Subject:
|
Re: Spybotics vs Cricket
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:34:03 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Rob Limbaugh <rlimbaugh@=stopspam=greenfieldgroup.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1371 times
|
| |
|
|
I can understand wanting to better target the original intended audience,
but consider this:
Which versions of Trivial Pursuit came out first? The one for adults or the
one for children/teens?
Mindstorms missed their original intended target, yet provided a large
profit through us adults. It would make sense then, to reformulate the line
much like they did to create Duplo-- LEGO for AFOL and LEGO for children--to
further develop and entrench those two markets as a whole.
And, on that line of thought, the lines could work together, not just
because the pieces interlock, but imagine if "out of the box" RCX3 could
talk with Spybotics and parent/child can go on a mission "together" with
suitable platforms for each? Wouldn't that cater to both spectrums, as well
as nurture family values?
One $80 set for me, one $60 set for each kid...
Then again, I shouldn't be taken seriously... after all, I play with toys.
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Baker" <sjbaker1@airmail.net>
To: "Colin White" <cwhite@dbaint.com>
Cc: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Spybotics vs Cricket
> Colin White wrote:
>
> > I am somewhat puzzled by the attitude of many people to the Spybots. I • think
> > we must accept that Lego is losing money and that its main audience is
> > children. It must therefore devote its efforts to its main customer • base,
> > i.e., children.
>
> I think most people understand *why* Lego are heading this way.
>
> That doesn't mean we have to like it though.
>
> > Also, developing software and hardware for Robotics is
> > expensive and it is very difficult for a company like Lego to deliver
> > products at a cost-effective price. Having said that I have used most of • the
> > Lego Robot-related products including the Code Pilot, RDS Scout, RCX, • DDK
> > Micro Scout, Cybermaster, and now the Spybots.
>
> If development costs are the issue then they'd be well advised to come up
> with ONE truly modular computing solution and use it everywhere rather
> than repeatedly redesigning *everything*.
>
> I'm fairly sure your first explanation is the right one. They obviously
> think their target demographic wants something less sophisticate and
> more plug-and-play...and (regrettably) they are probably right about that.
>
> It takes a very dedicated parent to help a kid learn to program an RCX - • and
> the Scout really isn't 'cool' enough for kids in this day and age.
>
> However, for all that I understand why they did it - I don't have to be
> happy about it - and I'm not.
>
> Lego computers should be every bit as modular as Lego mechanical parts.
>
> I *desperately* wanted to see a 2x4 brick with a CPU in it, another with
> a RAM chip, another with a basic OS ROM, another with a sound synthesiser,
> another with an IR comms port - all connected together with a simple • plug-and-socket
> that would carry some kind of universal data bus and the power to run • everything
> from a separate battery box. I think this is very do-able with an I2C • bus.
>
> Then your motors and sensors would each contain enough minimal electronics
> to take set-speed/direction or read-sensor commands from their I2C bus.
>
> You could have LCD panels, buttons, etc as other bricks with the same • interface.
>
> This would allow you to have an essentially unlimited number of motors and
> sensors, multiple CPU's, multiple IR ports, RAM expansion, etc, etc.
>
> If they'd done that then Spybotics would have simply been a standard set
> of computer bricks - plus a special ROM brick that would do all the 'Spy' • stuff.
> Those people who grow out of the Spy stuff could simply toss the ROM brick
> into a parts drawer and plug in an RCX-like ROM from another set and all • of
> their collection of motors, sensors, CPU's and RAM would still be useful.
> This is not unlike buying a StarWars set, playing with it at such for a • while
> - but then tossing the JarJar Binks minifig and recycling all the other • parts
> to make...whatever *YOUR* imagination wants.
>
> That's the true spirit that made Lego what it is - they've just • temporarily
> forgotten that.
>
> ----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
> Mail : <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkMail: <sjbaker@link.com>
> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
> http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net
> http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net
> http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net
>
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Spybotics vs Cricket
|
| (...) Do we actually know if Mindstorms has made a Lego a large profit? Some reports I have read suggested that Lego's move into computer related products like Mindstorms has contributed towards its losses. Certainly the lack of development of the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Spybotics vs Cricket
|
| (...) I think most people understand *why* Lego are heading this way. That doesn't mean we have to like it though. (...) If development costs are the issue then they'd be well advised to come up with ONE truly modular computing solution and use it (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
39 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
|
|
|
|
