| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Zorn writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Here's a question... Why should Ritvik make what we want just to be a foil
> > for LEGO? Wouldn't it be in Ritvik's interest to make stuff that we actually
> > would buy? If we're not going to buy it, why should they bother?
> >
> > Something to think about.
> >
> > ++Lar
>
> Larry,
>
> You've got a great point. Fortunately for MB, not every AFOL has to buy for
> them to do well. The Lego purists can be written off,
Yes. Since I was addressing my comments to the purists, I exaggerated. There
actually are plenty of serious AFO<something??> that buy MB and do
significant stuff. Chris Gray, Richard Parsons just to name two that I have
seen big works from. There are lots more on the net I left out.
Whether that is enough to be a significant force is a different question.
It's the same issue we have with LEGO, are we a big enough demographic to be
catered to directly? If not, then what we want has to also be desirable to
other, larger demos to be practical. (hopefully that won't spark a debate,
most of us agree with that, I think)
If the demo size is a problem for the body of AFO<Lego> it has to be even
worse for the body of AFO<R??? MB???>
> but the kvetchers are
> good candidates for potential buyers. The great thing about competition is
> that it multiplies the incentives and opportunities for everyone to get what
> they want. I think we'd *all* be better off if MB improved brick quality and
> TLC found a way to make money while improving set design. Based on what Dave
> Schuler says, MB brick quality is improving and, based on what you have been
> sharing with us after your meetings with TLC representatives, I am also
> optimistic about TLC set design in the near future.
Me too. Cautiously.
> BTW, thanks for being one to lead the charge on diminishing the TLC-bashing.
> I think TLC is doing a smart thing by "leaking" to people like you so they
> can act as intermediaries.
Caveat. I would not use the term leak, even in shorthand. TLC shared stuff
with us under NDA. I've been careful to try to honor that (and welcome
feedback if anyone thinks I may have told stuff I wasn't supposed to). If I
shared NDAed stuff, THAT would be leaking. But I haven't been told anything
that I was told to go ahead and make an official leak out of, if you see
what I mean. (However the second order effect of knowing that we were
brought in and consulted is in itself information to the group)
Wow that sounded self important, even for me. Wasn't supposed to. Where you
see "I" substitute anyone who was at the train/cad summit and it's still true.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mega-Bloks (Ritvik) is watching
|
| (...) AFAIK, most MB users are AFOB (Bricks, Blocks, Building), rather than fans of the Ritvik range per se. I'd say most are AFOLs who are willing to make a slight trade off in terms of quality and LEGOness to obtain large quantities of the bricks (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mega-Bloks (Ritvik) is watching
|
| (...) Larry, You've got a great point. Fortunately for MB, not every AFOL has to buy for them to do well. The Lego purists can be written off, but the kvetchers are good candidates for potential buyers. The great thing about competition is that it (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
29 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
|
|
|
|
