 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Allan Bedford wrote:
> > But... a slightly more realistic question might be, "are the molds
> > being changed to help secure new patents?" In the light of recent
> > court proceedings I would put my money on this answer.
>
> The chamfering could also help the finished piece get out of the mold
> faster/easier, maybe the plates got stuck in the machine?
Wouldn't you then also surmise that you'd have to round off the edges of the
plates/bricks too?
I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
de-evolving their technology?
I don't mean to sound so negative, but some of the arguments/reasons being
presented in this thread are somewhat irrational.
The truth is that we may never know. The LEGO company is under no obligation to
release any information of this type. I am willing to sit back and wait to see
how things play out. This may be an experiment, a bad batch... who knows? The
history of other toys and construction systems suggests that this kind of thing
is almost certain to happen given enough time. Look at how many iterations of
color, sizes and shapes the Meccano system has gone through over the years. If
LEGO didn't change from time to time we'd still be in a world without minifigs,
Technic parts, Mindstorms, and the list goes on.
All the best,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
> less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
> de-evolving their technology?
Lego has CONSTANTLY been perfecting the designs of pieces. Witness the hole in
the minifig head; the slots in the sides of the Technic pin; etc., etc., etc.
The camfering is another step in the ongoing development of product, though for
what reason we don't know, and as you say may never.
Which pieces in the MINIs are camfered? I bought a Mos Eisley and couldn't find
it on any pieces.
I have to say, after looking at the color differences, I'm disappointed but not
going to stop buying Lego, even if they're permanent. I actually like the new
colors better--but I don't like the fact they don't match what I've got.
Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
> > less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
> > de-evolving their technology?
>
> Lego has CONSTANTLY been perfecting the designs of pieces.
I totally agree.
What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
patent related.
> Witness the hole in
> the minifig head; the slots in the sides of the Technic pin; etc., etc., etc.
> The camfering is another step in the ongoing development of product, though for
> what reason we don't know, and as you say may never.
Many changes over the years. Not at all unlike the Meccano system. The key
(for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
off not making a change.
> I actually like the new
> colors better--but I don't like the fact they don't match what I've got.
But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
LEGO bricks and building. Why? Well, I only have 1 1x3 pink brick. Time to
stop building, sell my collection and take up knitting. No offense to any
knitters in the audience, but this ain't happening. Quite the opposite, I'm
trying to figure out a use for that one pink 1x3 brick in a model someday. This
is a construction toy, not a coin collection that needs to be complete to be
interesting. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
> were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
> happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
> changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
> patent related.
Right--I don't agree with that either. It's not a manufacturing issue or a
cost-saving issue, it's a marketing thing probably based on ease of assembly (if
it's not a mistake, which I'm still willing to believe based on my Mos Eisley
experience and other pieces.
> The key (for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
> replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
> off not making a change.
Right--but "better" is relative to the audience, and they have another audience
in mind than us AFOLs. (Whether the change is better for kids either is
debatable.)
> But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
> LEGO bricks and building
I'm not about to. If other AFOLs do, then hey! More Lego pieces for me. I've
put the new color pieces together with old ones and while I wouldn't have chosen
the effect, it's not unpleasant.
Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
> > were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
> > happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
> > changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
> > patent related.
>
> Right--I don't agree with that either. It's not a manufacturing issue or a
> cost-saving issue, it's a marketing thing probably based on ease of assembly (if
> it's not a mistake, which I'm still willing to believe based on my Mos Eisley
> experience and other pieces.
So this microscopic change to the studs makes them easier to assemble? Worse
yet, this suggests that today's kids are not as dexterous as we were 25 or 30
years ago? This is really hard to believe. Any average 6 year-old can use
their superior eye --> hand co-ordination to beat me at just about any slick new
video game. And to watch them build with LEGO bricks it's easy to see that
today's kids can still function perfectly well with them. In fact, I once had a
young person tell me that she, "could have built something better if she'd had
the little bricks instead of the big ones." That was the last time I offered
her Duplo bricks with which to build. :)
Rather than being frustrated or over-challenged by LEGO I think kids are as
capable of building with it today - in it's current form - as they were 20, 30
or 40 years ago. Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
"kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
them!!!"
To hint that kids are having trouble aligning LEGO bricks is to not give credit
to today's very smart children.
From the stories I hear from parents with whom I work today's kids don't have
trouble putting bricks together. Is someone else aware of this being a problem?
Is the company besieged with calls and emails proclaiming, "my child can't get
their LEGO bricks lined up so that they will stick together!!!" Is there
evidence that this is happening?
> > The key (for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
> > replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
> > off not making a change.
>
> Right--but "better" is relative to the audience, and they have another audience
> in mind than us AFOLs. (Whether the change is better for kids either is
> debatable.)
Kids are more likely to use the click hinges over and again... possibly more
than adults... possibly wearing them out sooner. It was just an example, but I
think it actually holds water in this context. I wasn't attempting to preach a
pro-adult agenda, merely suggesting that companies need to pay attention to what
types of changes they make. The history (and in part the decline) of the
Meccano system was ripe with good and bad changes.
> > But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
> > LEGO bricks and building
>
> I'm not about to. If other AFOLs do, then hey! More Lego pieces for me. I've
> put the new color pieces together with old ones and while I wouldn't have chosen
> the effect, it's not unpleasant.
And I'm not about to either. :)
I was using hyperbole to suggest that if I listened to all of the panic
mongering that has gone on in this thread I would be following a ridiculous
course of action. I don't think anyone will or should give up LEGO building
because of these changes. If the changes are good, they will be adopted as a
long-term solution. If they don't, then the company is just as likely to try
something else... for reasons likely unknown to any of us. It's just not worth
fussing over these changes, especially when there's little any of us could do to
alter the natural progression of a consumer product like this.
All the best,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> them!!!"
Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
past.
Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:37:39 GMT, "Peter F. Guenther"
<peterg1974@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> > tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> > "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> > them!!!"
>
> Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
> the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
> made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
> user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
> past.
>
> Peter
I thought the holes in the minifig heads were for safety reasons, to
prevent choking if a child were to attempt to swallow them. I think I
saw that mentioned in a LEGO book somewhere...
C
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> > tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> > "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> > them!!!"
We now know that this is a moot point, but something worries me about your
logic:
> Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
> the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
> made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
> user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
> past.
Your statements are true.... IF we are talking about a product or design that is
relatively new... perhaps only a few years old. Then there is the
expectation/obligation for the company to respond to consumer
complaints/requests and fix parts of the product's design that are not working.
But the tube/stud design is more than 40 years old! Does this suggest that LEGO
is really really slow in changing bad designs?
Had this change actually been true it's highly unlikely it would have been a
result of consumer complaints. Those complaints would have been coming in since
before man landed on the moon! But if the change had been made to help kids,
then it suggests either kids who aren't as agile as they were decades ago
(completely untrue) or it suggests a way to either save money or protect product
patents etc.
What really worries me though is that apparently the change to the grey color
was partly driven by consumer feedback. Who are these people? Who called the
company to express discontent over the shades of grey their kids were building
with. I've heard parents complain that Mega Bloks don't click together well,
that LEGO is too expensive, that there aren't play sets for Bionicles... and the
list goes on. I've never heard a kid, parent or adult builder complain that
light grey was making their LEGO building less enjoyable. :)
Signed,
Head still spinning Bedford
| | | | | | |
