Comments on: 3D Direct Modeling is not the disruptive innovation http://lifeupfront.com/2009/11/28/direct-modeling-disruptive-technology/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=direct-modeling-disruptive-technology Getting ahead with CAE, direct modeling, and creative engineering Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:39:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Srihari Gangaraj http://lifeupfront.com/2009/11/28/direct-modeling-disruptive-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-5356 Srihari Gangaraj Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:26:37 +0000 http://lifeupfront.com/?p=708#comment-5356 Jeff, Check out Google Wave.. a nice integrated communication tool. After you see the video for Google Wave, please do try it out. Now imagine how that concept could be used with Designers...I would like to see a blog from you on your thoughts about it. Regards, Srihari Jeff,
Check out Google Wave.. a nice integrated communication tool. After you see the video for Google Wave, please do try it out.
Now imagine how that concept could be used with Designers…I would like to see a blog from you on your thoughts about it.

Regards,
Srihari

]]> By: Jeff Waters http://lifeupfront.com/2009/11/28/direct-modeling-disruptive-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-5355 Jeff Waters Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:35:32 +0000 http://lifeupfront.com/?p=708#comment-5355 Absolutely. The toughest part of exposing people to Concept Modeling is breaking that ancient synapse connecting 3D with CAD. If you are unsuccessful doing that, then you get a huge case of YATS. Price can certainly be disruptive, but not always. Alibre's $100 gambit wasn't disruptive because Alibre itself is addressing the exact same user and needs as Pro/E, Solidworks, Cocreate, etc. If you look at a company's overall burn rate for doing business, spending $50k to suit up 10 designers with Pro/E doesn't seem like a big # compared to $1k to suit them up with Alibre (though from what I saw of the promotion, you'd end up spending much more than $100/seat with all the upgrades). They are essentially the same kind of tool solving the same kind of problem. You won't make back $49k in productivity over a year... even if you did, there are much bigger fish to fry at the company level. It's not even worth $49k of risk. Interoperability is going to be a game changer for sure... both in CAD and Concept modeling. This notion of "our stuff only plays well with our stuff" is outdated. Putting those kinds of artificial walls into your product to protect your market might have worked in the dark ages, but not in the globally connected, collaborative business world we live in today. Absolutely. The toughest part of exposing people to Concept Modeling is breaking that ancient synapse connecting 3D with CAD. If you are unsuccessful doing that, then you get a huge case of YATS.

Price can certainly be disruptive, but not always. Alibre’s $100 gambit wasn’t disruptive because Alibre itself is addressing the exact same user and needs as Pro/E, Solidworks, Cocreate, etc. If you look at a company’s overall burn rate for doing business, spending $50k to suit up 10 designers with Pro/E doesn’t seem like a big # compared to $1k to suit them up with Alibre (though from what I saw of the promotion, you’d end up spending much more than $100/seat with all the upgrades). They are essentially the same kind of tool solving the same kind of problem. You won’t make back $49k in productivity over a year… even if you did, there are much bigger fish to fry at the company level. It’s not even worth $49k of risk.

Interoperability is going to be a game changer for sure… both in CAD and Concept modeling. This notion of “our stuff only plays well with our stuff” is outdated. Putting those kinds of artificial walls into your product to protect your market might have worked in the dark ages, but not in the globally connected, collaborative business world we live in today.

]]> By: Derrek Cooper http://lifeupfront.com/2009/11/28/direct-modeling-disruptive-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-5353 Derrek Cooper Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:35:25 +0000 http://lifeupfront.com/?p=708#comment-5353 lots of good points.. but the fact is, I think you risk falling into the YATS (yet another tool syndrome). Not talking specifically about SC or any tool in particular, talking- in general. It is risky, but if done correctly, it can be tremendously successful. There are a ton of examples of this on the market. The big challenge is that the tool has to be bone simple, yet cover a massive % of the need and unfortunately, it needs to be inexpensive. So inexpensive that it makes it a no-brainer. Otherwise, you now have to convince me that there is a market for "your product" and I now have to justify the purchase. SW did a great job in the early days. Their original price was $3995 plus mx. That was unheard of in the mid 90s. Pro was more like $15k. So, their tech was good, almost there, but their ROI was mindblowing. Take the boys at Alibre- they dropped to a fire sale price for "the near term". The problem with this disruption in their pricing model is that is cries for speculation. Are they going out of buz? Why the cheap price? Plus they want from $1000 to $100. Just feels "cheap". Not sure I have the answer but there is a big challenge in the 3D space to convince people you are different, convince people to think differently and have a pricing model that keeps the lights on. IMHO - the name of the game is interoperability. ADESK has a chance to shine with Fusion if they keep the technology separate as well as incorporating the functionality into Inventor. they can have the best of both worlds. They can have a super modern, conceptual tool as a stand alone, as well as leveraging the cool factor in Inventor (moldflow, algor etc).. Siemens ST is cool stuff but I still have to buy SE or NX to get to it. Arguably, missing the entire bare-bones conceptual market. I leave for #AU2009 on Monday, will be twittering and blogging what I see.. lots of good points.. but the fact is, I think you risk falling into the YATS (yet another tool syndrome). Not talking specifically about SC or any tool in particular, talking- in general. It is risky, but if done correctly, it can be tremendously successful. There are a ton of examples of this on the market. The big challenge is that the tool has to be bone simple, yet cover a massive % of the need and unfortunately, it needs to be inexpensive. So inexpensive that it makes it a no-brainer. Otherwise, you now have to convince me that there is a market for “your product” and I now have to justify the purchase.

SW did a great job in the early days. Their original price was $3995 plus mx. That was unheard of in the mid 90s. Pro was more like $15k. So, their tech was good, almost there, but their ROI was mindblowing.

Take the boys at Alibre- they dropped to a fire sale price for “the near term”. The problem with this disruption in their pricing model is that is cries for speculation. Are they going out of buz? Why the cheap price? Plus they want from $1000 to $100. Just feels “cheap”.

Not sure I have the answer but there is a big challenge in the 3D space to convince people you are different, convince people to think differently and have a pricing model that keeps the lights on.

IMHO – the name of the game is interoperability. ADESK has a chance to shine with Fusion if they keep the technology separate as well as incorporating the functionality into Inventor. they can have the best of both worlds. They can have a super modern, conceptual tool as a stand alone, as well as leveraging the cool factor in Inventor (moldflow, algor etc)..

Siemens ST is cool stuff but I still have to buy SE or NX to get to it. Arguably, missing the entire bare-bones conceptual market.

I leave for #AU2009 on Monday, will be twittering and blogging what I see..

]]>