Subject:
|
Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:38:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
928 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ian Sinclair writes:
> Really? When and how did Brad say this?
Phone conversation -- January, I believe. No request, explicit or implicit,
to keep the information private. I just remembered it yesterday. It's not
a new or novel idea, so it didn't stand out at the time.
> [...]
> Also, Todd's questions about LEGO Direct's possible goals to compete
> with LUGNET in building a online LEGO community have not been
> addressed. Why not?
>
> Personally, I don't have time to visit multiple sites that provide
> similar services. I find the best, and use it. But doing so does
> mean that I miss any communications or features found on the sites I
> don't visit regularly.
I just found a sheet of paper with notes from a phone conversation with Brad
from early April. During the conversation, one of the things he said was that
LEGO is "not looking to create our own adult community." It doesn't mean that
they won't or couldn't, but I think it clearly means that their current focus
is the younger crowd. Brad also said that he wanted to "minimize overlap."
(Those are direct quotes written down seconds after they were said.)
> It would be far more preferable if LUGNET and LEGO Direct could work
> closely together.
>
> What I most want to avoid, is wasted effort on duplication of services
> when one isn't any better than the other. Particularly the message
> areas.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from speaking with LSI general counsel
in May is that from an antitrust point of view, this is something that LEGO
won't probably be able to talk about. They can certainly avoid overlap if
they want to, but as I understand it, they dare not make agreements with
other entities about avoiding overlap. They're even (understandably) skittish
about talking about it. There are some things they just can't talk about
beyond talking about whether or not they can talk about it.
> Both could maintain separate sites, clearly identified, but share
> certain data, databases, share many links between the two, etc.
> A good example is the way LUGNET's set database has links to
> instructions on Brickshelf. This is excellent cooperation.
Brad mentioned in July that as the official LEGO site www.lego.com grows,
he'll want to do cross-linking, for example a link from LEGO's official
Castle area to http://news.lugnet.com/castle/ (that was the example Brad
gave). Similarly, the LUGNET pages could link to official LEGO areas, and
many do now.
> It would have to be clear to the users that each page or message, is
> the official LEGO position, the position of LUGNET, or a contribution
> from a LEGO fan.
>
> It has some drawbacks and legal issues I'm sure, but I think an
> integrated solution has many positive aspects that outweigh the
> negative.
Brad mentioned that they would have to figure out the legal details of
off-site "deep linking" -- basically amounting to the right type of disclaimer
and notification of leaving the site, IIRC.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
| (...) That's good to hear Todd. I think it's wise for TLC to leave LUGNET's market alone. LUGNET continues to improve at a pace that suits most users needs, or so I would hope. It meets mine. Really is time I sent you my membership fees too. :-) I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Custom Kits & Communications
|
| (...) I missed Dan's offerings. Larry, I have seen your hopper cars. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of sets being sold by individuals? I would guess it's short and sporadic. (...) Really? When and how did Brad say this? (...) I agree. I'd (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
