Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:12:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1341 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Arthur writes:
> It is a moot point, but I view economics as:
> “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be
> reached.”
>
> Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable.
I'm sorry, I have to agree with you that it is indeed universally
applicable, and yet... not actually relevant to the real question.
The real question is this:
What is the expected benefit of developing and releasing a CAD program
- that is in a new incompatible format with no interoperability
.vs.
- that has interoperability with existing designs either via convertor or
format being the same?
The *cost*, to LEGO, of access to these existing designs, is theoretically
zero, due to their cost of development being, as you point out, a sunk cost
(ignoring that the owners of the designs may not choose to make them available).
But the benefit, to LEGO, of access to these existing designs may be
positive, it may be negative, or it may be zero. This depends on whether the
additional cost of compatability outweighs the additional benefits of doing so.
I do not claim exhaustiveness in this benefit analysis, in fact I invite you
to come up with some benefits of your own if you care to, it's a good
exercise... but I can think of these, anyway, right off the top of my head.
- PR benefit of compatability (they've chosen to trumpet in their PR that
they are working with us...)
- Large stock of designs already created may drive increased sales,
especially during the crucial early priming the pump phase
There are of course increased costs to LEGO of being compatible and we
should not discount them away to zero as they are significant. I think we
could enumerate a number of them but there may be some that we're not aware
of, and only LEGO would know for sure.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| I hear you clearly now Larry. However, on reflection, I still think the cost of providing a ldraw import ability into CREATOR II (Son of Creator – or is that blasphemy?) will be more than the benefits it would supply to the _public_. You have to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License - again
|
| It is a moot point, but I view economics as: “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be reached.” Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable. If the conclusion is that the existing CAD set-up is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
