Do you think it is fair to charge for ArchiCAD addons

[Anonymous]

I just want to know how other users feel about charging for additional content for ArchiCAD. I recently looked up ArchiGlazing as a solution for creating custom windows. It cost $209 US per copy. I know that is not a lot for most firms, but it can be a lot for start up firms or small offices with limited budgets, especially given the cost of ArchiCAD alone.
So let me know what you think. Is it fair to charge for additional content (bathroom fixtures, furniture ect..) and applications that should be part of the program?

PS
I know there is a free GDL library, but there are slim pickens in there.

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
Now I'm not exactly advocating this as a strategic approach for GS in dealing with AC's issues...

I am.

Cherry picking the best of third party development can be a very effective business model. It leaves the main office free to focus on core development issues while encouraging others to explore all the various possible applications, extensions, enhancements, etc. that the developers haven't the time and/or knowledge to pursue. The winners then either build solid businesses that buttress the main program or get get a big payday when they are bought out.

Graphisoft doesn't have the reach nor the resources to do it all themselves. I think their best hope for the future is to encourage and support third party efforts and to reward the best of them with buyouts or contracts.

[owen]

Matthew wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
Now I'm not exactly advocating this as a strategic approach for GS in dealing with AC's issues...

I am.

Cherry picking the best of third party development can be a very effective business model ... Graphisoft doesn't have the reach nor the resources to do it all themselves. I think their best hope for the future is to encourage and support third party efforts and to reward the best of them with buyouts or contracts.

Exactly. Unfortunately they show little inclination to do this. Their strategy seems a bit all over the place really. They introduce the MEP package but sell off their Constructor package?? Can anyone see a strategy in this?

Although i generally support the strategy outlined by Matthew there are some fairly fundamental modeling features that cannot be developed in this way AFAIK, given the current ArchiCAD engine. Only Graphisoft has the power and resources to do that...

[Aaron Bourgoin]

owen wrote:

Matthew wrote:

Bricklyne wrote:
Now I'm not exactly advocating this as a strategic approach for GS in dealing with AC's issues...

They introduce the MEP package but sell off their Constructor package?? Can anyone see a strategy in this?

I think there was lots of strategic thinking behind the departure of Constructor/VICO.

BTW Constructor MEP and AC MEP are not identical tools.

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Just had a huge mindfart on this one:

VICO Constructor is, so far, the penultimate Add-On success story.

Think of it, you slave away with the API development kit and the ODBC drivers somewhere in hell and gone Finland, come up with add-ons that are so nifty and so useful that you wake up one morning and say to yourself, "hey, why don't I just license ArchiCAD as my engine and market my own solution to a complex problem. Hell, I won't even call it ArchiCAD anymore. I will call it what I want to call it - and charge double for my trouble." [ visualize Robin Williams doing the golf sketch here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_OmnP527Dw ]

This starts a chain reaction when both developer minds and marketing minds meld. Jon Krakauer should get hold of this one.

And then, what is it that all those brilliant Russian ArchiCAD minds are up to? Don't you sometimes ask yourself that question when you read their posts in the Developer forums?

Lots of Developer activity on the ArchiCAD Wiki site these days as well. Hmmmm.....

[Anonymous]

owen wrote:
Although i generally support the strategy outlined by Matthew there are some fairly fundamental modeling features that cannot be developed in this way AFAIK, given the current ArchiCAD engine. Only Graphisoft has the power and resources to do that...

This is why they need to focus on core development. It will be interesting to see how Rhino develops.

BTW: Aaron, you seem to have mucked up your edit a little. I didn't write that.

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Sorry Matthew and sorry all,

I haven't used the "quote" button before. This was to be attributed to Owen.

I'll be more careful in future.

[owen]

Aaron wrote:

owen wrote:
They introduce the MEP package but sell off their Constructor package?? Can anyone see a strategy in this?

I think there was lots of strategic thinking behind the departure of Constructor/VICO.

ok i'm sure there was .. i guess it just doesn't make sense to me. I was never really clear on how it came about - the original press release in 2005 was a bit vague but i take it Graphisoft was not entirely responsible for developing it? Anyway .. regardless of how, Graphisoft had a product which opened the door to the construction sector. Which is where the real money is, not with architects. It also means developing more of a design-to-construction package which surely would have had its advantages at Graphisofts end for software design, resourcing and marketing, and at our end as a modular system which can meet the needs of small architects up to global construction companies. Just look at Autodesk - they pretty much have the AEC market covered. I just don't get why they would sell it off again only a few years later (it surely wasn't losing them money?). Seems Graphisoft want to stay niche. Maybe this will work out, maybe not.

Aaron wrote:
BTW Constructor MEP and AC MEP are not identical tools.

I'd assumed they were similar (it would make sense) but not identical. As i haven't used either Constructor or MEP yet, and you use both i'd be interested to hear a little bit regarding the differences.

[EDIT] Never mind (re comparison) .. i'm tired and was being lazy. There are plenty of threads on this topic just a search away

sorry getting a bit off topic ..

[Anonymous]

That question should be addressed to GS.
As far as GS keep the GDL so closed and capsulated, and for any serious work or interaction between existing object and new object, programmer needs approach to API, which needs to be registered and payed in advance, I vote YES.
Very simple. If creation of any Add-on costs me anything more than my spare time and good will, I should repay it.

So, in general, the question is not should you want to pay for somebody's work, then should anybody wants to spend his time and money for nothing.