on a watermark that made the output useless for commercial use and encrypted the saved files so that the commerical version would not open them. Those who designed something and then sold it, however, could send their encrypted file in when they purchase their license to get it converted to a file their full version could open and output without the watermark. They also offered a $20 how-to DVD for those who wanted to learn the program with a minimal outlay of money.

    They also made what could be the most dramatic price cut in software history [alias.com], knocking their entry-level product's price from $7,500 to $1,999 and taking their high-level product from $16,000 to $7000. Clearly, they made it up on volume.

    So, not only was this a great technical program, but it became priced so that even moderately-funded producers could afford the program, and therefore made it accessable to the people who needed it. I just hope these unnamed investors don't raise the prices back to where they were...

    • Re:Not just great software, but a great business t (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stev_mccrev ( 712012 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:37PM (#8255293) Homepage

      To curb piracy of their full value product, they released a Personal Learn Edition that made all the features of the full product available

      While I think the reasoning behing the Personal Learning Edition was great, they implemented it poorly.

      I developed an interest in 3D during uni, and explored 3Dsmax, lightwave, etc.
      I was excited when I saw the PLE, so I grabbed it with the intention of learning.

      No such luck.

      The watermark on any finished product is a fine idea, but they place a huge watermark (and not exactly a subtle, transparent one) across the entire modelling view, which makes using the product for longer than about 20 minutes impossible unless you want a spliting headache.

      This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.

      • The watermark on any finished product is a fine idea, but they place a huge watermark (and not exactly a subtle, transparent one) across the entire modelling view, which makes using the product for longer than about 20 minutes impossible unless you want a spliting headache.

        Exactly. The watermark makes the LEARNING edition completely worthless. I can't even play with lighting or get a feel of how to use the textures cause the renders are so ruined by the watermark. I've been stupid enough to buy it tw

      • This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.

        Being that Maya Complete is THOUSANDS less than any non-academic version of 3D Studio MAX, and about the same as the academic version, what made you choose 3dsmax?

        Is it the fact that 3dsmax is one of the most widely pirated 3D applications, and therefore more available (and cheaper)?

        The personal learning edition is intended for kids who want to make models for Quake and Half-Life. Anyone who will consi
        • Good guess, except that, since the files are stored in an encrypted format, you can't export anything to Quake or Half-Life. As a professional who has used Softimage and LightWave for years now, I found the implementation of Maya PLE pathetic. Marketing paranoia ruined what would have otherwise been a great idea.

          If your file format is encrypted and you have a big, fat watermark on everything else, why on earth do you have to shove it in your (potential) customer's face that they have not, in fact, plunke
        • maya complete - $2000
          maya unlimited - $7000
          3ds max - $3500
          character studio - $1000

          maya complete doesn't have all of the features of 3ds max. in order to get it all, you need to get maya unlimited, which is thousands more than max, even if you add in character studio. also, they have different strengths, weaknesses and workflows. people should get whatever suits them. any person who prefers one program can point out the feature their package has or what's lacking in another.

          if someone's going to pirate
    • Actually, I think Softimage's XSI is cooler in the 3.x iteration than Maya. I like the interface better, and they have a free EXP version (for Linux too! PLE is only Windows and Mac) that has fewer restrictions than PLE. Many people think its more powerful in certain areas, especially subdivision surfaces, than Maya.

      • Re:Not just great software, but a great business t (Score:4, Interesting)

        by visgoth ( 613861 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:33PM (#8255597)
        Many people think its more powerful in certain areas, especially subdivision surfaces, than Maya.

        As someone who uses xsi professionally I can vouch for the sheer speed of the "subdivision surfaces" in xsi. However, it should be clarified that the subdees in xsi are polygons that are rounded with the either the catmull-clark, or the doo-sabin algorithms. Maya has both poly rounding and "real" heirarchial subdees, which are kinda neat. Unfortunately for maya, they're unbelieveably slow when interacting. In xsi I can take a 30k triangle base mesh and increase the subdiv count by 2 steps, which generates roughly 450k highres. Moving points around is quite quick, whereas the same mesh loaded up in maya is quite slow to interact with.

    • While it seems ridiculous in light of the more recent pricing, the big price drop for Maya was around 1999, when it dropped from $10,000 a module to $2000. It has/had five modules for a total of $50,000 for one seat of the full Maya software. Support contracts were around $4000 a year. When it dropped to a grand total of $10K for the whole deal, we thought the world had come to an end. I know people who paid the $50,000. Now it's $7000. Oi.

      I do find it funny that everyone starts assuming that Apple is

      • With revenue just about tapped out, R&D is slowing ( a la Maya 5).

        Alias's revenue in 2003 was more than in the previous two years combined. And profits in 2003 were equal to the previous two years combined.

        So in spite of their revenue stream being "just about tapped out", they seem to be raking in more money than ever.

  • Not when they force you to put an ass-ugly watermark on every single frame of your movie unless you pay them for the retail version.

    I'd rather some "private investment firm" put the whole thing under a straightforward license instead of pussyfooting around the whole OSS issue.

    • Re:Maya ain't free (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WiKKeSH ( 543962 )
      it is under a starightfoward license.
      their free version (as in cost) is closed, but free (as in cost).
      their commercial version is closed, but it will cost you.

      the only difference is that the free version places a watermark on the finished product.

      noone's "pussyfooting around the whole oss issue". this clearly has nothing to do with open source software.
    • put the whole thing under a straightforward license instead of pussyfooting around the whole OSS issue

      I don't know where you got the impression that Maya is, or will ever be, remotely open source. It is thoroughly proprietary, right down to the FlexLM node locking. Your choice of subject line certainly befits your handle.

      Maya (along with LightWave) has dropped in price tremendously, bringing industrial strength software within the reach of so-called prosumers. At the very low end, Maya PLE appeals to th

    • Re:Maya ain't free (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kidgenius ( 704962 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:13PM (#8255490)
      pussyfooting around the whole OSS issue How the hell is Maya "pussyfooting" around OSS? It isnt' OSS. MatLAB makes a linux version that you can only buy. B/c they are closed source and making software for linux means they are pussyfooting around something? Just b/c someone makes software for an OSS OS (gnu/linux) does not mean that they have to give their software out for free.

  • Better Apart from the Sinking SGI Ship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaRat ( 678130 ) * on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:32PM (#8255255)
    It's better if Alias separated itself from the sinking ship that is SGI. SGI is really losing its ability to hold onto any market share very quickly, and it's better that Alias avoids getting sucked down with SGI in an implosion.
    • Alias hasn't made much sense for SGI since PC's and Mac's became equal to or better than SGI graphics workstations. I'm willing to bet that over 80% of Alias sales are to customers using Mac's and PC's, not SGI systems. I'm just happy this is making the stock go up. I've got a lot of shares left from when they layed me off a year ago that might actually be worth some money now!
    • I just visited their website. I wanted to see if you were wrong. These are my thoughts on a quick browsing looking for a meaty workstation.

      They have beautiful workstations. Admittedly my only use of IRIX has been on Computones or NAS* boxes.

      They did not have prices on the site. That means i cannot afford it if i have to ask. Maybe the Saudi Arabia linux club can, I cannot.

      They obviously cater to a niche of people I never get to meet. I see more people with a need to run SUN machines than SGI.
      • They have beautiful workstations. Admittedly my only use of IRIX has been on Computones or NAS* boxes.They did not have prices on the site. That means i cannot afford it if i have to ask. Maybe the Saudi Arabia linux club can, I cannot.

        I actually replaced a $40k SGI Octane with a loaded dual G5 for $4500. The service contract on the SGI alone would allow me to purchase a Powerbook every year for what that was running me. Yeah, I switched.

  • An apple a day... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ryanw ( 131814 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:34PM (#8255271)
    There were rumors [appleinsider.com] of apple buying 3dStudio back in December 2003. I couldn't see that happen because there is no current OSX Port. For apple to add that software to their Pro apps it would take quite a bit of development before being able to add that feather to their cap. That rumor must have confused 3dstudio with Alias Maya???
    • Sounds difficult, because AutoDesk (owners of 3DS) is worth more than a third as much as apple [yahoo.com], and I don't they want to let it go.
    • First of all, 3d studio max is dead. Discreet laid off the entire team last week. It took a while but the Canadians finally got rid of whatever was left of the American portion of Discreet (what they inherited from Autodesk's multimedia division when they were aquired by Autodesk).

      Second, it is utterly absurd the notion of Apple being interested in max given that it would be pretty close to impossible to port. The fact Autodesk is bigger (or not) is of little relevance. In one swoop, they discarded the en

      • 3D studio Max is NOT dead, it's not even sick.
        They only got rid of the Discreet combustion team, and put a new team in its place.

        • Buzzz.... wrong. The entire team. Out the door. This is from serious sources (I was laid off a short while back as well and I've been bumping into them here and there). max no more. First combustion, then cleaner, now max. Put a new team in its place? Now... does that make any sense? Or is it just what they want you to know?
          • Buzzz.... wrong.
            Please provide a credible source.

            This is from serious sources
            No, it's hearsay from a Slashdot poster. If the sources are truly "serious" and not just, "a friend overheard a guy in the latte line last week talking about a discussion he had in a noisy bar with this random guy that sat down next to him", then please cite the sources.

            (I was laid off a short while back as well...)
            Were you laid off from Discreet? If so, what was your job capacity there? Were you in any position, or worki

  • So in short ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:36PM (#8255283)
    their possible sale to an unnamed 3rd party, described as a 'leading private equity investment firm'. Alias is currently owned by SGI, and the transaction is still considered to be tentative ... SGI announced that they don't know if they'll sell Maya to somebody.

  • buy sgi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moojin ( 124799 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:40PM (#8255311)
    buy sgi stock, it is very cheap. sgi may be selling alias because they need the cash. lately, their stock price has been rising and should it rise some more they may reconsider. (don't take stock buying advice from me, IANA Stock Broker.)

    no, i don't work for them, but i used to use their computers in 1998 and 1999. when i left that job, i borrowed the manual to the O2.

    i bought some of their stock. when i tell people about it, i say that it is was an emotional buy.

    andrew

    • Re:buy sgi (Score:2, Insightful)

      by modecx ( 130548 )
      SGI in their hayday was a very cool company. That's what the sad part about it is. They've given so much to the computer industry that if there were to be saints of the computer world, SGI would surely be the biggest patron saint.

      I realized they were going down some time in 1998. This realization came when a spokesman for DeVry came to my high school. Apparently, SGI had partnered with them. The people in their introductional video were clearly idiots... These were the people that wanted to work in I

    • The time to do it was when they were (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug.opengeek@org> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:53AM (#8255781) Homepage Journal
      about $0.38 per share. Almost took out a loan. Friend talked me out of it. Rose to nearly $4.00 a short while later..

      I would be inclined to buy some anyway today. Bishop has a keen eye on SGIs core market:

      Technical computing

      IRIX is very good for this, MIPS is holding it back though. Their efforts on Linux will pay off, in my opinion. Linux is reaching the point where it will be possible to build an IRIX like system. Heck, you can today --it is only going to get easier.

      SGI is one of the few companies to make a deal with Microsoft while still around to tell about it. (Legal won't, but many SGI folks will, if you catch them in the right mood.)

      If that deal hadn't been the death of their 320 / 540 series machines, we would have great Linux technical workstations right now. I am not saying you cannot get a nice Linux workstation, but the SGI plan combined their engineering with custom Linux tweaks that would have made for nice boxes.

      320/540 machines could support up to about 800Mb texture memory in a UMA design. Heavy texture models perform best in this configuration, because of the low latency bandwidth it provides to the graphics sub-system.

      The Linux drivers were shown at Siggraph '99, I think. Microsoft and SGI had a little tiff shortly after that. Farenheit project --it seemed at the time, win32 was poised to take over that market since it had already made quite a dent. Gates knew about all the UNIX code that had to be rewritten. Direct X got good, thanks to SGI, but not good enough to justify all that work porting to a closed, hard to administer, expensive to cluster system with little ability to script or perform multi-user.

      SGI legal scuttled the Linux drivers over win32 contract terms involving the ARC boot loader. It seems Microsoft has an interest in this that prevented SGI from providing machines with choices other than win32, or something like that. (Could never get the entire story.)

      The series was canned. Generic PC machines running tweaked nVidia hardware replaced them to keep existing customers trying to leverage Linux happy. Their hardware had considerable advantages over the general purpose PC, so it only made sense for SGI to move away from the whole thing.

      Today we see the Altix series machines along with high end SGI hardware on the desktop. The Altix, and high-end IRIX hardware is well positioned, while IRIX struggles at the workstation level. Linux is capturing applications far better than IRIX ever did.

      (Which shows just how hard they got fucked over the Microsoft deal.)

      Recovering from that and other blunders has taken a while. The new products are hitting their targets nicely. It is tough for them now, being late in the game. An SGI Linux workstation likely will not happen right away because of this. (We would have had them in '01, otherwise.)

      SGI systems engineering is top notch, I hope they continue to improve and continue to develop their high bandwidth, single image designs. (They are the best, if you want a single OS image instead of a cluster.)

      As for Alias, the organization beats to a different drum. The Maya side of things has been handled well. Can't say the same for their Studio product. Still high priced and no Linux --yet.

      Maya is a hit in the entertainment business for obvious reasons. Their other product, Studio struggles in a niche status. Good for high end product design and styling, but poor at more mainstream applications. Traditional MCAD packages continue to consume many new potential Studio sales, while also chipping away at the established base of users.

      I would not count the Linux version of Maya out. Alias knows better than that. There is no way the Studios are going to be pried back to win32. Going down that road proved expensive and problematic. Linux is the perfect fit. Alias would not be where they are today without having done that port.

      OSS lets them (the studios) keep control of their tools an
      • The SGI 320 and 540 are a joke, and any real SGI person could tell you that. When did they come out? Late '98 or Early '99?

        The O2 had the same UMA design, and could address up to 1GB of texture memory, less what the OS and the apps were currently using. In 1996.

        I mean, it was hardly revolutionary in 1999. Add to that the fact that an R10k O2 (operating in 32bit mode, mind you) of the period would readily trounce the pathetic 450-550Mhz PIII that came with the 320's and 540's, while still costing less.
        • They should have kept going.

          The O2 design is good even today. For texture related tasks, the machine still performs. I own one.

          Also own a 320 series machine. To say the O2 would blow the 320 series machine away is not correct. Price / performance on the 320 machines was better than just about every other PC of the time.

          At the time the 320 series machines were released, lots of folks had the same thoughts you did regarding SGI and profit margins. Many of them wanted to continue with SGI, the 320 let
      • I would not count the Linux version of Maya out. Alias knows better than that. There is no way the Studios are going to be pried back to win32.
        They don't go back to win32.. they STAY on win32 or stay with macs.

        About maya on linux, i have one wor.. letter to say: X
        • Sure, lots of shops are running those two OSes. The bigger studios are leveraging Linux as hard as they can. They are not going to move.

          Smaller operations do not see the economy of scale, so win32 / Mac makes perfect sense. Alias knows this, which is exactly why there are three ports of Maya.

  • I, for one, hope that SGI holds onto Alias, as in its current state it is arguably the best 3D modelling and animation suite available

    First, the write-up meant Maya. Alias is the company. Back in the days, some people referred to PA as Alias.

    Second, Hello!!!! Softimage XSI?????

  • Apple is doing this! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:48PM (#8255365)
    I bet you Apple is the un named third party. This year they are going to have a HUGE presence at SIGGRAPH 04, and I bet you this is one of those reasons. Apple is looking for domintation in markets it currently has an edge in, namely music production and video production. And Apple seems to be doing this job very well. Coupled with Renderman for the G5, and Shake + Final Cut Pro + Maya + Renderman + Logic Pro, and the mac does everything you need for movie production

    • Re:Apple is doing this! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But since when is Apple a leading private equity investment firm?
    • Apple also has a history of CANCELLING ports for any platform other than OSX.

      This means Linux Maya goes in the trash... as does Windows and SGI Maya.

      • Re:I hope not! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KrispyKringle ( 672903 )
        It may make sense for Final Cut Pro (a product where trying to gain Windows marketshare doesn't make much sense, since the competition is reasonably stiff). It would make little sense to do this with Maya. The number of Windows and Linux users is already very high, and the Windows and Linux versions are already in production. It'd make little sense to simply cut off this marketshare, and I doubt Apple would turn their backs on the profits available, even to drive sales of Macs.
        • He's probably referring to Apple's purchase of emagic, and the subsequent drop of Logic for Windows. That sent quite a few ripples through the audio community, though to most of the people I talked to it had the effect of making them switch to mac rather than get pissed at Apple.

          There's some logic (excuse the pun) behind apple's decision there however, as Logic 6's dependance on the low-latency CoreAudio would make a feature equal windows version difficult.

        • Re:I hope not! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by prockcore ( 543967 )
          It'd make little sense to simply cut off this marketshare, and I doubt Apple would turn their backs on the profits available, even to drive sales of Macs.

          Hah! Apple already did this with Logic. The windows version of Logic was selling more copies than the Mac version, that didn't stop Apple from cutting sales in more than HALF by dropping the windows version completely.

          I have no doubt that Apple would drop Linux and Windows support for Maya in a heartbeat if they ever bought it.

      • Re:I hope not! (Score:4, Informative)

        by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:32AM (#8255665) Homepage
        Not quite. If my memory serves, with Shake they kept the SGI and Linux versions and dumped the Windows version. They also halved the price of the MacOS X version, so you could get it and a "free" fully loaded G5 for less than the cost of a copy of the software alone for the other platforms.

        I hope they do buy it. They've done amazing things with Final Cut Pro, and if they halved the price of Maya, I just might buy it even just to dabble with it.

        D

    • Re:Apple is doing this! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by presearch ( 214913 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:05PM (#8255456)
      Richard Kerris, tech diplomat extraordinaire and benefactor to the stars, was the exec at Alias
      that made the OS X port of Maya happen. He's now Apple's Senior Director of Pro Applications.

    • I didn't realize that Apple had morphed from a software/hardware/services technology company to a private equity company.

  • It's obvious who wants to buy Maya (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:51PM (#8255388)
    Pontiac of course, in a desperate effort to redesign the Aztek.

  • Great Move if it happens! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @09:57PM (#8255416)
    No offence to SGI, I really loved their products, but sadly, I think they are a sinking ship. A few years ( perhaps even just a year back ) when Alias renamed itself from Alias Wavefront to just alias, and moved prices from 7500$ per unit to like 2000$, it looked like alias was about to follow suit. For years, Maya and before that, Power Animator lead the way in 3d graphics, and they are still an industry leader.

    I think the best thing that could happen is to seperate themselves away from SGI as much as possible. This has been happenning to some degree already. If you recall a few years back, the URL used to be www.aw.sgi.com , now its www.alias.com... odd that :) It would be a shame to see Alias and their products go away should SGI go the way of the dodo ( which is a very probrable thing to happen ).

    As to the unnamed suitor, thats a bit hard to guess. Number 1... its most likely not Microsoft... they tried this game once. When NT 4 was new, they were the proud owners of SoftImage... it didnt work too well for them then... cant see them trying again. I cant picture it being Avid or Discreet, as they both already have a vested interest in a direct competitor ( SoftImage and 3d Studios Max respectively ). I cant see it being any linux company as suggested before... it just is to far from the core business of any of them, to make any sense. Their isnt a linux company I can think of, with the money to buy Alias, that has a focus on multimedia.

    In my mind, if its a big name company, that leaves just one company that it makes sense to be. Apple. Maya was recently ported to both Mac and Linux... apple is losing its luster as a media empire... and they have the money. I say if its a big name company behind the buyout, it makes the most sense to be Apple. I just pray they keep the wintel ports going, or I will be very pissed off.

    For those of you that dont know, Maya is one sweet piece of software, and a shining example of how to pioneer a user interface.
    • ...does anyone else remember when Apple bought E-Magic, makers of Logic Audio (the only true competitor of Cubase no matter what Cakewalk fanboys scream and shout), that same day E-Magic announced they were promptly dropping the wintel version of Logic. That sucked bigtime, if you were a logic user on pc, luckily I use cubase and am still happily using my expensive custom made audio machine (with nice expensive soundcard), otherwise I would have had to junk it, salvage what I could and buy a mac.

    • ... its most likely not Microsoft... they tried this game once. When NT 4 was new, they were the proud owners of SoftImage... it didnt work too well for them then... cant see them trying again.

      To the contrary, it worked great. Up until that point nobody would take 3D rendering on PCs seriously. Between licensing OpenGL and buying SoftImage, they were able to move a huge portion of the market to NT-- a market which was owned exclusively by SGI. At the time, 3D graphics cards were virtually unheard

    • What is it with Canada and these big animation software companies? Main/head offices:

      SoftImage - Montreal
      Alias Wavefront - Toronto
      Discreet - Montreal

  • Akin to MS engineering Corel's takeover? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Bullard ( 62082 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:00PM (#8255432) Homepage
    Oh Canada...? The details of this "possible" deal are scant, but something here reminds me of the Corel "takeover" last year when a venture capital firm Vector manned by former microserfs and financed by Paul Allen manoeuvered Corel's downfall by using MS's minority stake in Corel and a lot of help from Corel management, turning the former Linux supporter into a private MS-only joint.

    Although this "potential" sale wouldn't be as criminal as stealing a public company from the shareholders through inside dealings and voting fraud, the end results could be the same for end users if this is indeed another attempt by an MS-affiliated investment firm to prevent an ISV from supporting Linux. I hope I'm totally wrong here and Microsoft's business practises are not an issue here, although their success with neutralizing Corel might have encouraged them to take on companies and products that dare to support competing platforms, in this current climate of total lack of monopoly controls by US Department of (John Ashcroft's) Justice. MS did strike a deal with Disney just recently though...

  • Wouldn't surprise me if it's Apple or Microsoft. If it is there's a good chance that the Linux version will be dropped.

    It really pissed me off that Apple bought out Emagic and dropped the Windows version of Logic Audio that I've been using and have invested heavily in for years.

    Microsoft did a similar thing with SourceSafe when they purchased it from One Tree Software years ago and then dropped all but the Windows version. I believe they may have Unix clients available these days but I've swtiched to CV
    • It wouldn't likely be Microsoft.
      They owned SoftImage for a while (Alias' main competition at the time) and it didn't work out.
      • It wouldn't likely be Microsoft. They owned SoftImage for a while (Alias' main competition at the time) and it didn't work out.

        Actually, Microsoft got exactly what they wanted out of that deal. You see, at the time NOBODY did 3d in windows. That world was still dominated by SGI. Microsoft bought SoftImage and forced them to port to windows. For a long time SoftImage did nothing but porting. This has set them back by a lot, and cost them a lot of market share. But Microsoft didn't care. They proved that 3d

    • Maya on Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) <doug.opengeek@org> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:02AM (#8255817) Homepage Journal
      will stay.

      The big studios want it too much. Using Maya on OS X is as sweet, or sweeter than either win32 or Linux, but I think Linux will scale farther for back end tasks, at a lower cost, than OS X ever will.

      Scaling is one of the top drivers for the big boys in this game. Linux has both win32 and OS X beat in the price / performance area cold.

      Besides a lot of what the studios want is custom. SGI used to offer this under NDA, but it cost a lot. With Linux, they can do it far cheaper, on their time schedule, and share the bits that benefit everyone without having to repurchase and pay support on their own tech!

  • new overlords... (Score:3, Funny)

    by monkeyboy87 ( 619098 ) on Wednesday February 11, 2004 @10:10PM (#8255474)
    > I, for one, hope that SGI holds onto Alias,

    I, for one, will welcome Alias' new overlords....

  • Why no free version for Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I would like to try the software but they still won't release a low end demo copy for Linux. They've had Windows versions for a long while.

    What's up with that?

  • Bah (Score:1)

    by iswm ( 727826 )
    ...and it is available for Linux.

    Too bad the free personal version isn't. I was really hoping to try it out without having to dish out a few thousand bucks.
  • No offense to the Maya users in the crowd....but Newtek themselves could buy it, and I'd still prefer Lightwave. There's something to be said for the same amount of power, available through an interface you don't NEED to train on. ^_^
    • Hey, I never had manuals for Maya. I installed it and started trying to do some stuff (having had experience with Rhinoceros and Bryce, I know the basics of modelling and simple scenebuilding [respectively]). I haven't had to read a tutorial yet (though I will admit to consulting the online docs a few times for the Fur plugin as applied to Polygon models), and I've made my way through modelling, animation (IK/FK skeletions), dynamics (particle effects and solid/rigid body), and rendering using nothing but c
    • Lightwave and a reference to a good interface do not belong in the same statement. I realize and appreciate the power of lightwave, but christ, its interface is horrid. But then again i started 3D on Alias StudioTools 7years ago, so Maya was an easy transition. I just cant figure Lightwave out.

  • Umm, StudioTools people (Score:4, Informative)

    by paradesign ( 561561 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:43AM (#8255722) Homepage
    Alias is also the maker of the premier design CAD package, StudioTools. It is used be nearly every automotive design center as well as most product studios. In the world of industrial design, it is god-like.

    see here [alias.com]

    I think that with Apple's 64bit systems, they can give the likes of Sun and SGI a run for their money, hardware wise. StudioTools does run on windows x86, just not as well. Both Maya (then Power Animator) and StudioTools started life in IRIX, which is what made Maya such an easy port to OSX (i think it only took 2 months). Apple would love to enter the 3D workstation market and id love to see them, because StudioTools is the only program that i need to keep a wintel box around for.

    there were rumors at the end of summer that Alias was working on a StudioTools port to OSX, but i havent heard anything since.

    • Both Maya (then Power Animator) and StudioTools started life in IRIX
      No, Maya started out on the Mac. Back in the early 90's it was a 3D modelling app called "Alias Sketch!" that was Mac-only. Later it was *almost* ported to the PC before a layoff happened that canned the Windows port team.
    • I talked to Bill Buxton (chief scientist at Alias), and he basically told me that the effort it would take to port Studio to the Mac wouldn't be worth it. Considering how small Studio's market is, I don't doubt that. Just guessing here, but seeing all of the weird interface crap in Studio, I'm thinking that it'd take longer than two months to port that baby to Mac. :|

      If Apple IS the unnamed party, I hope they keep the PC version of Alias alive. BTW, my Windows box runs Studio faster than the IRIX boxes at

  • I doubt... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by canuck_wingnut ( 319719 )
    That the Linux port would get dropped, considering the mainline players running
    it on Linux... ILM - Weta and others, the pressure would be somewhat intense....
    (Unless of course it is M$ Attempting more rool da world tactics)

  • I'm going to vote Adobe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Genjurosan ( 601032 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @01:59AM (#8255808)
    While Apple is a good bet, I'm thinking Adobe. Adobe has had a MAJOR gap when it comes to 3D, and they have been trying to fill it for ages. Last SIGGRAPH Adobe and Alias were hand in hand. I had quite a few AE friends from Alias that were in the Adobe booth performing demos.

    As far as Alias goes, I used to sell Maya and Studio for 3 years. I have / had (layoffs) many friends that worked with and for Alias.

    I'm really unsure how to classify this announcement. Doug Walker and James Christopher are probably (In my opinion) some of the worst people out there. It was a real shame to see these two take the helm as president and senior VP of customer support. I saw the attitude of the people go from "happy to come in" to "OMG I hate my job" once they moved in. After many Reseller and other private Alias events, I decided that these guys only cared about one thing, the bottom line. I knew this meant that the company was becoming just like the rest. Shortly before the price drop that I knew was coming, I left.

    Also, keep in mind that when Maya 1.0 (with all the plug-ins, before unlimited) came out, it was around $100,000. The sales price of Maya dropped 93% over the past 5 years. Now that's AMAZING!

    In summary, I think SGI is selling Alias because they know that it isn't going to keep making them money due to the drop in price. Also, I think that it's pretty clear that SGI either needs to get back to their core business or they are going to lose what little they have left.

    Or... I'll go out on a limb here and say that ATI is going to purchase them.

    Either way, this is going to be interesting.
    • So there was a post below that linked to Highend3d where someone named 'bob' spoke about Alias becoming independant. I feel that this has quite a bit of potential as well. The more I think about it, the more the pieces of the puzzle come together. Every event I ever went to showed the products on every type of hardware, EXCEPT SGI. One year is was HP, the next IBM... pretty much whoever wanted to pony up the money to be the big hardware sponser.

      But for some reason, having Maya on SGI NT equipment was l
  • I hope they keep that Jennifer Garner. She's really good looking.

    She makes me feel kinda funny. Like when we used to climb the rope in gym class. * [moviequotequiz.com]

  • Dammit! I miss one episode and Lauren is part of the Covenant and tries to kill her own husband and Sydney and Vaughn get it on in a North Korean jail and somebody's trying to kill Sloane and Jack is getting it on with his ex-wife's KGB-member sister.

    Oh wait. We're not talking about the tv show?

  • ALIAS?! (Score:2, Funny)

    by mgahs ( 686653 ) *
    I can't lose my Jennifer Garner! She is teh hotness! What happened to Sydney's two missing years? AAAH!

    Oh, *that* Alias. Heh.

    P.S. Wasn't it Alias|Wavefront?

  • The Maya success story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @04:03AM (#8256237) Homepage
    Maya is one of those stories that should appear in business school textbooks. SGI acquired Alias and Wavefront, and much to the surprise of everybody, came out with a product that really was better than both. It promptly displaced Softimage|3D as the top package for film work.

    At the time, Microsoft owned Softimage. Microsoft, having achieved their goal of moving 3D graphics onto Windows, sold off Softimage to Avid. Avid was the leader in 2D editing, but was starting to feel price pressure from below and was threatened by Softimage's move into that area. So they really bought Softimage to get the Softimage 2D editing package, and didn't really know what to do with the 3D product. Avid also had the problem that they were a high-end hardware vendor in a market where the high end was about to be eaten by the low end. As a result, the new Softimage 3D product, XSI, was years late.

    So Maya took over. But it didn't help SGI sell expensive hardware. The low-end graphics boards were gaining on SGI. Maya was a software-only product, and didn't require SGI hardware. Maya is still available for Irix, but nobody buys SGI workstations to run it anymore. In fact, nobody buys SGI workstations for much of anything any more.

    So it makes sense for SGI to sell off Maya. Of course, SGI doesn't have much of a core business left ("We're a graphics company! No, we're a workstation company! No, we're a server company! No, we're a Linux company!"). Their core business is selling expensive hardware, and that's not a good business to be in.

  • It's a Management-ish Buyout (Score:4, Interesting)

    by specialcase ( 705266 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @04:58AM (#8256383)

    An Alias rep made a post regarding the sale on the Highend3D Buzz Board [highend3d.com], second post down.

    It looks like some of the Alias folks are working a deal where the investment firm will purchase the assets from SGI and then the Alias person(s) will then purchase those assets from the investment firm. The Alias folks break free of SGI and SGI gets some badly-needed cash.

    I've since confirmed this via a party who Knows Things. So no black helicopters from Cuptertino or Redmond, you conspiracy theorists :)

    Either way, they still have to figure out how to pay for R&D (or not) with a fully saturated market. We'll see.

  • The release quotes a "leading private equity" player. So its likley to go to a financial investor who believes to get a good price for it. It is likely to be sold in two to three years down the road to Apple or Adobe for a multiple of what it will cost now

  • Linux alternatives (Score:4, Informative)

    by stew77 ( 412272 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @06:14AM (#8256567)
    Good high-end alternatives that are also available on Linux are Softimage XSI [softimage.com] and Houdini [sidefx.com]. Both offer free evaluation/learning versions like Maya PLE, with the exception that they're available for Linux x86 too.

    Another interesting commercial 3D suite available for Linux is Realsoft 3D [realsoft.com], and it's a lot cheaper than Maya or the programs mentioned before.
  • My hunch says this is Apple because it would full the niche in their digital media creation software where they are as yet not present and where Apple is sorely lacking: 3D. While there are really nice alternative packages for OSX, such as Cinema 4D, I can see Apple wanting to have some control on where the market in 3D on OSX goes.

    From that standpoint, much as Apple's purchase of Logic made sense in that Apple could have a presence in pro Audio, this being Apple would really make sense.

    BUt there is somet

  • I have to wonder (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dangermaus3 ( 555390 )
    Comments have been posted over Adobe or Apple or ATI (wow think it'll have to be an A* company?) but after the San Diego SIGGraph last year, I'm wondering about nVidia as a purchaser. I saw Alias playing the buddy with several companies, but I have a feeling the nVidia is wanting to get a foothold on some of the more popular products that use their software. As far as Apple, I could maybe see it as with the port to Apple, Alias did not port the Unlimited version, but only the lower trim level Complete vers

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close