Maxon Announces an Agreement to Acquire the Assets of Pixologic, Makers of ZBrush

Maxon Announces an Agreement to Acquire the Assets of Pixologic,…

1 Like

Super sad to see 3D companies getting bought right and left. This line from the article:


Should really be read as:

4 Likes

I remember times when Maxon’s Cinema 4D was the affordable competitor to the big names :stuck_out_tongue:

Indeed, if you thought about getting ZBrush, I guess you really should look at Blender first now.

2 Likes

lol the wont make it subscription [they will for sure going for it]. Once their investor want that growth profit with barely doing anything they’ll gonna start that subscription model.

Everything turning to subs based. [i heard a car brand is making their FOBS subscription too] :sweat_smile:

Blender is becoming stronger than ever and needed in a medium that is slowly becoming subs everything.

4 Likes

This is why open source is the way to go now.
These licenses are worthless even if you buy them.

But I am sadden by the loss of zbrush. It was a good tool.
Every time a good app is bought they somehow make it shit after the lead leaves. zBrush has its days numbered now.

2 Likes

I now have a pessimistic idea: any software that buys out will eventually switch to a subscription system.
The growth of software users will always encounter bottlenecks. For companies that only charge once, they will eventually fall into a situation where they cannot make ends meet. What awaits them at this time is to be acquired by a large company, or to lay off employees and stagnate in development
There will be no user donations. No volunteers will take it and improve it.

While subscriptions as funding model by proprietary software are not desired by many users, it is also true that Free and open source software is plagued by the lack of funding scenario. So similar to the situation where subscription model is good for business , regular donation and subscription to development fund is also needed by the Free Software projects. The only difference is it is not compulsory in FOSS, donation or subscription is voluntary. But I hope many subscribe to donation fund when they can. We should talk how to improve our funding.

3 Likes

yeah what i like in FOSS even if you do subs in donation, you’ll not lost the ability to open the app if for a month or two you’re down on your luck and has no funds to spare or you can lower your donation to manageable amount.

speaking of which - im lost in the website i’ve been trying to make one time donation last month and couldn’t figure out how to. I think i keep looping back to the same page. :sweat_smile: either way i think i figure it out. took me a bit to realize you can click the badges. Also currently the “DONATE” link in krita points to nowhere i think it should redirect to dev fund.

1 Like

In my case, I hope to support local payment systems. Paypal requires the use of credit cards, but few of us here use them. Unless I need a loan to buy a house in the future, I will not consider it.

Credit card usages differences in different countries are always so fascinating. So, in my country, you mostly use, I believe, debit cards (I have a visa), and you use them everywhere for nearly every purchase, online, in the store nearby or a huge supermarket (some smaller shops in less populated areas only accept cash though, but in a city centre, there is no way for any littlest of shops to not accept cards because most people don’t even use cash anymore, except for having some forgotten bill or something in the wallet). The cards are directly connected to your account so you just use the money from your account, you can use a bit more than you have but it’s a very small amount, and I think most people don’t even use that feature, unless they have constant financial troubles at the end of the month. In the Netherlands, I was completely dumbfounded learning that apparently, the store does accept cards, but just not mine. It doesn’t happen in Poland: the store either supports all major types of cards, or it accepts only cash. Weird! And then I learned about USA where people have cards disconnected from the accounts, which can put you in debt and which you need to repay and whatnot, and it’s apparently a huge problem with people not controlling their money and spending more than they have. And then we have you, saying that you’d only consider having a card if you were to buy a house. I can’t imagine buying a house or taking a loan with a card :smiley:

Other than that, I’ve heard that the current best way to send some money towards Krita without that is by Steam, which accepts all kinds of payments all over the world. Steam should offer it as a service to other websites/companies, it would dominate a second industry, really :stuck_out_tongue: (Krita for now uses Mollie, I think?)

We usually use QR codes here. All you need to do is to carry your phone, and then you can use it almost anywhere. Even the small snack stalls have QR codes.
Generally, the software we use is Alipay or WeChat Pay. The money in it has the same interest as the bank demand. You can also purchase wealth management products directly on it. And they also support small loans for shopping (from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars). Some shopping software itself has such consumer loans.

1 Like

No more battery, no payment then? :sweat_smile:

Grum999

That’s it. However, there is an interface for charging in general public places. There are also “shared power banks” similar to “shared bicycles”. If you have a high demand in the field, you will also bring it yourself.

1 Like

The moment that users can decide what (parts) of their donation are spend towards would probably be a good thing, so that which is requested most is actually being developed. For instance, I would pay for better vector tools if I could be part of the discussion and have some ideas of mine implemented.

But these recent acquisitions in software land really come to show the power of shareholders and their demands on profitability, not improvements for the end-user. We see Epic buying itself into the asset, portfolio and rendering markets (Twinmotion, Megascans, Sketchfab & Artstation). Whereas Adobe sought to do the same with Behance and bought the Substance suite to get a foothold in 3d, obviously XD (or whatever else it was) didn’t gain the traction they hoped it would. So they sacked in-house development for 3rd party acquisition. Now the main sculpting toolset is sold to Maxon, thus taking away the neutral ground Zbrush had amongst the DCC competition (Modo, Cinema 4d, Maya, Max & Houdini). I wouldn’t be surprised if portfolio development became much more aggressive to the point where you are either on a Maxon, Adobe, Autodesk or Foundry platform.
Its such a shame these companies don’t realise that by providing the tech as open-source, development in the sector would be much faster, to the benefit of design and the environment.

I actually disagree with this. Individual users don’t have much idea about project management or how the project is being developed, … just imagine you get few dollar donations spread around hundreds/thousands of requests while there are devs focusing or specific parts (rendering, algorithms, bug fixing, …) you can’t pay anyone at this point unless you are in really high numbers which is not realistic for open software.

I can understand this with large sum donations that you can have soem dialog but with smaller donations that would be just a nightmare to deal with.

Btw in open source in general the most wanted directions are being developed over the less popular ones. This is technically an advantage as well as disadvantage of the model, it pushes faster development towards some directions but it’s a compromise since other directions can get forgotten. While proprietary software might choose a different route. Although open soft sometimes also has to develop something that’s not the most wanted when it’s really necessary.

This is not necessarily true either. Open source doesn’t mean faster development per se. Proprietary softw can often settle down easier (or at least i has been like that for years), set up industry standards, …
Just because something isn’t open source doesn’t mean it’s evil ;-). Some companies such as epic with their game engine opens it up to public, give lectures, have yo useen how many research papers large companies publish for anyone to read/use? Without large sums of money behind it, focus of their groups, … these would be ahrdly possible in this way.

I like open source but let’s not pretend this is a black vs white problem :slight_smile:

I think the development team should have autonomy regarding the decision making. Because if it is not autonomous, then there can be a scenario where a certain group of people can take the project in different direction with money power. Say for example someone with lots of money donates and decides that they need Krita to be a good image manipulation tool rather than focusing on painting. They will ask the dev team to focus solely on this direction.

I agree there should be discussion about features and the decisions should be taken considering the feedback from users at large, but personally I would leave the final decision of the projects future path to the core dev team.

Having said that this is Free Software, so if that one group wants to make improvement in certain section of Krita they can crowdfund and hire a developer to just do that, completely separate from the dev team. Or even they can contact the dev team and ask if they can do sponsored work. There is no restrictions on contributions or sponsored development.

Donations should be like how donations work in general, you give money without strings attached. This is a way to keep the development autonomous so that in future nobody, not even a corporate can come and influence the direction of the project with money power. Often times corporates come and take over the place of the community, even if it is a free software project.

I really like how the main developer of VLC puts it in their interview here. Here is an excerpt from it, I emphasized the relevant portions.

This makes VLC a target for naysayers, Kempf reckons. “People say, ‘Why don’t you have this obvious feature that everyone should have, because it’s obvious that every other player has it.’ We’re like, ‘Well, no one managed to do it in a nice way.’”

Such an attitude has meant that some odd features—such as the puzzle module, which turns any video being shown through the app into a playable jigsaw game—have persisted since version 0.9.0 of VLC player, which was released more than a decade ago.

There are some [silly] features in VLC—some filters that everyone finds weird and asks [us], ‘Why do you have that?The answer is someone sent a good patch, so there was no reason to refuse it,” says Kempf.

So similarly, from what knowledge I have about the Krita’s dev team, I can tell that nobody will deny any changes to Krita provided it is maintainable and coded well. For example somebody submitted a patch for smart patch tool in krita, and despite being more related to image manipulation it got in.

So if a user or group of users think that something should get priority they should get together and sponsor someone to do it

Also do note Free Software or Open Source doesn’t mean and should not be a means for corporates to get free labour and crowd-fund their coding. Free Software is much more than being free monetarily.

1 Like

Also, if donate only for vector tools, then if there’s 10 donators to improve vector tools, what to you want to do with such a small budget?
If donation are scattered on hundreds of users dedicated expectation, then nothing will be made because none of features will reach enough money to be implemented… :slight_smile:

That’s still possible to sponsor one specific functionality I think; but you need money for a full developer being affected to it.
But I’m also pretty sure that if a sponsor ask for something that really doesn’t match with Krita’s (lead) developer point of view of what Krita should be, it might not be implemented.

Grum999

1 Like

I agree that absolute democracy is not a good thing. In addition, I remember that krita used crowdfunding to determine development priorities on the website a few years ago. Such a thing may also be acceptable.
I don’t know if such a thing is impossible: rich people give enough money to the krita team, and then they find people who understand the krita code, are good at communication, and are trustworthy (may be part-time developers, open source commissioned Lovers, etc.). Or the krita team connects the two and participates in the early discussions to avoid wasting development resources. If people find programmers themselves, there will be a lot of unnecessary consumption. With the participation of official personnel, prices and time can be better planned. This does not require an offset to the main direction.
I thought about spending money to find someone to perfect blending modes. Later, I got in touch with more and expanded the plan. Now it has temporarily exceeded my expectations (such as okLCH blending and mypaint spectral blending, which are also blending modes). There are also some blending modes that are still under study (such as the use of watercolor pens in sai) The two blending modes of krita should be able to be used with krita’s scribble brush, I am trying to find out its formula) I will not give it up. It’s just a more complete plan and more capital accumulation.

1 Like

Obviously there’s more nuance to my statement, but a general consensus between users and devs is certainly required. For instance development of Blender’s sculpt branch and a brush management system are both high value targets that the community desires, yet the Blender foundation seems to think otherwise. Or at the very least, is slow to respond. Same with performance gains, it took a couple years for them to start working on it, not sure why it wasn’t prioritised more.

E: By the way I was mostly referring to the kickstarter priority funding list that looked quite interesting from a user perspective. Certainly, the spirit of the software should remain in developer’s hands. What I am targeting at is that the devs should (as certainly is the case with Krita, much more so than Blender) keep in touch with their user base.

Maxon Zbrush Is Here! - YouTube