Recently, Andrew Price made this podcast on why Blender isn't taken more seriously.  I thought he made some good points and the whole subject is intriguing.  You can listen to the podcast here 

Gave me food for thought about posting more about Blender on my own web site.

blender has always been about the users and their needs

making it the new google chrome or firefox is a waste of the programmers time, blender is cool because it works out of the box and it is constantly updated

it would be better if users showed what they can do with blender in areas that are predominately professional

www.grabcad.com is a site for designers and engineers but blender is seeping in through the seams

maybe the users need to openly and shamelesly say i can do that or better for free

the foundation is a community funded program and cannot afford a web rep unless they start charging for the best software program available in the 3d world and even in the graphics realm

the users are the best form of advertising for the software and the people that make the tutorials

support them first and the rest will follow

Quoted from www.blender.org - Siggraph 2013 report by Ton.

"This year's Siggraph was a remarkable turning point for Blender though. It was the first time I really perceived Blender to be viewed as serious contender in the industry - being embraced, invited and welcome everywhere. Having consistent booth presence at Siggraph definitely helped, but especially showing Blender to be steadily growing in quality for over a decade is now paying off. We'll see what the future will bring us!"

To read the full report: Blender Siggraph 2013 Report

I haven't listened to the pod cast yet so I may be way off base or completely contradictory, but three issues pop into me head on the topic.

The first being tech support. As a studio, on a deadline, you expect a certain level of tech support to be available for the software you purchase, say for example AutoDesk's Make it Pretty 2014 or whatever they're calling it this year. I mean sure you expect to trouble shoot some specific issues yourself, but there's a massive installed user base relying on the same software, so you expect that there won't be catastrophic tech issues, and if there are, that they'll be addressed quickly. I realize all the major software packages have long lingering bugs and issues, but the major "deal breaker" issues are addressed quickly. You also know you're getting a finished, polished piece of software that you're going to be using for awhile, and this leads into my second point, with Blender, which version do you use?

With a piece of software like Blender, that's under constant developement and in a constant state of flux, which version do you use, which version should you use, when do you upgrade to the next version? Those are major issues for a studio that has an established pipeline. It can take a few [sometimes several] months after the release of the latest version of software that a studio is using before they have it fully implemented in their pipeline, especially if they're using proprietary inhouse tools and code like data exchange/management systems. The larger the studio, the more rigid the pipeline [generally speaking], and slower they are to update and implement anything, the smaller production houses and freelancers can usually upgrade more quickly, and while that may be the case, the larger studios still have considerably more influence on steering the direction of the industry because you'll always have smaller studios looking and saying, "...MegaStudio X uses AutoDesk MiP 2014, we need to use that to compete..." Something like Blender that has version iterations turning over faster than a lot of studios could implement, makes it a much harder package to "buy into" figuratively of course, Blender being free and all.

The third thing that comes to mind goes with the last one and continues with something unbroken-fighter touched on, and that's users showing professional level work done in Blender, that's just not going to happen. Why not? Certainly not because Blender isn't capable, it is, very much so, and there are plenty of talented users doing excellent work in Blender all the time, but [and this is an assumption so my point might wobble little here] they're largely just hobbyists, very talented hobbyists, but still just hobbyists. When you look to get into the industry professionally, you look at job postings, major studios often list in their job postiings "proficiency in Make it Pretty 2014 required" or whatever that studio happens to be using for the position you're applying for. What choice does that leave the aspiring 3D artist with? Not much other than to learn the software package[s] the studios want. Sure there are always cases of someone being talented enough a studio is willing to train them on a new package, but that's not always the case and is very circumstantial depending on the studio and scope of the project they're hiring for. No studio is going to hire someone for a 3 or even 6 month project if they're not already proficient and other similarly qualified applicants are. This results in a trend that as indiviuals climb the ladder from hobbyist [or student] to professional they tend to be leaving Blender and moving on to another package, so the "professional" work you end up seeing from those users, isn't done in Blender even tho that may have been where they started.

All that said, I think we are starting to see a slow trickle of professional implementations of Blenders, and given enough time it might start to gain a bit of a foot hold but I think that's still quite a ways off. I think there's a very real trend right now toward smaller "indie" studios, especially in the game developement segment of the industry. If that trend continues and with it comes a sort of "decentralization" of production with work being outsourced to other small independant studios and to free lancers, then I think Blender has a chance to gain some real ground there. Blender makes a lot of sense for a free lancer, it does almost everything [modeling/sculpting/texturing/rendering/dynamics/compositing/etc/etc], and does most of it well enough. There are better options for all those aspects of production, but they each come with their own price tag.

There's a lot more complexity and variety in 3D packages than say PhotoShop vs GIMP, you could take a proficient user in either of those packages and have them up to speed in a day or two on the other, it takes a lot longer to get up to speed moving between 3D packages. I don't think we'll ever see Blender as a solution in large production studios, their pipelines are too specialized, and they're only going to be using [what the perceive] is the best software package for each segment of their pipeline. I do think we could start to see Blender being used more in smaller studios tho, but I expect even that will be a long slow process.

Now off to listen to the podcast, while I get some work done in Blender...

warlock you did make some valid points but i will add this

there are some users that do model professionaly in blender but because they use those meshes in other programs blender is left out of the mentions

and with the newest push towards a lower cost and higher profits more studios are looking for a shareware alternative for the modeling but the standard few are still the go-to renderers

if people love blender the way i do they get the word out and support it

As a Blender user, tell others when you have used Blender, don't keep it a secret.

How popular do we really want Blender to become? Are we willing to start paying for it? I for one prefer it like it is.

I don't tink Blender will become a pay for app, there are 1000's of free apps who's business model can be surmised in one word; Donate.

That and Blender also provide source code so you can actually take the code, recompie it and stick your name on it and charge money, which is lower than dirt IMHO, but the license for open source software makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/press/re-branding-blender/

 Blender has already been popular now!

I came back to Blender after trying it a few times previously. It seems the 2.6x versions have finally done what's necessary to make the software a little more noob-friendly. (Hotkeys displayed on menus, majority of stuff now exists on menus so you don't have to know the hotkeys, tooltips, alternate software modes, etc. Almost all the kind of essential UI stuff that's there for hand-holding and to show newbies the way.)

In terms of coming from other software with easy UIs like Bryce and Cararra, that might mean something.

The Cycles renderer also seems a good step in the right direction too. Lighting environment in that renderer needs little to no fakery. Only problem is the occasional caustic-related "fireflies".

I think the only major thing it lacks is an in-depth preset library and browser. (Yes there are some plug-ins. But such feature should be integrated.) Add that and buff out a few of the rough spots in regards to workflow (I'd say they're nitpicks and gripes - of which I have a few, since the software is usable as it is), and there's no reason why Blender can't be a "pro" 3D graphics package.

Blender is almost where it needs to be. Once it is, the "bottom tier" commercial 3D software may have a real reason to worry. (Or they better start making good content and support deals. Blender is nibbling at them as it is.)