Collaboration with other software
About model and data exchange with 3rd party solutions: Revit, Solibri, dRofus, Bluebeam, structural analysis solutions, and IFC, BCF and DXF/DWG-based exchange, etc.

Dull edge to the Graphisoft sword - losing its identity

Anonymous
Not applicable
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.
15 REPLIES 15
owen
Newcomer
i don't think that Quarterly Report is saying anything negative about Graphisoft really ..

other than Nemetschek seem to have taken out a substantial loan to purchase the company and had hedged against moves in the interest rate on the loan - thats what the 'negative value' was in reference to as i understand

if anything i would think given the investment Nemetschek have made in Graphisoft they are not going to throw it away by underfunding it when the competition is starting to gain ground
cheers,

Owen Sharp

Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp

iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5
Anonymous
Not applicable
I really can't see AC being bought out by Adesk -- the TW technology is something Adesk could develop in-house; in fact they have considered but resisted having a server-side app to manage the Revit database because they've tried to keep things as simple as possible for users. ...Feature creep notwithstanding

There appears to be a thick veil between the users and what's happening at Graphisoft HQ -- even thicker than the one we have. The real story is what is happening there -- how's morale? How's the vision going? Do they have a fighting spirit to compete in this growing market? It's not nascent any more: we're coming into BIM maturity, and we need more players, not less, at the table.
Anonymous
Not applicable
No, Autodesk really does not need AC now - it may have thought about it back then but how times change. My point was that there is a lot more fight in the Autodesk dog - and it also happens to be a bigger dog than NM.
Re the quarterly report - I was attempting to read between the lines (admittedly without an MBA) - but from the evidence NM is not employing a single branding entity strategy like Adesk - and in the current circumstances it looks pathetic by comparison. In order for the 'multi-company' strategy to work under the NM umbrella I can't help but think that GS would be under pressure to pay its way and justify the millstone cost of financing that completely cancels out the NM (GROUP) cash.
In an Adesk type environment that burden might be a small hurdle on the route of a clear growth strategy. Here it just seems like an inconvenience.
No focus. No clear group strategy. No grooming of brands to be killers.
Perhaps a future business school case study.
Anonymous
Not applicable
I think Revit's technology and depth of programming mettle is what caught Autodesk's eye. When it was bought out, the software was immature and they had not yet solved many of the scalability and collaboration problems Revit had in 2002. But they had the smarts to dig out of that hole (and AC's TW feature was a model for them on how well things could work!) and they continue to be able to fund Revit's development.

So on the other hand, I don't think Adesk ever seriously considered a buyout of ArchiCAD -- at least I have heard no such story. Revit actually spurned an earlier buyout from Autodesk, so the story goes, but eventually succumbed as they had run out of cash.
Anonymous
Not applicable
I take your point. It was probably only an 'all options' consideration and not very serious. I had read an interview that mentioned it a long time ago.
rm
Expert
amonle wrote:
I take your point. It was probably only an 'all options' consideration and not very serious. I had read an interview that mentioned it a long time ago.
Off topic.....

John,

Checked out your website, your work is smoking....really nice!
Robert Mariani
MARIANI design studio, PLLC
Architecture / Architectural Photography
www.robertmariani.com

Mac OSX 13.1
AC 24 / 25 / 26

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!