Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #03719
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:32:20 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] In answer to Dave
I will jump in here one more time, even though I said I would not.
In a message dated 5/25/99 2:03:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dave@solarbotics.com writes:
> That's a bit of an unfair statement, especially when Mark has _no_ say in
> what we finally do at Solarbotics.
I was referring to certain inferences in your ad copy.
> JVernonM@aol.com replied:
> > > Ummm.. No argument there. He's done the bulk of the conceptual R&D on
> our
> > > kits, and he gets royalties because of it.
> >I thought he got royalties for his ownership of certain patents and
> >copyrights?
>
> Yes, he does. But if it wasn't for his original work on his Photopopper,
> we'd have no kit based on it. He doesn't actively think "Let's build
> something that Solarbotics will want to turn into a kit...". He builds
(and
> builds, and builds), and we look over his shoulder and say "BOY that's
> neat. Can we turn that into a kit?", and that's about the extent of his
> involvement. WE design the PCBs, WE manufacture them, WE take care of all
> the documentation. If we do it right, Mark says "Cool kit...".
But, your ad copy says things like, "We are developing hextiles with Mark
T...." And you do it in other examples as well, but too numerous to list. It
gives the impression (false from what you just wrote) that Mark IS sitting
there at Solarbotics developing those products. NO, you don't say it right
out, but it is inferred. Inference is a VERY powerful advertising tool, and
you use it very well.
> You know, I never even knew of Dennison's involvement with Mark in this
> regard. Well done if you managed to pull Mark away from his bench!
Actually, Mark has been very positive in his responses to me on kit
development. The inference mentioned earlier gave me the impression that you
had him doing it for you.
> If you don't think these sources are our competition, then what are they?
I was referring to kit prices (particularly that scoutwalker). And solar cell
prices. You have no competition there. That puts you in a very advantageous
position and you know it. Even if some of us develop kits, we still need
solar cells. Only two ways to get them now, you, or a Suncercam
distributorship. You know the distributorship is very difficult to acquire,
and is not economically viable for those starting their first kit. That
swings everything back to you. If you control the price of solar cells, you
also control the end cost of my kits. That gives you power over my product.
And it makes my product cost more, which I can only pass on to the consumer.
Thereby giving you a lot of control over the market. Competition just went
out the window.
> >In
> >my opinion, that seriously undermines the ability to expand the
technology.
> Same song Zoz seems to be singing. In light of what I illustrate 2
> paragaphs above, how can this be so? In the past 6 months, there's been an
> explosion of input from the likes of Wilf and Walter, both of whom haven't
> personally met Mark, myself or any of the "old hands". I've been thrilled
> to see these new ideas! Please explain your above comment - I don't follow
> you.
I was referring to money, market expansion, and customer acceptance. Not
ideas or new circuits. You can deny the biases that exist, but it won't make
them go away.
> Richard Piotter replied:
> >If BEAM grows, then
> >maybe Dave can bring down prices, but he can't "break even or even run
> >with low profits. He'd need to get that money elsewhere (other work) and
> >that'd cut back the time he has from BEAM,a nd it'd eventualy destroy
> >the little buisness.
>
> Exactly correct.
Again, the point was missed. Your little business is growing, you stated so.
You say you are going to rethink pricing, but not because of this thread (no,
of course not), but because you are making enough now to survive it. Your
economic logic seems to be this: My market is tiny so I charge a lot to
survive. Let's say your market was one customer, I guess you could say that
1000 dollars for a cap is reasonable because the market is so small. But,
what if you wanted to grow your market and coax demand? Just leave the price
as it is and wait for more customers. Won't work. You scare off your own
growth. Now drop that price by half, more customers recognizee the value, the
market expands. I put it to you Dave that you don't really have to. The only
thing that guarantees that you would take such a chance is if you were forced
to by a competitor who had already done so. Then, you are forced to respond
in kind. There is no market pressure on you at all. As far as building a
business while doing something else, I did it for 10 years. But, I had to. I
had competition in the market I was trying to break into. I had no choice. I
had to match the pricing and quality of the market from the get go. After
slowly building a customer base, I ventured into full time. I could never
have done it if I based my pricing on my needs, I had to consider the market,
the customer, and the demand. All dictated by the market, not me. If I had
said, Yeah, I need 50 bucks a piece for that T-shirt order because I got a
family to feed, I would be dead at the starting gate. I really don't know how
I can make this plainer, these are common, accepted business and accounting
techniques used the world over, and they work. They only fail when the market
comprises a monopoly, or the customer base is loyal beyond their own
interests. And to be honest, I never ran into that until now.
as to Digikey pricing:
> Yes, this will be changed. We initally started stocking these ages ago in
> very low quantities, and we had to charge that much to make it worthwhile.
> Since then, we're going through much more stock and getting them in larger
> volumes, and will accordingly be reviewing the prices in the next few
weeks.
Well, there's some progress anyway. I still don't see the logic of marking
them up 1000 percent or more in the first place. I've only bought one cap
from you out of convienience. I've bought hundreds from Digikey. And guess
why, that competition thing again. Are you planning to lower solar cell
prices as well, I didn't think so. No reason to.
> > > >Usually the market dictates price through competition.
> > >
> > > uhm, What market?
> >EXACTLY! There isn't one. There is a monopoly based on long time
> >acquaintances. We call it a good ole boy network.
> >Jim
>
> I think you mean there isn't _competition_, not a market. There is a
> market, and a growing one at that. As for the "Good ol' boy network",
> that's just a difference of opinion...
There is no market. Markets are places filled with competing businesses and
complicated price and inventory tradeoffs directly related to competition. To
say there is a market, but no competition is an oxymoron.
> Not entirely correct in this case. Pricing is based on competition AND
> customer base. Supply and demand. If there are too many suppliers of a
> product for a set number of customers, price drops until some of the
> suppliers go out of business.
That's called a market Dave. That fear of going under because of competition
is what drives it. It's what makes the product eventually viable enough to
spread and grow. It's how it's done.
> We'll stand behind these Namiki motors as the best bang for the buck,
> especially when there are no eccentric weights to yank, and they're BRAND
> NEW from the supplier.
Yes, I agree on this one. I can get pager motors locally for 3.00 each, but
the quality is less than the Namiki's and they don't have that little sleeve
to keep everything in place, a problem that can't be gotten around when you
remove the weights yourself. But, I refer you to my above statements on solar
cells, the same applies here. If I make a kit, I need those cells and motors
to maintain quality. But, my most viable way of getting them is through you.
That raises my kit cost, and makes my business dependent on you as a supplier
of the two most important components. That gives you a definite advantage in
any up and coming market. If you recall, I originally tried to make contact
with you to sell my stuff through Solarbotics, you never returned my e-mail.
So, what do I do? I sell them myself of course. But, that means still going
back to you. I thought it would be easier to do it through you since you
already have the distributorships, and the prices could therefore be kept
low. Your not interested, so I either give up, or try to scrape it together
myself while being forced to let you indirectly dictate my pricing. You don't
see this as giving you a serious control over any market here? Come on.
> ???!!! If you're referring to our Christmas sale, it wasn't from the
> pressure of Dennison and other BEAM-surplus finders. Of course, I don't
> expect you to believe me that any upcoming sales from Solarbotics AREN'T a
> direct result from this thread. Well, not entirely... ;>
Actually, I was referring to the recent activity and new products on your
site. You seemed to be a sleep at the wheel for a while there, and it seemed
you woke up lately. I don't know if it was because of a realization of up and
coming competition, or you just woke up on your own. And you ain't gonna
tell.
> I'll say it again, Mark is our good personal friend. If BEAM were to
> disappear, we'd still love him for the kind, funny, generous man he is.
> He's an extended part of our personal family. As for the second sentence,
> Mark has NO SAY in Solarbotics operations. I'd LOVE it if he were to wear
> Solarbotics t-shirts or buttons on camera, but he doesn't. How can that be
> construed as "seem to be commercially the same person"?
Please re read your ad copy and sales pitches. You do infer that Mark is
doing just that. When you say we and Mark in the same sentence it sure sounds
like he's sitting there stuffing kit bags.
> Exactly my point earlier - limited market! Glad to see you notice this too.
Sure did, but I disagree as to why, and what will change it.
> > And lastly, and I think most importantly, is that Dave is
> >sweet like butter :).
> >Jim
>
> Now, WOCK DA HECK is that supposed to mean?!? (Never mind, I'll take it as
> a compliment...I think... ;)
It was a compliment in joke form. I thought since you are Canadian you would
recognize the catch phrase popularized by Mike Myers on Saturday Night Live,
when referring to Barbara Streisand in a most lovable way. Sorry, perhaps to
obscure.
> WHOA! I *really* don't know how you come to that conclusion. IMHO about
2/3
> the website that have any sort of schematics also have the SunEaters
> referenced too! I've seen many posts by SunEater builders on the list, so
I
> don't know what you're basing this conclusion on. I consider much of
> Steven's work BEAM, and hold him and his work in high regard.
I was referring to a statement Steven made some time ago about the lack of
interest in Suneaters. I understand why you copy your designs from Mark's. It
makes them much more economically viable in a community that hangs on his
every word, and can see no fault in anything he says or does. My point was
that this attitude makes it almost impossible to get anything accepted as
BEAM unless it falls very near those designs. That was not a comment on you
but the attitudes of the list. This is illustrated by the comment made that I
haven't built anything. I have built quite a few things, but they are my own
original designs and approaches. Some seem to think unless your making
another Miller walker or a copy of a Tilden head, you're not making anything
at all. Originality is always preferable to copying. Copying gets you
started, but you will quickly stagnate if you don't grow beyond it and put
your own personal spin on it.
> Pounce on by whom? Rejected by whom? I'll admit that I've never been a big
> fan of the "Genome Project", but I'm not going to throw my support behind
> every non-Dave/non-"BEAM" idea that hits this list.
Non Dave? Non BEAM? I have been wasting my time here.
> > BEAM is a technology that
> >revolves around the opinions of a small minority of people. They, through
> the
> >use of certain bias, really control the flow of acceptance.
>
> I'll assume you're referring to me as an example. So if I don't like an
> idea, what am I to do? Should I rather just not reply to any concepts I
> don't like? Then my silence is my disapproval...
No, actually, you could be more supportive of new ideas. The Genome Project
was a joke, and got me slammed for bringing it up. Only after a note from
Mark T. supporting it did it get ANY serious consideration. Nope, no biases
here.
>
> >And this bias filters down to the BEAM community as
> >CPU's suck. Don't even look at them.
>
> I think _that_ has been more of a BEAM myth than anything else.
Ludicrous! Ask Bob Shannon about that one. Re read the inferences in Tilden's
writings. Listen to what he's saying on those TV specials, and compare it to
the attitudes on the list. A myth, right.
> > As I watched Stryder stumble over one
> >bot it didn't know was there and finally bump into another Symet that
> >triggered it's leg tactile sensor, I thought, "This thing can barely
walk."
> >As far as I can tell, it only lifts it's legs a couple of millimeters off
> the
> >table top.
>
> Well, that's your opinion. I look at Stryder and see a working example of
> something I thought wasn't possible - a 4 legged, fixed motor position
> walker capable of very efficient walking gait (not lifting legs very high
> saves power). My opinion is that it's a very viable layout for larger
> machines designed to work in linoleum-floored buildings, like a hospital.
A
> few cm clearance is plenty at that scale.
But I thought walkers were supposed to replace wheeled bots to get the things
off of linoleum and put them outside. I would say that the walkers you
mention are actually less viable indoors, and completely useless outside.
What are they for then? Why put legs on a bot never meant to work off a flat
surface. What does the design gain in mobility? What the heck are you talking
about?
> I didn't take notes of that footage, so I won't comment directly on it.
But
> what I will comment on is, THAT TO ME, Mark's work is parallel to Brooks'
> work a decade ago with Ghengis and the like, but using a different
> approach. I fully expect Mark to be working on a Cog-like machine in the
> next 5 years too.
Not with BEAM I'm afraid. But we'll see. I'd say by then the Honda humanoid
will be a little more visible as well. I'm sorry Dave, but that thing is a
walker.
> There. One big-*ss reply, rather than a bazillion little ones. Now time to
> get to some serious work...
This is serious Dave. BEAM should be much more than sitting at the bench. If
it can''t survive a few negative comments, or even a few new positive ones,
it's doomed anyway.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home