Male_M3dia posted at 9:19AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396486

wolf359 posted at 6:19AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396462

Like the exact post on 'rotica... it comes down to centralizing, resources and amount of support. It makes more sense to set things up so it's easier to support and install (though it will never be perfect for everyone) and use those freed resources for development.

And I totally get that. I understand that maintaining multiple channels that effectively achieve the same goal (delivering content to the customer) is a drain on resources that could be directed elsewhere. What I'm saying is that -- given DAZ's history -- I think the likely end result is going to favor DAZ a helluva lot more than it's going to favor the customer, but I also admit that that is my personal opinion -- every other user is going to have to decide for themselves whether that kind of arrangement is favorable to them or not. It's not for me, which is why I'm out.

Male_M3dia posted at 8:52AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396486

wolf359 posted at 6:19AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396462

Not sure how "open" the source is when you can not have a stand alone installer that you can archive & share as you can with Blender installers.

Well if you set up DIM not to delete the installer files you can back those up. Also there are fewer things that you can send to blender than you could with other bridges because of the license.

Like the exact post on 'rotica... it comes down to centralizing, resources and amount of support. It makes more sense to set things up so it's easier to support and install (though it will never be perfect for everyone) and use those freed resources for development.

And this was covered in the conversation I was having about this with someone over at Renderotica. I have never used DAC Central or DIM, so I admit I'm unfamiliar with exactly how they work. One user explained to me that currently you can configure DIM to retain downloaded ZIPs after it downloads and installs your product(s). (My understanding is that it would otherwise delete these files after installation.)

Most likely, a future version of DIM will simply no longer have the option to retain downloaded files. It would download what it needs to install your content and then immediately (and irretrievably) delete everything afterwards. After all, it would make no sense to eliminate manual downloads only to leave that channel open in DIM. It would be like locking your doors but leaving all of your windows wide open. Whether DAZ would announce this change or say nothing about it at all until someone notices and complains is anyone's guess. (And my guess is, they wouldn't say shit about it until they absolutely had to.)

Only a true die-hard or an absolutely compulsive personality would be motivated to dig through their installation to copy off the files and folders they need to construct an archive by hand, but the vast majority won't.

Now imagine a year or two after DAZ has migrated a majority of its traffic onto its clients. The manual downloads are going or are gone, and DAZ is perhaps getting ready to roll out some new big ticket items (Genesis 9 if they haven't already come out, or perhaps Genesis 10). The damage has already been done for anything that's already been released, but DAZ may draw a line in the sand at this point and say "no further". You go to log into DAZ's site or to fire up DAZ Studio, and you get slapped in the face with a newly updated EULA -- again, with absolutely no warning and no way to access your content until you agree to DAZ's terms. They've done this before, and they will do it again at some point. And imagine if that EULA reimposes the content encryption. (Keeping in mind that DAZ has never admitted its mistake, has never apologized for it, and has not promised not to do it again at some point.)

As I said in the other thread, I think that those of you who choose to remain with DAZ are about to be boxed in.

wolf359 posted at 8:49AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396462

The so called Blender "bridge" was not even developed by Daz, they bought and rebranded it from some guy who was trying to sell it to the pro 3DCC community on Gumroad.

I know that there's an alternative Blender bridge that's been in development for some time by some guy -- I have a link saved to it somewhere, but I don't have access to it at the moment -- but my understanding is that DAZ's bridge is something new, not something licensed and rebranded.

jestmart posted at 8:45AM Mon, 10 August 2020 - #4396411

The EULA agreement change was when they switched to DIM and zip files. The old installers required agreeing to EULA built in to them before continuing.

The last EULA change I recall was several years ago when DAZ tried jumping into the 3D printing market. They restricted everyone's accounts and you couldn't download your purchased files until you agreed to the new terms that they sprung on us with absolutely no warning. I had never encountered that before or since, and I've been a daily visitor to the site for well over a decade.

Something I should have asked before going off on this rant is "Are there any other DAZ Central-only/DIM-only items in the DAZ store?". To the best of my knowledge, there aren't, but if there are, I'd love to know what they are and what the reasoning was for making it so.

DAZ's encryption scheme failed because it provided absolutely no benefit to the customer (just the opposite, in fact) -- it was entirely in DAZ's favor in that it made the content impossible to pirate, while making it impossible for the customer to back-up locally. Encryption didn't make the content cheaper, more stable, prettier to look at, easier to use, etc. -- there was absolutely no benefit to the customer, while imposing a lot of new restrictions on them. It was simply bound to fail.

So DAZ won't attempt such a move again until they can convince the customer that it's to their (the customer's) advantage, or at least until they can plausibly demonstrate that the customer doesn't care one way or the other. And to do that, they'll want the numbers to tell a certain story. I believe that if they can get a simple majority of their download traffic over a certain span of time (say, 50.1% or greater over three months or so) to be through the clients (which they can do by enticing their customers with perks, goodies, and hard-to-resist offerings -- "purchase and install the new Genesis 9 figures through DC/DIM and get 50% off"), then that will be all the pretext they need to start phasing out the manual downloads, and at that point, you can kiss goodbye to your control over the content you paid for.

Remember when DAZ tried jumping into the 3D printing market? They restricted everyone's accounts until they agreed to the updated EULA -- you couldn't download your purchased files until you agreed to the new terms DAZ was imposing.

Now imagine six months or a year has passed since DAZ started phasing out the manual downloads. Everyone is now accustomed to using the clients to install their content, and no one is backing up anything to disc, partly because they're being incentivized not to do so and partly because that option no longer exists. In a situation like that, would you even notice if DAZ quietly started encrypting your content again? Or what if, after that six months or a year or so, you go to log into the store or fire up DAZ Studio on your computer, and you get slapped in the face with a demand that you submit to a newly updated EULA -- and one imposing content encryption -- before you can access your content?

THAT'S what I think is coming.

Had a lot of her characters on my wish-list, but was holding off, waiting for them to go on sale. This is just awful...

shvrdavid posted at 6:58PM Thu, 18 July 2019 - #4357395

You seem to be missing the fact that Bondware bought Poser, that is only part of the investment as well.

I was making a point there that apparently wasn't as obvious as I thought it was. My mistake.

What I was alluding to was that Bondware/Renderosity's investment in Poser may not be primarily financial. I have no idea what they paid for it, but there is the possibility that they may not need the money back that badly, and can afford to let the acquisition pay for itself over the course of years (and not necessarily by selling licenses). They may honestly believe that Poser is the better application, and keeping it alive is all that matters. They may want to be the go-to people to cater to that section of the market that sees itself as shut out or left behind by DAZ. Or they may simply not want DAZ to have an unchallenged monopoly on this hobby/industry/whatever. (And having the means to give DAZ a metaphorical middle finger could be reason enough at this point.) It could be a combination of all of these, or even none of these, but by acquiring Poser they've achieved that goal and the money necessary to do that is incidental. THAT's what I meant by "investment".

Simply handing it over to opensource is an instant loss.

No, it's not, but that would also depend upon one's motivations. If the goal was to generate revenue by selling licenses, then YES, going open-source WOULD be a loss. However, if the goal is to keep Poser alive as an alternative platform for older content or content that was incompatible with DAZ Studio, and you plan on making your money back in the long term through content sales (just like DAZ) by catering to that market, then it's a win.

And to say that the previous companies that owned Poser bailed is an assumption.

No, it's not -- it's objective fact. Excluding Bondware/Renderosity, each previous owner held onto Poser for about 4 years and pooped out about 2 versions before fobbing it off onto someone else. The first couple of flips I can see, but really, probably the most amazing thing about Poser at this point is that each [EDIT] owner has managed to find someone else to buy it off of them before they pulled the plug on it for good. (And it sure as hell looked like Smith Micro was headed down that path before Bware/Rendo stepped up.) And as I've also pointed out, that cycle can only go on for just so long. My guess would be that -- unless BWare/Rendo can do something really amazing with it -- this is probably Poser's last chance.

Sure, they eventually decided to sell, but assuming you know why isn't the true picture.

I never claimed to know why. I'm simply commenting on what I've observed.

Smith Micro could have chosen to keep Poser, hire a huge graphics division and pushed the product like they do with the communication software, but they apparently chose to sell it instead of putting any further investment in it.

Yeah, because when I seek out a team of top-flight software engineers to retool my aged-out jury-rigged graphics software, I always look to -- what was it again -- Portugal or Singapore? Of course, only after I strip out the team that's been with the project for years and knows it inside and out -- gotta get a fresh start, don'tcha know? But hey -- at least they didn't bail on it, right? Yeah, that's TOTALLY not what they did.

Constantly comparing Poser to successful opensource projects is a bit odd as well. If you compare Poser to FreeBSD, ReactOS, etc, then you will see that opensource projects with moderate backing, never really take off.

You seem to be making an assumption here. I never claimed that Bware/Rendo SHOULD make Poser open-source -- someone else in a different forum made that suggestion, I liked it because I think it's a bold new direction with a fair chance of success, and I came here to throw it out for discussion. I'm willing to admit that Poser may NOT be a good candidate for open-source, but right now, the only real arguments I'm hearing against it are:

1. That Bondware/Renderosity are counting on making their money back by selling licenses. I don't know what their situation is or what their plans are. Yes, I've read the releases -- [paraphrasing a bit here] "great opportunity", "bright future", "bold new direction", yada yada yada, etc. etc. etc. -- same old boilerplate that everyone who has ever acquired Poser has said before. If their plans are to simply do their own version of what everyone else has already tried, then prepare to be disappointed. It'll just be another real-world example of the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and again and expecting different results each time).

2. Licensing issues. This is probably the killer issue right here. Someone earlier pointed out that the Face and Hair rooms are licensed, and in a way that they can't be distributed or removed from the application. I pointed out that licenses can renegotiated or they can be allowed to expire, and there are probably other options. This could kill the idea itself, it could simply be a hurdle to overcome, or it could even not be a real issue at all. I don't know the details, and the person who raised the idea didn't sound like they did, either. But I'd say it's at least worth a look.

Comparing Poser to Linux is just ludicrous, I'm sorry, it is. Linux is the number one server operating system in the world. There is no comparison to the success of Linux.

It's a matter of degree, not of kind. The fact still remains:

1. Anyone can acquire Linux for free, either as source code or compiled.

2. They can edit the code and recompile it. Helps if they have a good idea to implement, know what they're doing, and have the skills to pull it off, but hey...

3. They can contribute financially to the development of Linux, either through donations, buying associated merch, or buying packaged releases.

4. Points 1 to 3 could also apply to a FOSS-based Poser.

Someone (or rather, a lot of someones) also spent a lot of money making Poser what it is today. Of course, not anything like the money that Linux received, but like I said -- it's a matter of degree, not of kind.

So now Bware/Rendo own this latest, greatest (and possibly last or at best next-to-last) version of Poser. What would stop them from cleaning up the source code and designating it as Code Base Zero (or whatever), resolving any possible licensing issues, and telling the community "This is where we're at. This is the process by which we're going to move the project forward. Now tell us where you want to go." Or -- as I've said many times by now -- they could just do the same crap that everyone has already tried time and again, and at best, I'd give them about 4 years and 2 versions before they also try to unload it on someone else, just like everyone else before them has done. (And if they CAN'T find someone to take it off their hands, then I predict that THEY will be the ones who finally kill off Poser, rather than sink more money into it. Wouldn't THAT be ironic?)

Afrodite-Ohki posted at 6:52PM Thu, 18 July 2019 - #4357313

I have only one thing to say about this "opensource like Linux!!!!!!" debacle, which is what runs down to most computer users who might be knowledgeable enough to use Linux but won't:

Most people wouldn't want to buy car parts and assemble their own car either. We want that car ready to be used, thanks.

You do realize that most open-sourced software is distributed not only as source code, but also as executables, right? Go to Blender.org right now, and you can get Blender in the format of your choice. Same with Linux, or GIMP, or Krita, or MAME, or any one of dozens of different open-sourced projects. No one is forced to have to recompile the source code. Why would an open-sourced Poser be any different?

ronaldknights posted at 12:29AM Thu, 18 July 2019 - #4357294

Poser has always been made more valuable when content creators like DAZ offered their content to go with Poser. DAZ moved to Genesis, and stopped offering "Poser content." No other content provider has filled the void.

And???

Poser doesn't need to "become" DAZ Studio.

No one is saying it has to. [EDIT] Well, I certainly haven't, at least.

But we do need some fantastic Poser-native content.

And you achieve that by giving people a reason to want to create content for your platform. What you actually see if your go into Renderosity's own store, however, is creators shifting away from Poser content creation in favor of DAZ Studio content creation. I have no great love for the crew running DAZ 3D these days (altho' the sales support folks are pretty awesome -- never had a sales issue they couldn't fix for me), but the company is stable and the platform is adding users and growing in capability. Poser has had, what -- six owners in 20 years? That kind of volatility is not encouraging.

Linux fans should just accept the fact that there won't be any Linux versions of Poser

Never say never.

AmbientShade posted at 12:19AM Thu, 18 July 2019 - #4357295

Iirc portions of posers code such as the face and cloth rooms - are licensed tech. In order to go open source those portions would have to be pulled from the software, in order to prevent licensing violations. And in some cases pulling that tech out of poser may be a violation in itself. Either way it would create issues all around. Any content that relies an that tech would no longer be usable. What good would it serve to break half the content in the software and upset the folks that rely on it.

That's a valid point, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle. Licenses can be renegotiated or allowed to expire -- I don't know the particulars in this case, and it reads like you don't, either. Remember that the dynamic cloth plug-in for DAZ Studio from OptiTex was licensed, and in a way that prevented DAZ from being able to offer their own version of dynamic cloth until the original license expired. It's only once that occurred that they're now able to offer their dForce items. Why not take a closer look at the situation before we start dismissing our options out of hand, tho?

shvrdavid posted at 10:58PM Wed, 17 July 2019 - #4357280

Poser on the other hand, is not a production suite. So it is sort of niche in many ways. If it was converted to opensource, the chances of it surviving are slim to none

Based on what? That's like saying "don't start a business at all, because most businesses fail". Yes, they do, but a few do manage to find that sweet spot that makes it all work, and that's reason enough for many people to try, some over and over and over again. Poser has been commercial for many years and it's spiralling the drain, slowly and surely going down the tubes. Maybe it's time to try something new.

Poser is far better off with a company that wants to invest in it.

I agree, but "invest" can mean many things to many people. Can you honestly say that the Blender crew aren't "invested" in their product? Or the Linux guys?

Opensource, guarantees nothing.

Neither does the commercial approach, and we know that that's been tried, many times and for many years. Poser's running out of chances.

Rendo/Bondware have an investment in Poser

So did Fractal Designs, and Metacreations, and Curious Labs, and e-Frontier, and Smith Micro, and they all ended up bailing on it eventually.

Going opensource could damage that investment, and that isn't a route that I would think they would want to go. They have a huge opportunity to get a return on investment with Poser, and going opensource is not part of that opportunity. It is a huge risk....

Finally something I can agree with you on. Bondware probably DOESN'T want to give up on the ability to recoup its cost through selling licenses, but as I have said many times before, that's already been tried.

EClark1894 posted at 10:52PM Wed, 17 July 2019 - #4357281

They'd go belly up tomorrow.

And how many people said that about DAZ's idea to give DS away? Lots. And yet they're the ones eating Poser's lunch, and have been for quite some time.

Ironically, Daz claims that Studio was created as a hedge against Poser going out of business.

Which means that irony has a wicked sense of humor.

Have you ever read Blender's history? Go to Blender.org and do so. Blender is the brainchild and struggle of one man to keep Blender going. They only have two full time employees. And while it sounds nice, not everyone can afford to work for a free and open source organization.

I have. Tell me how it can't apply to Poser. It was also the product of one man who took it commercial, and while that worked out for many years, that model seems to be petering out, which each company acquiring it playing a form of corporate musical chairs, trying not to be the last one standing when the music finally ends. Smith Micro managed to avoid that fate when they unloaded Poser on Bondware

EClark1894 posted at 7:42PM Wed, 17 July 2019 - #4357269

And while Studio might be free, it is not open source.

No, it's not. But imagine if Poser was.

Keep in mind that if DAZ goes out of business tomorrow for whatever reason, users will eventually lose the use of their content that relies on Studio, once the software stops running. I believe the license even prohibits anyone from patching it or reverse engineering it, even just to keep it going a little longer. Every dollar a customer spends in DAZ's store makes them just that much more dependent on DAZ, because there is no real alternative. (And here I'm talking about the average user, not the super users and content creators who routinely export assets between multiple applications.)

Now imagine a FOSS-based Poser, with a license that says something to the effect that -- in the event of the unforseen -- users are free to edit and recompile the software to keep it running on their machines, or even supports the idea of a larger effort by a different group with the resources to keep Poser alive or even bring it back from the dead. Is that really such an outrageous idea?

Remember that Blender.org is confident enough to make their own code base public, even though that means a competitor like Autodesk can get a copy and pick it apart to their advantage. And Blender is constantly growing in terms of both capability and user base, and they even have a store that sells books, tutorial DVDs, and swag to support their efforts in addition to the funding they receive from the community. This IS possible.

EClark1894 posted at 7:14PM Wed, 17 July 2019 - #4357269

You're forgetting that Poser has been around for more than 20 years. In fact, Poser created the marketplace for content that you're talking about. Both Renderosity and DAZ were created in answer to that need. And while Studio might be free, it is not open source.

No, I'm not forgetting that, but it's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Poser has been on life support for a long time now, barely limping along from version to version and bleeding users every step of the way. Everyone who has acquired the IP has mismanaged it in one way or another, and it's Smith Micro's good fortune that they managed to find someone willing to pay to take it off their hands rather than see it simply rot away in their inventory, much like DAZ has done with Carrara or Bryce.

And while it's true that this hobby and the marketplaces that support it started out because of Poser, Poser has unfortunately lived long enough to see itself become pretty much irrelevant. DAZ is the one driving this market now, and Poser is at best a distant second and falling further behind every day.

A little history: I started out in 3D with Poser 6 & 7. I switched to DS3A after Poser 8 came out because I simply HATED Poser 8, but I've bought every version of Poser since then -- 1) because I've been hoping that Poser would eventually become something I could grow to love again (which it hasn't, unfortunately), and 2) because I was hedging my bet and trying to protect my content investment, wanting a fall-back option in the case of something going POOF with DAZ and DS. I AM invested in Poser and I WANT it to succeed, but the history there ain't good, and everyone knows that. If I was Renderosity right now, I might be feeling like I just got hired to be the new Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor at Hogwarts.

I'm seriously surprised at this resistance to the idea of a FOSS-based Poser. It never occurred to me the community would take the suggestion so negatively.

Afrodite-Ohki posted at 4:05PM Wed, 17 July 2019 - #4357244

How many of those times the owners of Poser were a marketplace for products for Poser that has been going for years and years? Oh, right.

Tell you what -- let's hop on over to Content Paradise and see how well that's working out. Oh, wait...

I imagine a hot mess with this. Imagine the amount of content buyers going confused because a product can't possibly support all the addons and versions of Poser that would come from that.

How many different versions of Linux are there? Marketplace seems capable of supporting more than one, while maintaining a surprising level of compatibility between them. And really -- how many different versions of Blender are in use at any one time? Really only one, unless for whatever reason someone chooses to use an older version. Still FOSS, and still community-based and -supported, tho', and successfully, too.

Blender is made for content creators. It requires someone who's tech-savvy. Poser's model is content-library based, meaning that the bulk of users will be people who only know how to load library content, maybe adjust the poses a bit.

And your point is... what??? How is that supposed to rule out a FOSS-based Poser? Poser would still be Poser, and it would still do the same things that everyone expects Poser to do. You're going to have to explain your point here. [EDIT] Keep in mind also that a FOSS-based version of Poser eliminates the price barrier to entry for new users, same as with DAZ Studio. And Poser definitely needs to grow its user base.

Well, I'll just be here glad that I haven't reached a point to be so pessimistic about everything. I highly doubt Renderosity would give us yet another disappointing version - specially seeing as they're composed of a bunch of people who does use Poser (or used to, at the very least).

Yeah, that's probably what the Smith Micro crew said in the beginning, as well.