Now, this one is funny.
Someone just sent me a viral ad for (Autodesk) Studio Tools. The ad pokes fun at Rhino3D, from Robert McNeel & Associates -- but I think it fails in this: it intimates that Rhino is cheap, ugly, and dangerous -- yet fails to show any redeeming qualities for Studio Tools, other than a ridiculously high price.
Still, it's pretty funny, and I think Bob McNeel would probably get a kick out of it.
I've tried to find this ad online, but haven't had any luck -- so I'm posting it for your viewing pleasure. If the copyright holder objects, they can send the DMCA notice to YouTube.
Because I don't know when this was produced, I can't say whether it came from Alias, or from Autodesk. I'm thinking that, because it references "Studio | Tools" (the old name for what is now called Autodesk AliasStudio), it may have been from Alias. Plus, it just doesn't look like an Autodesk piece.
Given the amount of trepidation I've seen users express about Autodesk's stewardship of the former Alias product lines, and the general accolades that users have for McNeel and Rhino, this ad is probably funnier (and more ironic) today than when it was first released.
Evan Yares
A commenter said that this was an existing commercial that someone edited the dog cage labels on. Another commenter said that it was from several years ago, predating Autodesk's ownership of Alias.
It's still funny -- and more than a bit precient, given that McNeel Rhino3D is probably the most dangerous competitor that Autodesk Alias Studio now faces.
It's not that there's been any particular changes in Rhino or Studio -- it's more that, prior to its acquistion by Autodesk, Alias was a company that only did front-end industrial design and styling tools, and was considered a somewhat benign competitor by the major MCAD players. Now, as a part of Autodesk, Alias is a threat.
Each of the major MCAD players would prefer that their customers use only their products -- but this is not likely to happen (ever.) Given a choice between their customers using products from a company that has designs on their mainstream business (Autodesk), versus products from a company that's shown it has no such designs (McNeel), my take is that Dassault, PTC, and UGS would prefer the latter.
4 Comments
Reader Comments (4)
And you posted this without getting consent from the author????
Hmmmm.......
And if the copyright holder objects they can send the DCMA notice to YouTube?
Ahh the many faces of Yares. All two of them.
Evan Replies:
Satire is an artform that's inherently difficult. This video is an example of well done satire. The other video -- and, for that matter, your comment here, are examples of poorly done satire.
I'm using the material under the fair use provisions of 17 USC 107. If the copyright owner (which is difficult to identify in any case) objects to this use, they can file a notice pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. YouTube has implemented systems which make them able to respond to DMCA notices more effectively than I could directly. So, in short, I am following the rules.
(Note: the commenter uses a number of pseudonyms on this blog, including Joey cadd, microcan't, and Real Dwg. Seems I've attracted a groupie.)