 | | | | | |
I noted this article on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> I noted this article on Slashdot:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
>
> -Orion
I can't remember when exactly , but some time in the last year or so LEGO
conducted a customer survey about the Mindstorms product line(s). When they did
their restructuring, they had also mentioned that they want to focus on products
like Mindstorms. Don't these facts seem to suggest they are working on new
Mindstorms related products?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Pouria Dehghanpour wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > I noted this article on Slashdot:
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
> >
> > -Orion
>
>
> I can't remember when exactly , but some time in the last year or so LEGO
> conducted a customer survey about the Mindstorms product line(s). When they did
> their restructuring, they had also mentioned that they want to focus on products
> like Mindstorms. Don't these facts seem to suggest they are working on new
> Mindstorms related products?
No - I don't think so.
Redesigning Mindstorms would be a fairly major R&D cost that an ailing
company could ill afford.
However, what they COULD have done for almost zero cost would have been
to come out with more Mindstorms sets using existing parts.
So if they were very interesting in keeping the line going, why would
we not have seen "Mindstorms+Pneumatics", "Mindstorms Motors and
Sensors" - or the core Mindstorms RCX+Tower bundled with a different
set of parts to make a new, "freshened" set. Not as exciting to
*us* - but if the market were clamoring for something, this would
be a reasonable (and CHEAP) solution for them.
Sure, we'd like to see a revamped RCX/Tower setup with more modern
computer parts, smaller, more modular, better motors, more sensors.
But if they were quietly working on that stuff behind the scenes,
why wouldn't they be keeping the product line alive with fresher,
more exciting sets?
It seems to me that they are just maintaining a dying product line
at the minimum possible level on a "just in case" basis so that
they have something in that arena ready if some unexpected
resurgance should happen to come along. They are probably
selling just enough to schools and colleges and to us AFOL's
to justify keeping that one set on their production schedule.
I doubt we'll see an exciting new Mindstorm replacement anytime
soon. The fortunes of Lego as a whole need to improve a whole
lot first - and their "return to core products" push is definitely
not a good sign for Mindstorms.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> I doubt we'll see an exciting new Mindstorm replacement anytime
> soon. The fortunes of Lego as a whole need to improve a whole
> lot first - and their "return to core products" push is definitely
> not a good sign for Mindstorms.
I'd have a hard time not thinking of Mindstorms as a "core product" as it's
become so ingrained in the product line-up for so long and is so important.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> I noted this article on Slashdot:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
The usual slashdot blend of insightful and not quite as insightful. The
recurring theme that "once you have sold a user a certain amount, they never
need more product, so that's why LEGO went with licenses" is not one that I
agree with, and I suspect I am not alone, many of us like to build big things.
But we're a niche.
This link makes for interesting reading. http://www.techuser.net/lego.html
Something doesn't gibe but I can't say quite what.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Nov 28, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> The usual slashdot blend of insightful and not quite as insightful.
Slashdot fares better when they stick to technical issues. When the
topic drifts to the right way to run a profitable corporation, there
is a lot of authority, but little reality.
> This link makes for interesting reading. http://www.techuser.net/
> lego.html
> Something doesn't gibe but I can't say quite what.
Agreed. It is always amusing when someone attempts to reduce the cost
of a product by analyzing the cost of the component parts.
The closest look I have to the inside of Lego is the annual report.
The problems they're encountering might be impossible to overcome.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Matthew Davidson wrote:
> Agreed. It is always amusing when someone attempts to reduce the cost
> of a product by analyzing the cost of the component parts.
Certainly I didn't buy into the argument that they can make an RCX for
75 cents! That's ridiculous.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > I noted this article on Slashdot:
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
>
> The usual slashdot blend of insightful and not quite as insightful. The
> recurring theme that "once you have sold a user a certain amount, they never
> need more product, so that's why LEGO went with licenses" is not one that I
> agree with, and I suspect I am not alone, many of us like to build big things.
> But we're a niche.
>
> This link makes for interesting reading. http://www.techuser.net/lego.html
> Something doesn't gibe but I can't say quite what.
It's a very funny story. I really tried to read the whole thing, but I can't.
I've spent too much time laughing.
I recognize the author's logic trail from the cartoon network. IE: "That guy
smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, so that guy killed those
people..."
Clearly, these two statements are indisputable:
"Media stories about Lego tend to create the impression that most Lego customers
are Lego literate and are building sophisticated models, but there is no
evidence that such is the case."
"Most people including long time Lego customers are totally unaware of the
considerable play potential of Lego bricks and believe Lego play to be all about
putting pieces together as depicted, and this perception of Lego play is turning
away older age groups."
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
The problem is guys, while that may not mean many lugnet regulars and
afols, the majority of their sales are gonna be kids who only put
together the described models. I was once in Hamleys (being a
Londoner) and heard a mum objecting to buying Lego star wars toys over
other Star Wars toys on the grounds that "you'll only mix it up with
the rest of your Lego" - obviously not seeing that this is exactly (in
my mind) what the toy is designed for. While there is a strong
community with a fierce identity here on lugnet, we really are only a
minority of lego consumers (and I really meant that term with all its
attached connotations). Take into account that experienced people who
are "Lego Literate" as the artical phrases it will use LDraw to design
stuff, then purchase a specific set of parts from Bricklink, or second
hand sets from ebay, then we may feature even less highly on TLG's
list of top markets. Its true that we have much more in disposable
income than a kid hassling their parents, but we also have a restraint
that they dont, and we know how to get stuff cheaper or in bulk.
I would love Lego to actually leave behind all of their movie tie ins,
Bionacle (though some interesting parts came out of it) and some of
the less playable lines and focus seriously on Basic (City/Space etc),
Technic (To which Bionacle became a very, very poor cousin) and
Mindstorms (which I saw as the logical progression of technic and a
long overdue step). Only - I get the feeling that in terms of sheer
shifting of volume units, the Star Wars tie ins will do better.
As for the references to FischerTechnik - for some of the reasons
stated, I have very seriously considered it. They took bold steps of
creating solenoids - how I would have loved a proper
mindstorms/pneumatics Lego set. Their controller had more IO - one of
the most annoying RCX limitations. Only - I would still build the
chassis with Lego.
Trying to be optimistic, while Lego's like for their robotics lines
may be cooling off, the action has really heated up elsewhere, with
many mCUs on the market now, and many people with experience mounting
them on Lego creations. Maybe this will spur TLG into having another
crack when they are feeling healthier.
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk
(Full contact details available through website)
On 28/11/05, Steve Hassenplug <steve@teamhassenplug.org> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > I noted this article on Slashdot:
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
> >
> > The usual slashdot blend of insightful and not quite as insightful. The
> > recurring theme that "once you have sold a user a certain amount, they never
> > need more product, so that's why LEGO went with licenses" is not one that I
> > agree with, and I suspect I am not alone, many of us like to build big
> > things.
> > But we're a niche.
> >
> > This link makes for interesting reading. http://www.techuser.net/lego.html
> > Something doesn't gibe but I can't say quite what.
>
>
> It's a very funny story. I really tried to read the whole thing, but I can't.
> I've spent too much time laughing.
>
> I recognize the author's logic trail from the cartoon network. IE: "That guy
> smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, so that guy killed those
> people..."
>
>
> Clearly, these two statements are indisputable:
>
> "Media stories about Lego tend to create the impression that most Lego
> customers
> are Lego literate and are building sophisticated models, but there is no
> evidence that such is the case."
>
> "Most people including long time Lego customers are totally unaware of the
> considerable play potential of Lego bricks and believe Lego play to be all
> about
> putting pieces together as depicted, and this perception of Lego play is
> turning
> away older age groups."
>
> Steve
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Has anyone ever visted the Lego company?:
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=visit
and if so, is it worth going? What do you get to see/do?
When my son is a bit older we're (I'm) planning a trip to Lego Land UK. It's
considerably nearer.
Thomas
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, danny staple <orionrobots@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would love Lego to actually leave behind all of their movie tie ins.
I like the tie-ins, except "Harry Pooper". Star Wars has made Lego "cool" in
some quarters. They're a great reason for people who already have sufficent Lego
to buy more. They just need better tie-ins. "The Matrix" Lego would have been
cool.
> I would have loved a proper mindstorms/pneumatics Lego set.
Me too.
I think a business approach that can never fail is to take a popular product ie
"Mindstorms" and just re-invest some of the profits to develop the basic idea,
eg, an improved RCX every five years or so. Just keeping up with current trends
ie blue tooth (or better). And in between add a few new sensors to the range. A
cool programming environment (think bricxcc) but done by Lego and an online
forum would be the icing on the cake.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, November 28, 2005 5:12 pm, Steve Lane yahoo.co.uk@qs483.pair.com> wrote:
> I think a business approach that can never fail is to take a popular product ie
> "Mindstorms" and just re-invest some of the profits to develop the basic idea,
> eg, an improved RCX every five years or so.
How long has the current version of the RCX been around?
> ... and an online forum would be the icing on the cake.
What would you want to see in an online forum? What would it include that's not
available here (LUGNET) and/or on LEGOfan?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > ... and an online forum would be the icing on the cake.
>
> What would you want to see in an online forum? What would it include that's not
> available here (LUGNET) and/or on LEGOfan?
What I meant was that Lego should improve the Mindstorms product line and create
an official forum targeted as the same demographic they're selling Mindstorms
too and not afols. Lugnet will always be much better than that, but it's
probably a bit advanced for children and younger teenagers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Personally, I believe that the discussions on business
models for TLG are a bit off key. Lego already has
solid products, and sells to a defined market segment.
Their bread and butter product lines sell because of
novelty in many cases. Those film related lego sets
sell because of the film tie-in novelty *AND* because
of the puzzle value. Some people need instructions,
and are unable to simply begin creating things like
the Harry Potter sets on their own.
With the advent of some robot toys (that need no
construction) the appeal of Lego loses some luster.
Straight forward building toys of any manufacturer
have lost ground over the last few years. What I
believe that Lego needs to do is repackage the RCX in
a "Lego Advance" product line. All of the sets that
AFOLs want would be in that product line. It requires
little manufacturing change, and creates revenue with
little or no distribution issues as most AFOLs are
willing and able to purchase on-line.
As for the on-line forum, this one is quite handy, and
would be quite suitable for "Lego Advance" products.
Lego wouldn't even need to do anything but
monitor/contribute to this forum.
Using both the forum, and their ability to repackage
Lego parts into Lego Advance kits, they could
revitalize that segment of the populace that *IS*
interested in straight forward building toys.
By showing support for this market segment, Lego would
benefit from all the ideas that would be supported.
That would take part of their product line out of the
'toy' category and place it firmly in the 'inventor
systems' category, even though it is arguably already
so.
Looking at the big picture, robots and systems with
embedded processors around the house have specific
developmental requirements. By this I mean that toys
are already being produced that are a shortcut to what
Lego offers. Could you build a robot vacuum from Lego?
A sentry robot? A system that monitors your house? The
Aibo (even though I'll never buy from Sony again) is a
certain winner for the kids in deciding which they
want for the holidays. How much would you pay for a
Lego kit that creates something similar to the Aibo?
1500, 2000?
TLG will not generate huge revenues by simply
reinventing what Lego has already. They need to aim at
a more technically savvy and technically aware
audience. TLG needs to create the Lego Advance line of
products and develop further on that so that
tomorrow's kids will be building things that are not
yet available in the same market segment/place today.
Sure, there are lots of things that you can build with
Lego now, but imagine if TLG were to turn the volume
up by several notches?
All the things that we (AFOLs) would like to be able
to buy would help do that, but there has to be a
business model that fundamentally fits with the creed
of Lego in general. The Lego Advance has to be more
than a toy, but less than a home security system.
Along with sales, they must avoid legal issues, and
trying to sell into markets that are already well
attended.
Some suggestions (workable or not) would be:
1 - A tie-in with X-10 products for control of those
products
2 - Wireless communications with sensors (bluetooth?)
3 - More advanced sensors (get out of the experimentor
stage)
4 - Ready made shells for home-brew parts/sensors
5 - Products that link systems together at home in
ways that are not available to home users in general.
For example, look at new home construction products
and how they function over networks.
All of that would have to be Lego Advance products,
and not cut into their other business of movie tie-ins
etc. It also requires that Lego begin competing in
areas that they have never tried before.
Anyway, the Lego Advance systems is what I would like
to see.
--- Steve Hassenplug <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote:
> On Mon, November 28, 2005 5:12 pm, Steve Lane
> yahoo.co.uk@qs483.pair.com> wrote:
> > I think a business approach that can never fail is • to take a popular product ie
> > "Mindstorms" and just re-invest some of the • profits to develop the basic idea,
> > eg, an improved RCX every five years or so.
>
> How long has the current version of the RCX been
> around?
>
> > ... and an online forum would be the icing on the
> cake.
>
> What would you want to see in an online forum? What
> would it include that's not
> available here (LUGNET) and/or on LEGOfan?
>
> Steve
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Nov 29, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Mr S wrote:
> Some suggestions (workable or not) would be:
>
> 1 - A tie-in with X-10 products for control of those
> products
> 2 - Wireless communications with sensors (bluetooth?)
I thought about bluetooth, but I personally feel 802.11 would be
better. I bought a Roku Soundbridge new for around $125 and that
included a WiFi card.
> 3 - More advanced sensors (get out of the experimentor
> stage)
> 4 - Ready made shells for home-brew parts/sensors
> 5 - Products that link systems together at home in
> ways that are not available to home users in general.
> For example, look at new home construction products
> and how they function over networks.
Is there a composite wish list for a next-generation RCX-like
microcontroller anywhere? Might make some interesting reading.
Regardless, if Mindstorms was a runaway financial success for TLG,
the product line would not have stalled. Even if a company has the
ability to produce a product, does not mean it makes financial sense
for them to do so. Launching any new product (even if it is a
aggregate of existing R&D) is a commitment. A financial commitment.
And, it involves work. Sure, it could be a source of profit, but that
is not enough. The projected sales figures have to reach a certain
point for a product launch to be deemed worth doing. If catering to
AFOLs and robotics enthusiasts registered on TLG's financial radar,
I'm sure they'd do it in a heartbeat.
- matthew
http://www.stretta.com/~matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matthew Davidson wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Mr S wrote:
>
> > Some suggestions (workable or not) would be:
> >
> > 1 - A tie-in with X-10 products for control of those
> > products
> > 2 - Wireless communications with sensors (bluetooth?)
>
>
> I thought about bluetooth, but I personally feel 802.11 would be
> better. I bought a Roku Soundbridge new for around $125 and that
> included a WiFi card.
>
> > 3 - More advanced sensors (get out of the experimentor
> > stage)
> > 4 - Ready made shells for home-brew parts/sensors
> > 5 - Products that link systems together at home in
> > ways that are not available to home users in general.
> > For example, look at new home construction products
> > and how they function over networks.
There have been dozens and dozens of discussions here about what
might or might not make a great RCX replacement - I don't think
there is much chance of it happening - so it's really a waste of
time to discuss it.
> Regardless, if Mindstorms was a runaway financial success for TLG, the
> product line would not have stalled. Even if a company has the ability
> to produce a product, does not mean it makes financial sense for them
> to do so.
Right.
The trouble is, we AFOL's see something as absolutely mouth-wateringly
great - but the general public might not even understand it.
We are a *TINY* fraction of TLG's business. I'd bet that even if
every one of us bought several 'new RCX' sets, Lego wouldn't come
even close to breaking even on the high R&D costs of such a part.
RCX is really the worst of both worlds - it's expensive to develop
(so high NRE) but has a small market niche (so cost-recovery is
difficult).
You can see why (if faced with a choice) they'd make a few standard
parts in new colours - *maybe* design a couple of new pieces - stick
a 'Harry Potter' label on it - and sell them in vast quantities.
That has a tiny NRE (mostly the licensing of the movie rights) - and
large quantity sales. If a set fails for some reason, the NRE was low,
so the loss is small. If you invest to make a new RCX and it fails,
you've just blown a couple of million dollars.
The only fix for that is to stick a big price tag on the set - but
that's just going to drive the market share down yet futher.
> Launching any new product (even if it is a aggregate of
> existing R&D) is a commitment. A financial commitment. And, it involves
> work. Sure, it could be a source of profit, but that is not enough. The
> projected sales figures have to reach a certain point for a product
> launch to be deemed worth doing. If catering to AFOLs and robotics
> enthusiasts registered on TLG's financial radar, I'm sure they'd do it
> in a heartbeat.
Yep - exactly.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
While I personally love to see that, I just dont see them putting
their neck out on that one. As stated before, we (AFOLs and advanced
users) are barely a blip on the register of the bean counters, and it
is to them that any business development will now fundamentally answer
to. I suppose the good thing is, if they really can make the right
decisions (and I am not sure what faith I have) that win them more
money and profitability in the market, then later on they will have
the strength to get as bold as they have been before again.
Look at it this way, Lego are/have sold off the theme parks - which
have been apart of the Lego experience for as long as I can remember.
This is not a company in rude healt (expression meaning very good
health over here), but a company who are becoming very timid and
careful as they are seeing a market migration. Of course- one thing
that may dawn upon them is that their traditional market of younger
kids is drying up, while the 20-40 year olds who grew up with Lego are
dyed in the wool followers, and better targetting/support of that
market - and aiming squarely at the 20 somethings who havent done a
lot with Lego yet, may yeild furthar sales. New markets are a good
thing to have when old ones are beginning to stagnate.
A lot of parents see Lego as expensive. Not all kids (as Mr S points
out) dont have the patience, or the "building bug" to want Lego, and
that seems be slowly dwindling in that cross section. However -
websites like thinkgeek show that a healthy geeky market of people
willing to spend money online on cool and interesting gadgets,
including construction toy ranges. AFAIK - thinkgeek have no bricks
and mortar sites, and have displaced (in the uk) the Gadget shop
fairly well here. Lego really could move in to making a good market by
carrying the most comprehensive range online, and getting the more
electronic toys carried on sites like thinkgeek as well.
I do remember the star-wars mindstorms tie-ins as disappointing (being
based on the low-spec microscout). Maybe they could reuse the
electronics from the SpyBots to get more interesing star wars bot
tie-ins - again aimed at the 200something market.
Anyway I still feel that crossposting to .dear-lego (or continuing the
thread there) would be a good step here. I have therefore added it in
to my response.
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk
(Full contact details available through website)
On 29/11/05, Mr S <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> Personally, I believe that the discussions on business
> models for TLG are a bit off key. Lego already has
> solid products, and sells to a defined market segment.
> Their bread and butter product lines sell because of
> novelty in many cases. Those film related lego sets
> sell because of the film tie-in novelty *AND* because
> of the puzzle value. Some people need instructions,
> and are unable to simply begin creating things like
> the Harry Potter sets on their own.
>
> With the advent of some robot toys (that need no
> construction) the appeal of Lego loses some luster.
> Straight forward building toys of any manufacturer
> have lost ground over the last few years. What I
> believe that Lego needs to do is repackage the RCX in
> a "Lego Advance" product line. All of the sets that
> AFOLs want would be in that product line. It requires
> little manufacturing change, and creates revenue with
> little or no distribution issues as most AFOLs are
> willing and able to purchase on-line.
>
> As for the on-line forum, this one is quite handy, and
> would be quite suitable for "Lego Advance" products.
> Lego wouldn't even need to do anything but
> monitor/contribute to this forum.
>
> Using both the forum, and their ability to repackage
> Lego parts into Lego Advance kits, they could
> revitalize that segment of the populace that *IS*
> interested in straight forward building toys.
>
> By showing support for this market segment, Lego would
> benefit from all the ideas that would be supported.
> That would take part of their product line out of the
> 'toy' category and place it firmly in the 'inventor
> systems' category, even though it is arguably already
> so.
>
> Looking at the big picture, robots and systems with
> embedded processors around the house have specific
> developmental requirements. By this I mean that toys
> are already being produced that are a shortcut to what
> Lego offers. Could you build a robot vacuum from Lego?
> A sentry robot? A system that monitors your house? The
> Aibo (even though I'll never buy from Sony again) is a
> certain winner for the kids in deciding which they
> want for the holidays. How much would you pay for a
> Lego kit that creates something similar to the Aibo?
> 1500, 2000?
>
> TLG will not generate huge revenues by simply
> reinventing what Lego has already. They need to aim at
> a more technically savvy and technically aware
> audience. TLG needs to create the Lego Advance line of
> products and develop further on that so that
> tomorrow's kids will be building things that are not
> yet available in the same market segment/place today.
>
> Sure, there are lots of things that you can build with
> Lego now, but imagine if TLG were to turn the volume
> up by several notches?
> All the things that we (AFOLs) would like to be able
> to buy would help do that, but there has to be a
> business model that fundamentally fits with the creed
> of Lego in general. The Lego Advance has to be more
> than a toy, but less than a home security system.
> Along with sales, they must avoid legal issues, and
> trying to sell into markets that are already well
> attended.
>
> Some suggestions (workable or not) would be:
>
> 1 - A tie-in with X-10 products for control of those
> products
> 2 - Wireless communications with sensors (bluetooth?)
> 3 - More advanced sensors (get out of the experimentor
> stage)
> 4 - Ready made shells for home-brew parts/sensors
> 5 - Products that link systems together at home in
> ways that are not available to home users in general.
> For example, look at new home construction products
> and how they function over networks.
>
> All of that would have to be Lego Advance products,
> and not cut into their other business of movie tie-ins
> etc. It also requires that Lego begin competing in
> areas that they have never tried before.
>
> Anyway, the Lego Advance systems is what I would like
> to see.
>
> --- Steve Hassenplug <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, November 28, 2005 5:12 pm, Steve Lane
> > yahoo.co.uk@qs483.pair.com> wrote:
> > > I think a business approach that can never fail is • to take a popular product ie
> > > "Mindstorms" and just re-invest some of the • profits to develop the basic idea,
> > > eg, an improved RCX every five years or so.
> >
> > How long has the current version of the RCX been
> > around?
> >
> > > ... and an online forum would be the icing on the
> > cake.
> >
> > What would you want to see in an online forum? What
> > would it include that's not
> > available here (LUGNET) and/or on LEGOfan?
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
this may sound a bit dumb, but give it a few seconds of consideration (and
try to supress your own prejudices):
One of the problems with being an AFOL is that the bright, happy colors of
Lego pieces make everything look like a preschool toy. If I could replace
all my pieces with a few shades of grey and battleship green, I would do it
in a heartbeat.
Another factor that could even help make AFOL's and older children better
(ie paying more) customers would be to focus on making models that are
permanent rather than transitory. This would encourage more purchasing of
sets (I've bought 5 already mainly to avoid taking apart complex robots).
I know some of these ideas fly in the face of the hard-core Lego culture and
aesthetics, but the point is, this market is potentially much larger than
TLG is assuming, and they are just giving it away -- to Technics, to Vexx
(both of which are $300+ btw), and it just seems sad.
One final piece of advice that will surely not be listened to: Stop being
so anal about people selling sets that interoperate with Lego. As far as I
can tell, vendors like Charmed Labs still have to be careful not to actually
sell pieces that can snap together with Lego -- you have to strip wires and
so on. This is diametrically in opposition to how new technology paradigms
succeed -- think of open source, or the IBM PC and clones.
In summary, I think they just don't have the imagination to make this work,
but it's sort of sad. I guess we'll just buy the stuff on Ebay for 20 or 30
years, and kluge up our own electronics. Oh well.
-dbm
--- danny staple <orionrobots@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While I personally love to see that, I just dont see them putting
> their neck out on that one. As stated before, we (AFOLs and advanced
> users) are barely a blip on the register of the bean counters, and it
> is to them that any business development will now fundamentally answer
> to. I suppose the good thing is, if they really can make the right
> decisions (and I am not sure what faith I have) that win them more
> money and profitability in the market, then later on they will have
> the strength to get as bold as they have been before again.
>
> Look at it this way, Lego are/have sold off the theme parks - which
> have been apart of the Lego experience for as long as I can remember.
> This is not a company in rude healt (expression meaning very good
> health over here), but a company who are becoming very timid and
> careful as they are seeing a market migration. Of course- one thing
> that may dawn upon them is that their traditional market of younger
> kids is drying up, while the 20-40 year olds who grew up with Lego are
> dyed in the wool followers, and better targetting/support of that
> market - and aiming squarely at the 20 somethings who havent done a
> lot with Lego yet, may yeild furthar sales. New markets are a good
> thing to have when old ones are beginning to stagnate.
>
> A lot of parents see Lego as expensive. Not all kids (as Mr S points
> out) dont have the patience, or the "building bug" to want Lego, and
> that seems be slowly dwindling in that cross section. However -
> websites like thinkgeek show that a healthy geeky market of people
> willing to spend money online on cool and interesting gadgets,
> including construction toy ranges. AFAIK - thinkgeek have no bricks
> and mortar sites, and have displaced (in the uk) the Gadget shop
> fairly well here. Lego really could move in to making a good market by
> carrying the most comprehensive range online, and getting the more
> electronic toys carried on sites like thinkgeek as well.
>
> I do remember the star-wars mindstorms tie-ins as disappointing (being
> based on the low-spec microscout). Maybe they could reuse the
> electronics from the SpyBots to get more interesing star wars bot
> tie-ins - again aimed at the 200something market.
>
> Anyway I still feel that crossposting to .dear-lego (or continuing the
> thread there) would be a good step here. I have therefore added it in
> to my response.
> --
> Danny Staple MBCS
> OrionRobots
> http://orionrobots.co.uk
> (Full contact details available through website)
>
>
> On 29/11/05, Mr S <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> wrote:
> > Personally, I believe that the discussions on business
> > models for TLG are a bit off key. Lego already has
> > solid products, and sells to a defined market segment.
> > Their bread and butter product lines sell because of
> > novelty in many cases. Those film related lego sets
> > sell because of the film tie-in novelty *AND* because
> > of the puzzle value. Some people need instructions,
> > and are unable to simply begin creating things like
> > the Harry Potter sets on their own.
> >
> > With the advent of some robot toys (that need no
> > construction) the appeal of Lego loses some luster.
> > Straight forward building toys of any manufacturer
> > have lost ground over the last few years. What I
> > believe that Lego needs to do is repackage the RCX in
> > a "Lego Advance" product line. All of the sets that
> > AFOLs want would be in that product line. It requires
> > little manufacturing change, and creates revenue with
> > little or no distribution issues as most AFOLs are
> > willing and able to purchase on-line.
> >
> > As for the on-line forum, this one is quite handy, and
> > would be quite suitable for "Lego Advance" products.
> > Lego wouldn't even need to do anything but
> > monitor/contribute to this forum.
> >
> > Using both the forum, and their ability to repackage
> > Lego parts into Lego Advance kits, they could
> > revitalize that segment of the populace that *IS*
> > interested in straight forward building toys.
> >
> > By showing support for this market segment, Lego would
> > benefit from all the ideas that would be supported.
> > That would take part of their product line out of the
> > 'toy' category and place it firmly in the 'inventor
> > systems' category, even though it is arguably already
> > so.
> >
> > Looking at the big picture, robots and systems with
> > embedded processors around the house have specific
> > developmental requirements. By this I mean that toys
> > are already being produced that are a shortcut to what
> > Lego offers. Could you build a robot vacuum from Lego?
> > A sentry robot? A system that monitors your house? The
> > Aibo (even though I'll never buy from Sony again) is a
> > certain winner for the kids in deciding which they
> > want for the holidays. How much would you pay for a
> > Lego kit that creates something similar to the Aibo?
> > 1500, 2000?
> >
> > TLG will not generate huge revenues by simply
> > reinventing what Lego has already. They need to aim at
> > a more technically savvy and technically aware
> > audience. TLG needs to create the Lego Advance line of
> > products and develop further on that so that
> > tomorrow's kids will be building things that are not
> > yet available in the same market segment/place today.
> >
> > Sure, there are lots of things that you can build with
> > Lego now, but imagine if TLG were to turn the volume
> > up by several notches?
> > All the things that we (AFOLs) would like to be able
> > to buy would help do that, but there has to be a
> > business model that fundamentally fits with the creed
> > of Lego in general. The Lego Advance has to be more
> > than a toy, but less than a home security system.
> > Along with sales, they must avoid legal issues, and
> > trying to sell into markets that are already well
> > attended.
> >
> > Some suggestions (workable or not) would be:
> >
> > 1 - A tie-in with X-10 products for control of those
> > products
> > 2 - Wireless communications with sensors (bluetooth?)
> > 3 - More advanced sensors (get out of the experimentor
> > stage)
> > 4 - Ready made shells for home-brew parts/sensors
> > 5 - Products that link systems together at home in
> > ways that are not available to home users in general.
> > For example, look at new home construction products
> > and how they function over networks.
> >
> > All of that would have to be Lego Advance products,
> > and not cut into their other business of movie tie-ins
> > etc. It also requires that Lego begin competing in
> > areas that they have never tried before.
> >
> > Anyway, the Lego Advance systems is what I would like
> > to see.
> >
> > --- Steve Hassenplug <Steve@TeamHassenplug.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, November 28, 2005 5:12 pm, Steve Lane
> > > yahoo.co.uk@qs483.pair.com> wrote:
> > > > I think a business approach that can never fail is • to take a popular product ie
> > > > "Mindstorms" and just re-invest some of the • profits to develop the basic idea,
> > > > eg, an improved RCX every five years or so.
> > >
> > > How long has the current version of the RCX been
> > > around?
> > >
> > > > ... and an online forum would be the icing on the
> > > cake.
> > >
> > > What would you want to see in an online forum? What
> > > would it include that's not
> > > available here (LUGNET) and/or on LEGOfan?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> this may sound a bit dumb, but give it a few seconds of consideration (and
> try to supress your own prejudices):
>
> One of the problems with being an AFOL is that the bright, happy colors of
> Lego pieces make everything look like a preschool toy. If I could replace
> all my pieces with a few shades of grey and battleship green, I would do it
> in a heartbeat.
>
> Another factor that could even help make AFOL's and older children better
> (ie paying more) customers would be to focus on making models that are
> permanent rather than transitory. This would encourage more purchasing of
> sets (I've bought 5 already mainly to avoid taking apart complex robots).
>
> I know some of these ideas fly in the face of the hard-core Lego culture and
> aesthetics, but the point is, this market is potentially much larger than
> TLG is assuming, and they are just giving it away -- to Technics, to Vexx
> (both of which are $300+ btw), and it just seems sad.
>
> One final piece of advice that will surely not be listened to: Stop being
> so anal about people selling sets that interoperate with Lego. As far as I
> can tell, vendors like Charmed Labs still have to be careful not to actually
> sell pieces that can snap together with Lego -- you have to strip wires and
> so on. This is diametrically in opposition to how new technology paradigms
> succeed -- think of open source, or the IBM PC and clones.
That's a very interesting point "should Lego allow others to make Mindstorms
pieces". It would mean a big culture change. On the one hand they could lose
sales to an outside company, but on the other hand they could generate sales by
selling parts packs (beams & stuff) to support the 3rd party sensors.
It would be the first time Lego wasn't wholly responsible for the product, and
their high standards of quality could cause problems with third parties. But if
Lego provided the casing's it shouldn't be too hard.
They could have a "Lego approved" program for 3rd party parts.
I think the main benefit to Lego apart from selling more RIS kits is that it
would generate a lot of info of what people do and don't want. If a particular
sensor sold well Lego might consider buying up the 3rd party's patent, or coming
up with something similar. Although putting newly formed third parties out of
business wouldn't be popular.
And if everything was licensed, Lego would retain control, so that 3rd parties
couldn't bring out a replacement RCX for example without their permission.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Lane wrote:
> That's a very interesting point "should Lego allow others to make Mindstorms
> pieces". It would mean a big culture change. On the one hand they could lose
> sales to an outside company, but on the other hand they could generate sales by
> selling parts packs (beams & stuff) to support the 3rd party sensors.
>
> It would be the first time Lego wasn't wholly responsible for the product, and
> their high standards of quality could cause problems with third parties. But if
> Lego provided the casing's it shouldn't be too hard.
>
> They could have a "Lego approved" program for 3rd party parts.
>
> I think the main benefit to Lego apart from selling more RIS kits is that it
> would generate a lot of info of what people do and don't want. If a particular
> sensor sold well Lego might consider buying up the 3rd party's patent, or coming
> up with something similar. Although putting newly formed third parties out of
> business wouldn't be popular.
>
> And if everything was licensed, Lego would retain control, so that 3rd parties
> couldn't bring out a replacement RCX for example without their permission.
Steve brings up some very interesting points here, some of which I am already
familiar with.
As far as TLG is concerned, I talked with folks like Brad and Jake some years
ago about the company's attitude toward my plans for making and selling
Mindstorms sensors. They basically explained the ground rules of how to work
within their system of trademarks and other legal issues.
There are no laws which cover consumer purchase of Lego bricks, subsequent
machining and re-use as sensor housings, and reselling. In fact, TLG continue to
have a quite positive attitude toward any supplier who offers to fill market
niches which they cannot fill.
As far as coming out with a directly competitive product, unless there are
patents in place, free competition is a legal right. However, if TLG decide a
device is worth making, its is likely to be because they perceive a large
potential market which means they can use some serious industrial muscle to
reduce manufacturing costs to well below what a light manufacturing company
could hope to compete with.
As to the question of whether the company would ever "endorse" a third party
device, I would think it unlikely for a low volume product. However, there are
quite a few examples of this happening already for medium volume products such
as watches. TLG do not make watches!
The only downside, in my opinion, of a lack of endorsement by TLG of Mindstorms
compatible sensors made by third party suppliers is that in structured activity
like FLL, the participants are denied use of these sensors because they aren't
"official" parts.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
danny staple wrote:
> The problem is guys, while that may not mean many lugnet regulars and
> afols, the majority of their sales are gonna be kids who only put
> together the described models. I was once in Hamleys (being a
> Londoner) and heard a mum objecting to buying Lego star wars toys over
> other Star Wars toys on the grounds that "you'll only mix it up with
> the rest of your Lego" - obviously not seeing that this is exactly (in
> my mind) what the toy is designed for.
I think you have to be a little careful here. That mother may be right.
If her kid has a ton of Lego parts that he never plays with - then
purchasing a bunch more Lego parts that will be used once to build
the model on the box then dumped in with all the other Lego and
forgotten - then it may well be a waste of her money.
I have fought the same instinct myself. My son and I will see a set
that builds into something interesting - there is an impulse to buy
it - but then we realise that all we're really buying is the instruction
book because we already have enough parts to build that thing (or
something VERY similar) a hundred times over.
I used to say "You can never have enough Lego" - but we havn't bought
any more for several years and yet are building and having fun with
the Lego we have with no prospect of needing more.
The next Lego parts I'm likely to buy will be more Technics motors
because my stock of a dozen or so is gradually diminishing due to
failures.
> While there is a strong
> community with a fierce identity here on lugnet, we really are only a
> minority of lego consumers (and I really meant that term with all its
> attached connotations).
Yep - that's got to be the case. We are unlikely to be any more than
a blip on Lego's radar. The best they could hope to get from us are
some inspirational models to show on their web site.
> Take into account that experienced people who
> are "Lego Literate" as the artical phrases it will use LDraw to design
> stuff, then purchase a specific set of parts from Bricklink, or second
> hand sets from ebay, then we may feature even less highly on TLG's
> list of top markets. Its true that we have much more in disposable
> income than a kid hassling their parents, but we also have a restraint
> that they dont, and we know how to get stuff cheaper or in bulk.
Yeah - we know not to buy sets with a ridiculously un-reusable parts
(Bionicles, RoboRiders, etc) - we know that StarWars sets cost more
than regular sets (part-for-part) because of the money that goes to
LucasFilm - we know to look for bulk buckets on sale in WalMart - we
sell bulk parts that we don't need on BrickBay so we don't waste money
accumulating parts that we don't need.
> I would love Lego to actually leave behind all of their movie tie ins,
> Bionacle (though some interesting parts came out of it) and some of
> the less playable lines and focus seriously on Basic (City/Space etc),
> Technic (To which Bionacle became a very, very poor cousin) and
> Mindstorms (which I saw as the logical progression of technic and a
> long overdue step).
Yes - but I recognise that they have to do what they have to do in order
to stay in business. I'd rather there was a Lego company that produced
90% junk and 10% useful sets rather than have them go out of business
altogether.
> Only - I get the feeling that in terms of sheer
> shifting of volume units, the Star Wars tie ins will do better.
(Harry Potter also!)
But that's OK. I can live with that. Whatever it takes to keep
the company alive until some future generation of kids gets bitten
by the Lego bug and kicks life back into the product.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Only one thing left to say:
We don't need no stinking instructions!
--- Steve Hassenplug <steve@teamhassenplug.org> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > I noted this article on Slashdot:
>
>
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
> >
> > The usual slashdot blend of insightful and not • quite as insightful. The
> > recurring theme that "once you have sold a user a • certain amount, they never
> > need more product, so that's why LEGO went with • licenses" is not one that I
> > agree with, and I suspect I am not alone, many of • us like to build big things.
> > But we're a niche.
> >
> > This link makes for interesting reading. • http://www.techuser.net/lego.html
> > Something doesn't gibe but I can't say quite what.
>
>
> It's a very funny story. I really tried to read the
> whole thing, but I can't.
> I've spent too much time laughing.
>
> I recognize the author's logic trail from the
> cartoon network. IE: "That guy
> smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, so
> that guy killed those
> people..."
>
>
> Clearly, these two statements are indisputable:
>
> "Media stories about Lego tend to create the
> impression that most Lego customers
> are Lego literate and are building sophisticated
> models, but there is no
> evidence that such is the case."
>
> "Most people including long time Lego customers are
> totally unaware of the
> considerable play potential of Lego bricks and
> believe Lego play to be all about
> putting pieces together as depicted, and this
> perception of Lego play is turning
> away older age groups."
>
> Steve
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> It's a very funny story. I really tried to read the whole thing, but I can't.
> I've spent too much time laughing.
>
> I recognize the author's logic trail from the cartoon network. IE: "That guy
> smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, so that guy killed those
> people..."
The analysis was thin and poorly written, I agree.
Calum
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > I recognize the author's logic trail from the cartoon network. IE: "That guy
> > smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, so that guy killed those
> > people..."
> The analysis was thin and poorly written, I agree.
I wish people like the guy who wrote the article would actually do some research
on the topic before publishing something like this, especially now that /. has
picked it up. Now, of course, it is as good as gospel truth to millions of
people. If he had just looked around LUGNET once or twice, he'd have found many
posts about the various parts of MINDSTORMS, what their capabilities actually
are, and the true quality of them. The motors, for instance, are not the 10cent
(US, whatever, it is still cheap) hobby motors that you find everywhere. These
are high-efficiency, high-quality, high-performance, high-endurance motors. But,
what can one say, after the fact?
As a sidebar to this, whatever happened to the Cybermaster? Was it too expensive
a "toy", and TLG took it off the market cuz people weren't buying? Or did it not
live up to what it could have been? From what I have pieced together, the brick
was astounding: RF comm, three sensor ports, three motor ports, two onboard
motors with opto-encoders for positioning/speed control, and more memory/faster
processor than the RCX. Please tell me if these stats are correct; I'd hate to
mislead someone, esp. after my little rant above :-)
From these stats, I would be willing to pay US$200-250 just for the brick, based
on the average RCX selling for around US$100 or so where I've seen it (eBay,
Bricklink, etc.,)
Also, just a minor (no pun) thing: not all people who use MINDSTORMS as the
LUGNET.robotics people do are ADULT friends of Lego (AFOL's). Myself, included.
Though I do agree that Lego should target older people, 20-40 is older than I. I
would still buy stuff from that category, of course. Steve Hassenplug's ideas
for a Lego Advance sound dead-on to me.
My two cents,
Andrew Meyer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Just a minor thing, Mr S is me, not Steve H.
Also, I have given some thought to what I would really
want out of Mindstorms part 3, or Lego Advance, as it
were.
Motor kit in 1,2,and 3 motor variants, including
mounting plates
and choice of wire lengths
Special parts packs that are tailored to the general
builder, such as:
chain sets
worm gear sets
pneumatic sets
differential gear sets
ackerman steering sets
Well, the list can go on an on, but you get the idea,
buying online from TLG in much the manner that you
would buy from bricklink etc. I don't even want fancy
boxes, just parts in plastic bags with the Lego seal
of approval. It would help if there were discounts for
buying in larger quantities, such that say the 3 motor
kit was cheaper than 3 single motor kits etc.
I think that it would have to be in kits that are
worth a certain amount of money minimum so that it
makes money-sense to spend money to package it, so
that they can be equitably shipped. I think they could
even turn this over to a smaller company that is
willing to buy in bulk from TLG, and repackage for
distribution.
There was a single motor kit that came with some parts
that I really didn't care for, or had too many of
already, and I'd like to avoid that with the Lego
Advance products/kits, at least to the point that you
don't have to spend $14 to get the one $5 part you
wanted. If priced right, people would still order in
larger denominations in order to save on shipping. The
end goal is to ship as much product as possible, while
not having to develop kits or marketing stuff.
Along the lines of ad-hoc sets, anything that FLL
wants as a kit could be offered quickly. If there are
any other groups that want a kit put together, I'd
hope that the Lego Advance group would be able to
offer that set to them as well as the rest of the
public, AFOL or not. This would go something like: If
you have RIS 2.0, and you buy kit #xxxxx, you have all
you need for this years contest for XYZ competition.
In this way, Lego users would be able to contribute to
that part of the business process in deciding what to
package, and TLG really doesn't have to do anything to
sell it, just bag it and ship... that might represent
a distortion of their manufacturing process, but would
give them the ability to do this for *ANY* special
event/group/competition.
That is worth more than it might seem. There is *NO*
place where you can go and get a certified group of
parts. Education people end up doing this on their
own, or buying multiple sets and dividing it among
their student teams... its *MUCH* easier to get budget
when you tell your sponsors that you only need to
purchase one kit #xxxxx from TLG for each student, and
it will satisfy their experiments for the learning
period. It makes the process of using Lego Advance
parts seem much more professional, and gives
Mindstorms a bit of the "and you can upgrade it" alure
that some small car toys and others have found useful,
without the 'box of toy parts' feel that Mindstorms
often has now. These are not kits that would be
shipped to stores, so marketing and production issues
are mitigated to some extent (correct me if I have no
clue what I'm talking about on that) and by seeing a
kit that has all the parts you need and 7 that you
don't, you'll just order that kit because of the
convenience of it.
Let me push that idea a bit more. Say you have a small
science club that wants to do a robot thing of some
kind, you're the teacher, what do you do? You go to
the Lego Advance website, and look at the kits and
what they are for, and you and the science club (for
example) decide that the Seattle Robotics All-Lego
Sumo kit is the thing, then buy two kits (with or
without RCX, where the RCX is more expensive sold
separately), and start planning for the science club
annual robot contest! That is something that you just
wouldn't do with RIS 2.0, even though you could. Next
year, you can get the 2004 FLL official kit of parts,
add to last years, and have another annual science
club robot contest, but never need to actually pay for
competing in the FLL that year, or just do the
contests that interest your group rather than what
this years official FLL contest is.
The idea that you could go to the Lego Advance
website, and actually get the parts that were used in
XYZ contest means that you can replicate that contest
with your students etc. Not only that, but people that
don't live near a robot club can also do that.
Many robot clubs have tried or did offer a beginners
robot kit, the BOEbot being an example. There is no
reason that Lego Advance cannot do the same thing, on
many levels. By offering Lego Advance parts kits that
are sponsored through contests or robot clubs, TLG has
access to the groups that would feed them ideas.
Spybotics was kind of cool, and if I were 8 years old,
it would have been really cool... I'm a little older
than 8 now though. But to find an audience with buying
power and inclination, TLG would go farther if they
are able to quickly make up parts kits that match such
demands as a robotics club contest. Looking at the RIS
kit, you just can't be sure that you can make a
sumobot out of it, but if you bought the Lego Advance
<name your robot club here> All Lego sumobot kit, then
you know it would work, and qualify for the
competition.
Well, that is the basic idea anyway... makes me think
I need to start building so I can tell you what might
need to be in the official Lego Advance Mr.S.umobot
kit :)
--- Andrew Meyer <agmlego@gmail.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Calum Tsang wrote:
> > In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > > I recognize the author's logic trail from the • cartoon network. IE: "That guy
> > > smokes, and those people were killed in a fire, • so that guy killed those
> > > people..."
> > The analysis was thin and poorly written, I agree.
>
> I wish people like the guy who wrote the article
> would actually do some research
> on the topic before publishing something like this,
> especially now that /. has
> picked it up. Now, of course, it is as good as
> gospel truth to millions of
> people. If he had just looked around LUGNET once or
> twice, he'd have found many
> posts about the various parts of MINDSTORMS, what
> their capabilities actually
> are, and the true quality of them. The motors, for
> instance, are not the 10cent
> (US, whatever, it is still cheap) hobby motors that
> you find everywhere. These
> are high-efficiency, high-quality, high-performance,
> high-endurance motors. But,
> what can one say, after the fact?
>
> As a sidebar to this, whatever happened to the
> Cybermaster? Was it too expensive
> a "toy", and TLG took it off the market cuz people
> weren't buying? Or did it not
> live up to what it could have been? From what I have
> pieced together, the brick
> was astounding: RF comm, three sensor ports, three
> motor ports, two onboard
> motors with opto-encoders for positioning/speed
> control, and more memory/faster
> processor than the RCX. Please tell me if these
> stats are correct; I'd hate to
> mislead someone, esp. after my little rant above :-)
> From these stats, I would be willing to pay
> US$200-250 just for the brick, based
> on the average RCX selling for around US$100 or so
> where I've seen it (eBay,
> Bricklink, etc.,)
>
> Also, just a minor (no pun) thing: not all people
> who use MINDSTORMS as the
> LUGNET.robotics people do are ADULT friends of Lego
> (AFOL's). Myself, included.
> Though I do agree that Lego should target older
> people, 20-40 is older than I. I
> would still buy stuff from that category, of course.
> Steve Hassenplug's ideas
> for a Lego Advance sound dead-on to me.
>
> My two cents,
>
> Andrew Meyer
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mr S <szinn_the1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have given some thought to what I would really
> want out of Mindstorms part 3, or Lego Advance, as it
> were.
>
> [snip list of parts packs, including motors, wires,
> chainlinks, worm gears, etc]
>
> buying online from TLG in much the manner that you
> would buy from bricklink etc. I don't even want fancy
> boxes, just parts in plastic bags with the Lego seal
> of approval.
In a limited form this already exists - LEGO educational division indeed
sells just a motor, or a bulk pack of clutch gears, worm gears, 1x16 beams, etc.
They don't sell them on a part-by-part basis, but in small bulk packs.
> Along the lines of ad-hoc sets, anything that FLL
> wants as a kit could be offered quickly.
Again, they sort of do this already - FLL teams can buy a kit that includes
everything needed for that years challenge plus the Team Challenge kit, or just
the parts and pad needed for the challenge itself. It would be nice if LEGO
could do this for everybody, but I suspect the margin would be too small - to
cater to all the possible options would mean far to much stock sitting around,
and far to many different products to inventory.
> but would give them the ability to do this for *ANY*
> special event/group/competition.
In my hopes, I'd like to see LEGO Factory move in this direction, and it may.
Before LEGO Factory even opened, LEGO was talking about adding "train pallets"
for a smaller segment of the market. If they can work the bugs out of this new
distribution mechanism, it may end up being a significant shift in the
distribution chain.
> There is *NO* place where you can go and get a
> certified group of parts. Education people end up
> doing this on their own, or buying multiple sets
> and dividing it among their student teams... its
> *MUCH* easier to get budget when you tell your
> sponsors that you only need to purchase one kit
> #xxxxx from TLG for each student, and it will satisfy
> their experiments for the learning period.
Again, check out LEGO Educational - this is actually how a lot of teachers
get supplies, either kits (Team Challenge sets, or the very nice small
mechanical kits on pulleys, levers, gears, etc... or even the DNA set, which I
actually quite like. I keep waiting for a magnet-based protein synthesis kit, as
it would be a wonderful (if expensive) way of teaching it "hands on").
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Dec 1, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Brian Davis wrote:
> In a limited form this already exists - LEGO educational division
> indeed
> sells just a motor, or a bulk pack of clutch gears, worm gears,
> 1x16 beams, etc.
> They don't sell them on a part-by-part basis, but in small bulk packs.
http://www.legoeducation.com/store/SearchResult.aspx?pl=7
... and parts...
http://www.legoeducation.com:80/store/SearchResult.aspx?pl=8
Much better selection over the main lego site. Of note is the $10
package of 50 conveyor belt links which is not a bad price - cheaper
than you can find on bricklink or ebay. A great addition to any
mindstorms kit.
- matthew
http://www.stretta.com/~matthew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Andrew Meyer wrote:
> (snip)
> From what I have pieced together, the brick
> was astounding: RF comm, three sensor ports,
Yes, but passive only. No light sensor or rotation sensor (but indeed encoders
on internal motors)
> three motor ports,
No, only one.
> two onboard motors with opto-encoders for positioning/speed control,
Yes, and indeed this combo is great. But of course the motors are in fixed place
- not very modular.
Better than Spybot on modularity anyway thanks to external motor port and
sensors.
> and more memory/faster processor than the RCX.
I don't know about speed, but memory is really TINY (+/- 512 bytes!)
Philo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Philippe Hurbain wrote:
>
> > and more memory/faster processor than the RCX.
> I don't know about speed, but memory is really TINY (+/- 512 bytes!)
And the next most important downside: Firmware is in PROM. No updates or
alternative firmware, only Lego programming system, spirit.ocx or NQC.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> I noted this article on Slashdot:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
Interesting item, but very few of the points that are trying to be made really
hold water.
The price comparision between the RCX and a cheap game just doesn't make sense.
You could make an even closer comparison between a TV remote and the RCX, it
even has IR communications! Well, one way at least.
The fact is that the modest volumes for the batches of RCXs that have been made
and the somewhat more sophisticated parts used within, like the motor drive
chips, definitely lifts the RCX head and shoulders above a TV remote in terms of
its basic manufacturing cost.
The Lego Mindstorms system is on par with other robotics building systems
commonly available. I think it is quite interesting that the release of the new
Radio Shack robotics set attracted an almost immediate comparison with
Mindstorms despite the fact that Mindstorms is at almost seven years old now!
That makes Mindstorms sound like a still relevant "standard" to me.
Although I hope that RIS 3.0 might be a twinkle in someone's eye somewhere in
Billund, I still haven't done everything you can do with the current product
yet! I am still coming up with new sensors to extend and enhance my and other's
enjoyment of building Lego robots.
JB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.robotics, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> I noted this article on Slashdot:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/28/0443232.shtml?tid=159&tid=1
>
> -Orion
I have a hard time believing that the assertions about LEGO backing away from
mindstorms is true. LEGO has done a great thing by creating "First LEGO
League". It is successful internationally, and is based on competitions with
solutions built using LEGO mindstorms RIS.
LEGO originally started with a spectrum of Mindstorms products:
Droid Developer Kit
Dark Side Developer kit - Kjeld told me personally that this set didn't sell
well.
RIS 1.0
RIS expansion packs, Ultimate Builders Set for example
RDS - Robot Developer Set (?) - this was a crippled RIS.
RIS was the big seller here.
Later we got:
n
RIS 1.5 - Software improvement
Spybotics - I don't think this sold very well...
RIS 2.0 - hardware elimination of power port. Firmware and front end
programming improvements.
Recently I found a software upgrade to RIS 2.5 on the LEGO mindstorms sight.
What has been constant through the lifetime of the Mindstorms product line is
RIS.
I think that LEGO has stuck with RIS because it is the best seller, and best
teaching product they have. FLL will continue to motivate kids about robotics,
and LEGO. It will continue to sell mindstorms product.
I too hope for RIS 3.0. If it is produced:
Will it be evolutionary or revolutionary?
There has been a lot of progress made in the area of computing and electronics
since the introduction of the RIS 1.0.
Kevin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> Spybotics - I don't think this sold very well...
I never did like Spybotics, The only part that interested me was the 36 tooth
gear.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Lane wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> >
> > Spybotics - I don't think this sold very well...
>
> I never did like Spybotics, The only part that interested me was the 36 tooth
> gear.
>
> Steve
I also like the tri-blade part available in Gigamesh.
Kev
| | | | | | |
