#mgadiscussion

[thebellcreative]

Renderman Discussion

There are a few pro’s & con’s to making software free for non-commercial use. Starting with the pros, the company can allow their software to become popular through the increased use. Only studios can really afford to pay for such software, but now the company has made its software available to the public, it will be used far more frequently. The cons are that you may have cut off a small revenue of profit from the sale of the software, although this may be small, as the benefits for somebody paying for renderman for non-commercial use are not great. 

If I had spent years developing software that was made free for commercial use, I would most probably not be to bothered by it. Renderman has been available for a long while, and has been used in many great feature films, so for it to now be free for the public would mean more people can use my software. 

If I had created software that was for many years the cutting edge of technology, and my company had made a good profit from it, then I would most likely release it for free. I would do this so that the public could admire the work of the company. It would only ever be sensible for it to be released for non-commercial use of course.

[taryn-styles-blog]

Renderman Discussion

Pros of making software free:

Anyone can install it and try working with it, meaning more people can gain experience with it. This possibly means that Pixar have a wider range of people to hire as there are more people who are experienced with the software.

If people uses it and it gets exposure, it could bring more attention to the company. People might invest in the company, etc, earning them money.

Cons of making software free:

May increase unemployment as employees may not be needed anymore and they aren’t making money out of the project.

It’s also non-commercial, so people can’t use it to earn money and Pixar can’t make a profit from that either.

If I had spent years developing software, I think I would be ok with it being free. The software would get more exposure and could bring more money in in the long run. If I owned the company that developed the software, I would also choose to release the software for free. Pixar is a huge company that makes a lot of money already and can take the risk of releasing software for free. If I was part of a smaller, less well-known company, however, it would be safer to have people pay for the software.

[thomasjmga]

Renderman Discussion

Today Katie, Taryn and I discussed the commercial-free release of Renderman, Pixar’s renderer.

The advantages of free software:

- Being freeware means that anyone can use and train with this software. This means Pixar can scout already trained people to employ based off what they do with the renderer.

- With anyone being able to use it, videos that are exceptionally well done could become viral and increase awareness of the renderer to others.

- Increased awareness can lead to people investing in Pixar, seeing it’s capability of making an efficient renderer and more.

The disadvantages of free software:

- Due to it being free, Pixar doesn’t make any profit from people’s use of it besides what may come as a result of it being used.

- Employees on the Renderman project may become redundant since paying for their involvement on the product is pointless of a finished product that doesn’t result in any direct profit.

- Employees may not be happy with the renderer they worked on for years being released for free, possibly due to the above point or personally because they believe their hard work shouldn’t be free.

[skottarmstrongmgawork]

MGA Discussion: Renderman.

One of the pros of making a software free to use is lots of publicity and widespread interest, for people will want to try something that was used by the same big animation company it was made from. However the con of this also mean people will be trying to look at flaws and faults within the program intentionally and try and demean the program. Another pro of making software free is that it will get small time animators and beginners into the animation world with a product used by a big company. Then again, there will be a con such as people being uneasy about using a product that’s free but then in the end have to pay for it, for people want to know what they are getting into.

If I had spent years developing a software and then it was made free, I would feel disappointed that for some reason something I had spent years on would just be given to the world. But I would understand from a commercial standpoint, because the company would need to promote a product, and a free sample would get some people interested.

If I owned the development company, I would choose to give the program for free, but as a way to see any faults within the program so that the program is a product that is within the standards of functionality, so that when marketed, people will maintain a positive attitude.

[camlogic]

Render man free?

Pro’s:

Giving the chance for young or old independent personal projects to look professional.

£400 for a license, grantee people will like it enough to buy the product.

Con’s:

Pretty cheap for a great product.

Hard work wasted on releasing the product for free.

How would I feel about the release:

I think it’s great for any person to create a professional looking render and being part of Pixar it would be a great feeling helping so many animators and modelers around the world, it is also a very good marketing idea which would in the long run generate more money for the company and audience.

Would I choose to release it:

I would choose to release it mainly because if I had this product for so many years within the business it shouldn't just stay with us, if the company ever disappeared one day the products that we have created would also disappear along with us which would be a tremendous waste.

[staceycamilleri]

Pixar’s render software.docx

Shared with Dropbox

Pixar render software