Edwin Braun on the history of Cebas
What is your view of the current state of the CG field? What interesting developments do you see coming up in the future for CG in general?
Vancouver Island Technology Park in the city of Victoria (Canada), home of Cebas’ offices
One major thing I am personally seeing in the market is that diversity has been eliminated due to the overpowering existence of one major player. This has the effect of slowing down innovation and integration of new technologies in the VFX market.
Whatever it is, the future of the industry lies in finally managing to break the speed barrier. It was never possible to offer a tool to our customers, that was fast enough or advanced enough to really simulate and sculpt reality as is, like real time.
Whenever we managed to get an effect 10 times faster than a previous version, the natural inclination of an artist-user is to want 100 times more details! – So, the artists’ desire to render and simulate faster and faster is what is keeping cebas development working harder and harder. It has been an unbreakable cycle for 27 years and I fear it will be for the next 27 years.
You moved the company to the city of Victoria (Canada) in 2009. What motivated you to do that?
Our customers are mainly in North America (Hollywood LA, Vancouver) – it was a natural choice to get closer to our user base and to be in the same time zone as our customers. It just enhances support and flow of information. Canada is a great place to develop our business, and Victoria is a beautiful city, warmer than most so I like it here.
What are Cebas’ future goals?
Cebas will keep on developing advanced special effects tools and try to surmount any existing barriers that the 3D artists experience every day in their workflow. The market for enhanced special effects tools is getting bigger and more complex with the introduction of 4K and 8K film production. Virtual Reality is becoming once again hyped and might finally hit the threshold of making it stay for good in the market.
Any particular images or films created with Cebas software that you enjoy especially?
While I enjoy all special effects produced with our tools and software, I do not enjoy all movie plots. I favor Sci-Fi themed movies especially when they show some decent physically accurate background. A bad movie plot, an example for my taste, was ‘Gravity’. It had the worst unrealistic physics concepts and the most unsexy underpants in a spacesuit!
Northmen: A Viking Saga, ThinkingParticles VFX by Anselm von Seherr-Thoss
Any interesting or funny anecdotes that you recall from your experience of running Cebas?
As I’m of German heritage, I can say Germans have no humor. It is in their nature to be accurate and disciplined, so no funny anecdotes from me. Unless, ….. you would consider it funny that once upon a time, the Director of Product Management, Softimage proudly presented to me a technology called ICE that ‘they’ had developed in 2007 and 2008. Users of thinkingParticles will know that we were the ones that came out with such a technology a decade before Softimage! And that is all history now.
Cebas recently changed licensing policies from permanent to rental-only. In effect, artists can no longer own new versions of the software. Renting is the only option, and the day they can’t pay, the day they can no longer use it. They are losing control of the tools they use to work. A good number of artists have complained strongly and asked to keep the option to purchase, or explicitly requested a rent-to-own system to be implemented, as Allegorithmic has done very successfully. Will Cebas listen and consider providing more options in the future?
Let me first let the readers know that I do understand all those comments on cebas going on to Subscription. We ourselves, as a company, are software users as well. We too have to pay for all of our software we use for development. Paying for those tools is an enormous cost factor for us. Nearly all the tools that we use ourselves have moved on to the subscription-only-models. So, similarly, I feel the loss of my perceived control over my software life.
However, it is only a perception that we all, as users have or had, about software ownership. This old concept of ‘owning’ is a thing of the past. Software has also always been more of an applicative technology and not something you tangibly purchase from a store and hold on to. As a professional artist, you need your tools to earn money, and our role at cebas is to do our best to position our new pricing as affordable as possible to as many artists – and so we have educational licensing as well, and completely free trials.
In fact, today compared to when thinkingParticles first started, you can say it has never been cheaper to start and use our thinkingParticles effects system. So this is a good thing. In all practicality, our subscription pricing model enables more users to use our tools.
So-called software ownership barely made sense in the past and it no longer does nowadays. Yes, you could own a Windows 3.1 and yes, you could own a 3D STUDIO DOS. But what does it help you now? My point is, you owned really nothing of value as the next version was always the better one and the old version eventually did no longer work on your new version of Windows or hardware. Owning software is an outdated concept; it is not promoting progress and technological advances. It makes no sense to any software company to support ownership of outmoded technology and old software. It’s like when a user is still on their old version of Windows 95 and 3D Studio Max R2. There is no progress in that, there are no paying employees in owning dead software, in fact, this is killing off jobs and hinders progress.
Our subscription model makes sure because users are always at the leading side of technology, that they get the latest release right away. They are up to date with the latest technology. It also allows cebas to plan and work in a commercially reasonable and predictable environment. Everyone wins with such a licensing model and in the end the user gets more value instead of owning an outdated version of a software that does no longer work. And best of all, even a small simple FX job pays easily for a 3-years license and keeps the artist afloat for months at the same time. Our pricing model helps artists to compete in the ever-changing market of special effects.
It is an interesting argument and there are many concepts worth debating (owning intangibles is the same concept that allows Cebas to produce an income as it is the basis for intellectual property, artists’ perceived vs. real loss of control over being able to use software they paid for and access to previous projects, no one uses Windows 3.1 and rental was not needed for the updates, the next version being always better than the old one, etc.). The bottom line however is that Cebas seemingly does not intend to provide commercial licensing options other than rental.
Let’s move forward. You come from a football-focused culture, how did you end up coaching a baseball team?
Cebas’ booth at SIGGRAPH
By football you mean soccer I guess? Yes it is true; it is kind of crazy for any German to be attracted to the game of Baseball. A game, played with wooden sticks, where a grown up man throws a ball at another man standing there with a stick. Then suddenly he runs around like crazy and everyone gets excited. On top of all this sheer craziness the man throwing a little ball earns more in a year than many of us in a lifetime. I guess manual work actually pays off!
When I moved to North America, I had to adapt to the local culture and lifestyle, which includes going to the baseball field with your son. So what is not to enjoy with doing just that? This is how I ended up as a Little League Baseball coach, which of course I enjoyed a lot.
Anything you’d like to mention to readers that we haven’t asked you about?
Yes sure, Achim and I founded this company and over the years it has grown to something really amazing and important in the industry for VFX.
We met many people along the way, and we even had a ‘Spargel Bauer’ (translation; Asparagus Farmer) who wanted to teach us about computers! We met unfriendly people who scammed us with false or stolen computer hardware and we met great people as well that inspired us. The biggest asset I can say that cebas Visual Technology has right now is our team of cebas talents. Our core team has been with us for 20 years now and we would not be in the place and position that we are in right now without their amazing hard work. Our team has changed over time and we had some people come in and out in the years but without our chief programmers Markus, Michael and Daniel, we would not be what we are now.
One other big driving force for our success is the great relationships we have developed with those of you who are our user-community, beta testers and long time friends of cebas. They are like a family to us and it is what motivates us daily, to go the extra mile to bring our users the tools they require to visualize their creative dreams.
Thank you for answering our questions.
'2012' image is property of Sony Pictures. 'CG Muffins’ image is property of Eloi Andaluz. 'Northmen: A Viking Saga' image is property of Elite Film Produktion AG, Jumping Horse Film GmbH and Two Oceans Production PTY Ltd. All other images are property of Cebas Visual Technology. All rights reserved. Images provided courtesy of Cebas Visual Technology.
Nice interview. Thanks CGP for asking the rental question. Unfortunately, there’s so option other than rental or go to other software.
As for 3ds Max, I do hope Eddie and the other Max devs read this and work on making Max faster and more able to produce faster FX.
ICE maybe came later … but it had a gigapolygon core!
I’m sorry for anyone that can find my comments unconfortable, but I’m not going to stay quite here.
Again, they repeat the same history again and again, I’m sorry but the licensing part of the interview (wich is the only one I’m interested in because I was hoping they could open their minds a bit) is full of subjective points of view and, IMHO things that are not true at all.
– “you can say it has never been cheaper to start and use our thinkingParticles effects system”
* That is true, as is also true that it has never so expensive to continue using it, also, you have to pay for a full year in advance, not just two months for example…
– ” Owning software is an outdated concept; it is not promoting progress and technological advances.”
* That is completely subjective and IMO it’s not true, if you provide interesting features and a great list of new features in every release people will keep upgrading, if you don’t do that people won’t upgrade, now you want to force people to upgrade, whenever they want to or not, because they have to pay you to be able to work.
– “Nearly all the tools that we use ourselves have moved on to the subscription-only-models.”
* Really? Besides Autodesk and Adobe, name more, because except real services (wich software is not) I don’t know any other product under a RENTAL-ONLY licensing scheme, but of course I don’t know all the software you use, and I may be wrong, maybe the software have a rental option side by side with the owning option, but RENTAL-ONLY? I only know Autodesk/Cebas/Adobe, ah! and I forgot about Office… again, I can be wrong.
– “Everyone wins with such a licensing model and in the end the user gets more value instead of owning an outdated version of a software that does no longer work.”
* Again completely subjective, and not true by doing some maths I already did in the other post, but I will post the maths here again:
OWNING LICENSES AS OF THEORETICAL TODAY:
Entertainment creation suite Premium – 1400€ subs
TP – theorethical cost with a yearly upgrade – 600€
Adobe – theoretical yearly upgrade – 600€
Corona upgrade if you are not in box+subs (theoretical)(that is a sibscription BTW) – 250€
So yearly cost = 2850€ /user, and BTW this is optional, I can decide what to upgrade and what not, because I OWN my licenses.
RENTING LICENSES:
Entertainment creation suite Premium (max and maya, basic tools for a generalist studio) – 453,75€
TP – 55€ (if I don’t have the upper software I don’t need TP)
Adobe Suite – 60,49
Corona – 60€ for 1 workstation / 10 render nodes
This is a basic package and we are in 629,24/month = 7550.88 / Year
So, again can you tell me how is this better for the user? How is this cheaper?
I can keep talking but a lot of people is going to be upset and will acuse me of trolling, when what I’m doing is defending something that every user should be defending, that is not good for users, and Cebas know it, so to survive the increased costs of Autodesk software I imagine that Cebas did this because they know this it isn’t cheaper, it’s a lot more expensive and remove rights from the users, we loose the right over the modification of our work if we don’t pay them again and again and again… we won’t own our work anymore…
OWNING – 1 USER – 1YEAR: 2850/year
RENTING – 1 USER – 1YEAR: 7550/year
I’ll say that I agree with you.
And while I also agree that TP is an amazing tool, this interview sounded like TP is the only good FX tool out there. If that was the case, most studios would be using … instead, they are integrating Houdini deeper and deeper.
Anyway … I hope Adobe and Autodesk someday rethink the rental only strategy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem it’s going to happen.
Juang3d – great points, and agree with all of them.
I purchased Thinking Particles years back, and did an upgrade several years later. I don’t think I will continue to invest in this product though. I don’t agree with paying for the right to re-open my old projects to work on them again. In essence it’s holding my projects and work hostage financially, which seems fundamentally wrong to me.
I agree with paying for upgrades if I want access to the latest and greatest technology. *That* is the incentive for Cebas to continually improve their product so that is something I *want* to upgrade. But why should I subsidize Cebas in 2015 just to open and render some work that was made with their 2011 technology?
Adobe and Autodesk are near monopolies in their industry niches and they can absorb the financial impact of turning a bunch of customers away. But it seems a highly risky finacial strategy to alienate the small and highly specialized customer base that Cebas has.
Just my perspective as an alienated ex-customer.
Except Autodesk and Adobe can’t afford to take the hit for very long if they want to keep their shareholders happy. Both of their markets are fairly mature and once they convert existing permanent licenses to rental how much growth can they expect from new customers? Once they miss a few revenue targets do you think they’ll pour more money into software improvements or will they slash staff, acquire competitors and raise rental rates?
You just forgot to do another math:
1 x Houdini indi license that can replace everything in your package (even comp) = 200$ a year! That’s why anyone who know how to count is buying houdini right now.
I did not bring out the Houdini Indie license because is limited to a small subset of users, but for those who enter inside the conditions of the indie license you are more or less right, maybe not everything IMO, but you can complement it with Blender or Modo for things like modeling or character animation/rigging or for rendering.
And the most important thing, you can always ACQUIRE. and OWN a full license of those packages.
“if you provide interesting features and a great list of new features in every release people will keep upgrading, if you don’t do that people won’t upgrade”
I agree totally with that. For me thats a fair situation.
The Artist should be able to decide whats the best for his current situation. Maybe some new features in a newer version are not of interest for him. So with a owned version you can wait if there are some updates which are relevant for your work. I think the biggest problem is the rental only thing. Leave the decision to the artists…if the new model is so much better everyone will use it and you have your rental only.
One question, have you ever seen someone 2 or 3 versions behind before TP went all subscription? I’m asking this, because I haven’t! Everybody I worked with always was on the latest TP or max 1 version behind. All new TP versions were gamechangers and had huge advatages over previous versions. Which makes your calculation kind of pointless. I think I paid like 1600€ for the TP3 full version, with upgrade costs of like (I can’t really remember exactly but something like 600€) every year. So now with this in mind tell me how is the new subscription model bad for users? +I can substract my costs from my monthly taxes. No offence but if you don’t make 45€ a month with TP alone you probably shouldn’t get a subscription in the first place.
“No offence but if you don’t make 45€ a month with TP alone you probably shouldn’t get a subscription in the first place.”
This is the most elitist comment I ever read. Who are you to say what he can or can not use? He’s fighting for options for US, not only himself. What’s the problem with options? Sure, for you 45€ maybe a piece of cake. For someone else maybe not.
You shouldn’t be so egocentric to level artists just based on your opinion. I truly hope you never hit economic difficulties, because I don’t wish that for anybody. But it appears you have no clue about how hard the economy can be in some countries.
I for one have given up. I already downloaded Houdini 15 Apprentice and I’m learning it for FREE. No need to pay $150 for a license. For me the choice is done. But I do support Juang3d “fight” and I’ll continue to do so.
As I said before – It’s up to cebas to decide if they want to have this model of subscription/rental or not, sadly enough the user can’t decide for them, the choise is made and as far as I understand, they won’t change it.
Also, cebas is a rather small company and many of the core programmers have worked there for many years, they need to earn money, and with this price model, they will for sure earn more money than with the old price model when you acctually owned your license because of many users maybe didn’t upgrade to every new version before.
Also worth mention here is that cebas aims at smaller and bigger studios/companies, not single users who sit home alone playing and learning.
I also think that they should change it to what they had before, but then again, it’s not up to me/us as users to decide, it’s up to cebas.
I do think that thinkingParticles is one of the best and most powerful plugins available for 3ds max, there is nothing like it, and together with FumeFX/PhoenixFD, XMesh, Frost and Krakatoa, you have what you need in forms of VFX Tools due max itself doesn’t bring us something new regarding that area, and sadly enough, I don’t think they will either.
Think of how many lines of code thinkingParticles holds, how many hours of work there is behind the scenes and how much new features thinkingParticles gets each version. They need to get paid in one way or another, else, we wouldn’t have thinkingParticles at all.
But, again, I do think that they should add a license option that you own 100% for lifetime and then it’s up to you to decide if you want to pay for an upgrade to the next major release or not.
Last – I don’t think none of us can make them change their mind about this by typing our wishes here – Again, the choise is made, and that will leave you to decide – Are thinkingParticles worth the money for your work or not? Yes, pay them and be happy, no, don’t pay them and find another software that fills your needs and that can do the same thing as thinkingParticles can, if that excist (Houdini then maybe).
It is on mine belief that people will update IF and only IF the update is good enough. 3ds Max had a row of crappy updates and a lot of people skipped because of that.
Take a look at the upgrade of Houdini 15. If you were a user of Houdini, would you want to skip this upgrade? I doubt that.
http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3138&Itemid=422
Congratulations to Edwin and Achim!
FinalRender was one of my first ever bought plugins, back in 1995 (i think).
I still have here the CD with Serial number, as well as OpticalLens & PyroCluster Boxes. In that time there were only few 3d artists here in Germany, there was no academies to teach you 3d and a very small user base. If something does not work, there was almost no one you could ask for help at all.
Just imagine the time and circumstances: Year 1994, MentalRay and Renderman cost $18.000,-, trash-renderer like RadioRay and Lightscape were offered with 3dsmax V3, no Vray, and the Corona developers were in that time probably attending the grammar school (just to illustrate how much time has passed). Far away from present Octane, Maxwell, Lux, Nox etc diversity.
Edwin was a kind of visionary developer, fast, aggressive, but in any case a game-changer and a mover. FinalRender was (and still is) the most “compatible” renderer of all: you can throw anything in it and it will render. Also the delivered shaders and FinalToon, all in once package, are something you would search for a very Long time in other packages.
We can disscuss now the licensing model of TP, and how expensive it is and so on, but we should not forget that FinalRender was an important mile-stone in the 3dsMax history.
Of course it was, that is why Cebas making this is so sad, they are ignoring A LOT of past, present and future (well, that last one most probably not) users.
It’s sad to see a company that grew up with us, users, is now wanting to trick on us calling things with other names justifying themselves saying that they cannot maintain their evolution without this economic change, how did they manage to live the past years?
-(RENTAL_ONLY is not a SUBSCRIPTION)
I do NOT Upgrate my TP to a rental system for some reasons:
-I can buy software in good times and still use it in bad times. With renting, I can´t use it when I need it most without extra payment: in bad times I want to overcome.
-My clients want me to sign that I can go back to my backups for a certain amount of years. With a renatl system I CAN`T sign such a contract ! What happens if Cebas would close its doors in 1 year and shut down the license server ? I would have NO access to all my old scenes, my pipeline, to everything with would be part of the TP!
And I would by TP for the double price, if it just would be possible !!!
Make it 5 times more expensive, but let people buy it !!!!!!!
Houdini indie have restriction
Commercial usage of Houdini Indie is limited to following:
The annual gross revenue of commercial entities and contracting entities does not exceed $100K USD
Commercial entities and contracting entities can purchase a maximum of 3 Houdini Indie and 3 Houdini Engine licenses
Houdini Indie cannot be used in the same pipeline as commercial versions of Houdini
Houdini Indie uses its own file format for saving scenes and assets
It is restricted to 1920×1080 when rendering out animations
Houdini Indie does not work with third party renderers.
You can use Houdini Indie, create a digital assets, use Houdini Engine and render in Max with V-Ray or whatever. (if I’m not mistaken)
You are completely right Guillermo, but you have the option to make an investment and acquire Houdini FX… the lack of that option is the problem…
Hey, thanks for the comments. I juts wanted to correct one thing that is not true about our licensing.
THERE IS NO COST OPENING AND RENDERING OLD SCENES. THERE NEVER WAS. We always allowed network rendering, or rendering in slave mode. You can re-render your old scenes as they where without any cost. even if you had 3ds Max 2008. But this means you have to properly achieve your stuff.
Just so no one miss this, this is not about re-rendering old scenes, is about modifying old scenes without having to pay Cebas again:
——
“we loose the right over the modification of our work if we don’t pay them again and again and again… we won’t own our work anymore…”
——
this is one of the key things, if anyone is interested there is more info in another answer a bit below this.
Hi Edwin,great to have you here.
It is not about rendering, it is about getting back to old scenes, old setups and scenes build up on that. There are studios which want you to sign this contracts. And if you can´t ensure to open the scens when they are doing Part 2 of a movie, you have a real problem. And you can´t guarante that cebas is avilable in 5 years. So I have to sign contracts I can´t count on or do not use a rent software. It is sad, but simple. And if we would build a particle library on TP, we can not be sure to be able to use this in one year, would mean we would loose all investments into it.
Or what about a project running over a year and at half of the project our license has to be renewed, but Cebas closed it doors because of a finacial problem / earthquake, whatever ? We would have to stop in the middle of a production and tell the producer that we can´t edit the scenes from yesterday anymore ? Do you think we will take this risk ?
As I told you before, we would pay more to get a full lic and do not rent, but it is not available. If you change your mind on day and offer a choice to your customers, we are in again. I still hope for that day…
Pete, the message was – that you can not re-use or re-render old scenes as soon as you are no longer paying subscription. This is not correct. I was referring to this.
If you want to work with the software you need to pay the proper fees. It is that way right now. I tried to explain, this is the way for us to get future developments done and paid for.
Your argument about not being there anymore, I do understand this but this is the same for everyone in the market including you. You are signing a contract and you are not able to guarantee that you exists in the future as well; fulfilling this contract in 5 years.
Many of our customers welcome the subscription model; some of them do not like it. But with our latest release 6.2 just after a few months 6.1 came out; we delivered a smoke solver to our paying users. Such an update would usually have taken more than a year to show up in a new major release! Now, users can enjoy right away the very first evolution of our smoke solver and we can continue to enhance it and add more new stuff in a much faster and better way. This is all impossible with an old and outdated Major release update mechanic.
I’m not here to preach and convert, I just want to make clear we are not doing something evil or unique here. Licensing software as well as artwork of any kind is a common thing.
Edwin, you got it wrong, I think I’ve put it very clear, the message was and is that “YOU CAN’T FURTHER MODIFY SCENES WITHOUT PAYING CEBAS AGAIN”, sorry about the caps, but I want to set things clear.
Allow me to quote myself:
[QUOTE Juang3d]
we loose the right over the modification of our work if we don’t pay them again and again and again… we won’t own our work anymore…
[/QUOTE Juang3d]
As you can see I said “MODIFICATION”, at least if it was an answer to me, if it wasn’t, well it may clarify things.
Now regarding this:
“This is all impossible with an old and outdated Major release update mechanic.”
And how did you manage to survive for 27 years?
Also you can reach a REAL SUBSCRIPTION model, so people own their licenses but to upgrade they have to suscribe, or a RENT-TO-OWN model, it’s similar but in the end if you don’t want to upgrade you may miss bugfixing and/or future max releases support, or even publish a more expensive version to own it as many users are asking, so you can own your license and not depend on Cebas, no matter if Cebas exists or not.
But as always you ignore all this and keep saying:
“If you want to work with the software you need to pay the proper fees. It is that way right now. ”
So you want me to pay you to modify a project I did a year ago with a software that was a year old, EVEN WHEN I DON’T WANT/NEED TO UPGRADE or EVEN WHEN I DON’T WANT/NEED YOUR NEW FEATURES, in the end, you want me to pay for things I don’t want, and you want me to pay to modify my own work with old software… and after that you say:
“I just want to make clear we are not doing something evil…”
Yeah, sure, and specially when you ignore all those users that don’t want rental, specially some of your old users that don’t want rental…
Hi Edwin,
sure, licensing is a common thing. And I payed the proper fee for you TP in the past, but for a full license, not just to borrow it a few months. I have to license my work to my clients also as a FULL license, I cant say, hey Paramount , this vfx shot is just allowed to show in cinemas for one year, than you have to pay me again.
This is just not working.
And sure, there is no guarantee that I am on the market in a few years, too. But this is MY problem and MY risk. You want me to take YOUR problems and YOUR Risk as an addition to MY own ones. Why should i do this ?
And you did some great updates in the past, too. My argument is not to pay you less !!! I want to pay you MORE if you want, I just want to keep a full license. So your argument is not working, it is not about money.
Very well said, you nailed it…
Of course it’s not about money. The Corona guys (a smaller venture than Cebas) have options. You can buy the .0 versions and that’s it, you can buy if and pay for a subscription, which entitles you to all the updates or you can just rent.
Options … three actually. Funnily enough, they said that the option to only buy is the least sold. People actually like to buy + subscription, which entitles you to OWN the license and also get the updates. This way there’s a constant flux of money to the Corona devs and you have the guarantee of owning the license.
So yeah … there are roads to be taken, but it appears they don’t want to. It’s all good actually. Just don’t say that is because you can’t.
Is anyone happy with any software that has gone rental only? Is the golden age of software development upon us? Will new and innovative bug free features spring forth from our yearly tax?
Nice explanation. I never thought in that direction with rental system.
Even Office Proffessional 2016 has a NON-RENTAL-ONLY option.
Even Microsoft is giving options, so it makes just Adobe, Autodesk and Cebas, and Adobe is not having better revenues at all, instead of that they are having to “invent” new subscriptions at low cost, to not give options to the users is non sense…
Does anybody remember how much of a PITA it was years ago when you got a missing cebas.dlu message on files that had been saved (just saved not actually used in the scene) by someone who had fR installed? Good times.
rental = not for me.
as an option i’m all for options but as THE only option…not a fan.
A reminder of basic rules of the house: personal attacks are not allowed, do not take comments to a personal level. You’re welcome to express criticism and disagreements in a respectful way. But always keep in mind that courtesy is a requirement on this website, everyone should feel comfortable here.
Thank you all for helping keep the discussion civilized.
I think any misrepresentations have to be corrected in an objective and unbiased manner by CGP.
I agree with you, completely, but what I don’t understand is why do you say this here?
What is misrepresented or incorrectly explained?
@Cedar Please let us know what needs to be corrected.
+1
Sorry everyone as I am working and not always popping here. Well, I am not going to repeat. Edwin has replied and to some of the comments aforementioned that were factually incorrect – I replied similar to such misrepresentation. Please read them yourself.
That is incorrect.
That theoretically misrepresentation was incorrect, please read the answers.
Now after that was clarified, CGP and myself have asked you about the theoretic “correction” that should be done by CGP staff, please clarify this because it’s important to understand why do you say CGP is not being objective and unbiased, and if it is in an specific manner, it could be best.