Just in case something I've said before today contributed to this:
>-- [ From: Al Hastbacka * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --
>
>The talk about market saturation at 2500 units is absolute nonsense. I
>am investigating NICHE markets that have needs for four to ten times
>this number of units. In one of our studies, we have found more than
>thirty thousand companies in the US alone that have a need for RP. The
>international market requirements will more than double this. This
>would indicate that more than 70,000 companies have a need for RP. When
>you figure that many of these companies have needs for multiple units,
>the potential market is at least two orders of magnitude higher than the
>2500 units that were mentioned.
Geez Al, that don't sound like no niche market.
>
>This discussion reminds me of IBM's original forecast of $25M for the
>3250 graphic systems that Sanders designed and produced for Big Blue.
>The final numbers on this product and the derivative products ended up
>at $1.5B. Even IBM can miss its market forcasts by a wide mark.
>
Notoriously so, in years gone by at least.
>What is needed to meet these larger markets?
>
>1. Easier to use 3D software. e.g. JewelCad is making the design of
>jewelry possible by model makers (i.e. people) who are not previously
>trained in CAD. This is an area where the universities and colleges can
>make a significant contribution.
>
>2. Lower cost RP systems- This will come with larger volume sales.
>
>3. Better education in the area of 3D CAD design- Again the universities
>and colleges are major factors here.
>
>4. Lower cost 3D CAD software- Too bad Trispectives has not turned out
>as well as several of us had hoped.
>
>Regards,
>Al Hastbacka
>
I am not disagreeing with you Al. It may be semantics, but it looks like
you are talking about _creating_ these new and larger markets, not filling
a burgeoning demand.
These are huge and fundamental obstacles.
Your point #1 - how can and why will the universities and colleges
participate in JewelCad's effort?
#2 - A chicken and egg situation, which I suggest can only be
demand-pulled, not oversupply driven (see my post responding to Yakov same
subject).
#3 - If you can define what "better education" means, and if the
universities and colleges can convince more of the tuition-paying public to
bet their careers on participating.
#4 - Probably will continue to evolve according to it's own business and
technical realities.
Unfortunately (or not), it keeps coming down to who will pay for what, how
do you justify the investment, and so on.
Best regards,
C. McArdle
cmca@snet.net
203.853.4961
203.853.4971 (facsimile)
124 Rowayton Woods Drive
Norwalk, CT 06854-3938
"Technology will allow us to be whatever we are already, only more so."
-- Arno Penzias
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:39 EEST