Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:59:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1309 times
|
| |
|
|
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 remember, the ldraw user base is small - and even
right now many users choose not to distribute dat files. Personally, I'd
rather the system being compatible with LEGO’s own instructions DB was a
priority - rather than dat files. It me be that LEGO will leave the
backdoor open for us to code our own converter?
Scott A
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 2 Replies:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: License - again
|
| "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G55oJJ.M9@lugnet.com... (...) cost (...) is (...) The "user" base may be small, but the "viewer" base is much larger. How many times have you seen an LDraw'n model and thought, "I have got to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
