Dull edge to the Graphisoft sword - losing its identity

[Anonymous]

So Graphisoft pioneered the concept of BIM, aka "Virtual Building™" - that is of course virtual building with a 'TM' on the end. These two words sum up the BIM concept brilliantly. Whenever I need to explain the concept of BIM to a client I just tell them that we create a 'virtual building' and they understand immediately. These words also flow straight into the big growth field of 'virtual construction'.
Why is it then then that others are allowed to grab on to the virtual building branding? ... and are doing more with it.
First off 4D Virtual Builder for Sketchup. This is potentially an incredible product. We all know that sketchup is snapping at bigger BIM's toes. Thais takes it a step further - to 4D visualisation.
Next up Virtual Build Technologies now featuring RhinoBIM.
So the 'virtual building' branding is not just being taken up by any old companies in any old industries - but perhaps the two most up-and-coming alternative platforms for architects limited by current BIM modeling possibilities - Sketchup and Rhino.
Maybe an IP expert out there can say whether there is even a case for GS.
As it is 'Virtual Building' is nowhere on Graphisoft's home page (except for a link to Virtual Building Exlorer). And there is no obvious link to the 'Virtual Building Concept' page either.
I can't help but think that if a certain California based company owned this branding asset they would be promoting and protecting it vigorously.

[PB]

I can't answer your question, but I will say that I find Graphisoft's promotional and marketing efforts woeful.

As an old Uni professor used to say: " There's no point inventing the best mouse trap in the world, if no one knows about it!"

[Anonymous]

From the Rhinobim page

Unfortunately, the makers of CATIA support the aerospace and automobile industries primarily and have focused their development efforts on these industries. The latest CATIA Version 5 now emulates Proengineer with its parametric capability. It has become more oriented towards mechanical design and employs a very restrictive, history-dependent methodology suited to smaller mechanical parts and assemblies. It is not developed for large, complicated, custom and ever changing architecture projects.

I can't help thinking GehryTechnologies might disagree !

[Richard Morrison]

amonle wrote:
I can't help but think that if a certain California based company owned this branding asset they would be promoting and protecting it vigorously.

Given the lackluster marketing, it would not surprise me at all if selling this brand, along with the patented TW technology to this certain company, is part of the GS business plan. No point investing heavily in marketing if you're just going to sell the company in the near future.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Richard wrote:

amonle wrote:
I can't help but think that if a certain California based company owned this branding asset they would be promoting and protecting it vigorously.

Given the lackluster marketing, it would not surprise me at all if selling this brand, along with the patented TW technology to this certain company, is part of the GS business plan. No point investing heavily in marketing if you're just going to sell the company in the near future.

If that's the same certain California based company that I'm also thinking about, I would absolutely LOVE for ArchiCAD to be owned and developed by them. I would even switch platforms just for them.

Unfortunately the decision to sell would likely not be Graphisoft's but rather Nemetschek's; since they own the brand. And the lackluster GS marketing is probably a product of Nemetschek's "hand's off" approach to managing their different owned subsidiaries (Vectorworks, Maxon Line, Allplan) as well as a residue of GS's own timid approach from its pre-Nemetschek days. I mean, just consider how vigorously Vectorworks and Maxon products (C4D) are marketed by comparison.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

Richard wrote:

amonle wrote:
I can't help but think that if a certain California based company owned this branding asset they would be promoting and protecting it vigorously.

Given the lackluster marketing, it would not surprise me at all if selling this brand, along with the patented TW technology to this certain company, is part of the GS business plan. No point investing heavily in marketing if you're just going to sell the company in the near future.

Wait.

I just realized that there's another California based company that you might have been referring to. And I would absolutely hate for ArchiCAD to be bought out by them - since that would basically mean the end of ArchiCAD.

[Anonymous]

I know the reseller that sold ArchiCAD to our company did some pretty serious marketing. Maybe that's their strategy. Why spend money advertising and marketing when the resellers will do it for you?

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:

Richard wrote:

amonle wrote:
I can't help but think that if a certain California based company owned this branding asset they would be promoting and protecting it vigorously.

Given the lackluster marketing, it would not surprise me at all if selling this brand, along with the patented TW technology to this certain company, is part of the GS business plan. No point investing heavily in marketing if you're just going to sell the company in the near future.

Wait.

I just realized that there's another California based company that you might have been referring to. And I would absolutely hate for ArchiCAD to be bought out by them - since that would basically mean the end of ArchiCAD.

LOL. The California company that I am thinking of is in Marin County - San Rafael - if that helps.

Bricklyne wrote:
And the lackluster GS marketing is probably a product of Nemetschek's "hand's off" approach to managing their different owned subsidiaries (Vectorworks, Maxon Line, Allplan) as well as a residue of GS's own timid approach from its pre-Nemetschek days. I mean, just consider how vigorously Vectorworks and Maxon products (C4D) are marketed by comparison.

It's strange because I was thinking of a couple of things yesterday
1- where would AC be now if it had been bought by the San Rafael company in 2007 (which was considered), instead of half-asleep NM
2- since NM (parent company) already owns it they should make it a direct sister company of Vectorworks over at Nemetschek North America - and let them build a strategy - I am sure they would do a much better job

Better yet why doesn't parent company NM just wake up and bring some focus to their basket of software titles.

[Anonymous]

If you want, in your next spare 5 minutes you can search for the word 'graphisoft' in Nemetschek's quarterly statement PDF. You will notice certain key words and phrases in the sentences that "graphisoft" appears:

• "liabilities"
  "negative market valuation"
  "loan"
  "debt"

'Focus' would suggest that if NM considered that GS was their 'key' BIM asset then then further investment may have to come at other 'BIM' products' expense - (hint to NM - Allplan will not be a world beater, and as great as VW is it will not challenge as BIM either) ... but as it is don't expect big investments in GS anytime soon.
Manage your expectations for v15.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

amonle wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
......
Wait.

I just realized that there's another California based company that you might have been referring to. And I would absolutely hate for ArchiCAD to be bought out by them - since that would basically mean the end of ArchiCAD.

LOL. The California company that I am thinking of is in Marin County - San Rafael - if that helps.

The one I initially thought about was the one based in Cupertino, CA. They both start with the letter 'A' anyway, so I thought why not. And till I realized that the Cupertino company probably wouldn't want to be in the business of BIM software.

I didn't realize that AC was almost bought out again in 2007. I had heard that the proposal of its sale to the San Rafael company actually came before they eventually decided to go with the other software way back in the mid-nineties.

amonle wrote:
........ ... but as it is don't expect big investments in GS anytime soon.
Manage your expectations for v15.

It's funny because I was pretty much trying to say the same thing in the AC 14 thread without getting labeled a troll but without much success neither. The longer you've been using the software, the easier it is the recognize the downward trend it's been on and the almost stagnated development process.

Their marketing nowadays basically consists of "great expectations and things are to come in future versions because these last couple of almost feature-less versions have been nothing but the laying of foundations of technologies to add more new features" - if you are to believe the number of defenders/apologist on this forum, since even GS themselves will never ever claim or deny this themselves.