Okay, well, it’s raining, the ocean is too rough, and I’m getting bored, so I’ll respond to Andy’s response to my post.
Yeah, I know I shouldn’t. Yeah, it’s dumb. And I’m sure everyone will just get furious at me…
So sue me….
Investors invest in a company in order to gain a financial “Return” on their initial investment,.. they don’t just give a company money to spend.
That, sir, is what I call “insanely obvious”. And nothing that I wrote was intended to say anything different. I know what investors do. I am one. And I’ve owned and managed businesses with investors. I’ve been involved in venture capital funding. I have quite a bit of experience with this. So if you’re assuming that I don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re mistaken.
If the company isn’t performing as the investor expected, then the investor withdraws their funding…at any time..
Well, kinda, but I don’t think you really want to get into a technical discussion of venture capital funding of privately held firms and exit strategies. The point is that no, it’s not nearly that easy. But for purposes of this discussion, it’s pretty much irrelevant, so I won’t pursue it.
All companies in all markets have competition. ... ..
Again, sir, that is insanely obvious. My point was NOT that DAZ is different in that it doesn’t have competition (which I figured was too obvious to even mention), it was that DAZ has different competition than many other companies. Even those in the same business.
For example, It has a product similar to Lightwave in many regards, though its competition is far different. Newtek’s broad market is those who want a full featured, live video production capability. DAZ’s market, and therefore its competition, is different. DAZ’s main competition is in the content market. Few other companies have that as competition. Which means DAZ is different in that regard from other companies who produce a similar software product.
My point was addressing those who compared DAZ to other companies that are VERY different. How you can argue with that is beyond my comprehension, but anyway.
you should think a lot about things before you write them,. especially if you have no idea what you’re talking about…
All companies have different individuals (Staff) but with similar resources (Skill-sets) EG accounts, payroll, etc, and most companies have different product ranges or services from other companies. (that’s how we have competition and a diversified marketplace)...
DAZ has different resources from other companies. Again, I thought that was too obvious to discuss in detail, but apparently not.
DAZ has, from what I last read from D&B, about 40 employees (though I’m sure that’s probably out of date…but at least in the ballpark…probably less than 100). Those employees have different skills and experience from those in other companies. You can’t compare it to Adobe, or Autodesk, or Luxology, or Newtek, or SmithMicro, or just about any other company in the business. It has a different pool of investors, a different revenue (last I heard it was around $2 million, though that’s probably out of date), a different debt structure, a different market with different customers with different needs, and on and on and on.
So the point is (and this is just an analogy for discussion, not a real example), the head of DAZ can’t, tomorrow, decide they want to, say, add fluids to Carrara and have it done by next Tuesday. He has to have developers who know what that means and how to implement it, he has to have the money to pay them, he has to deal with other concurrent priorities and goals the company might have, he has to consider how long it will take, he has to keep investors happy in the interim, and on and on. Other companies are probably very different in the specifics of their considerations in implementing something like that.
Again, the point is: you can’t compare DAZ with other companies unless you really, really know what the right companies are to compare with. If they even exist.
Thankfully “Most” companies do not change their goals overnight. and I don’t see Daz3D changing their goals,....
Of course they do. Although I suppose you’ll argue about whether stuff actually occurs “overnight” rather than accept the analogy….
DAZ decided to change their goals drastically when they decided to give away their software for free. DAZ decided to change their goals drastically when the decided to merge with Gizmoz.
I’m sure if you think about it you can see that it’s quite obvious that companies regularly change their goals. Maybe not their overall, defining goals as a corporation, but daily/monthly/yearly operating goals, revenue goals, marketing goals, sales goals, strategic goals, and on and on. Business conditions change, economies change, resources change, costs change, etc., and new goals are formed regularly to meet those changes.
In terms of DAZ, my only point was to recognize that what they face today may not have any relevance to what they may have faced in the past, or what they may face in the future. And what they did in the past may or may not be viewed as a good thing for what they’re facing tomorrow.
Point one is intended to suggest that a SMALL company is at a natural disadvantage,. this is a wrong assumption based on ignorance of reality and has no basis in fact. ...some small companies are world leaders in their field.
Absolutely not, and I never even implied anything about a disadvantage. It’s a fact. In the US, a small company is defined as having less than 500 employees. That definition is an important one, and defines, for example, how the SBA assesses who qualifies for loans. I never said it’s a bad thing, nor would I ever say that. You clearly misinterpreted what I said. The point is that DAZ is a very small company (probably less than 100 employees) and that fact alone defines resource availability and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Point two is another wrongly assumed disadvantage. look in any store at any product range, and you will find competitive products with similar features being sold , sometimes by the same manufacturer under a different brand name (Market diversity).
I’d respond if I could figure out what you’re saying. My point was that there exists duplicate functionality across their product line. That’s a fact. Duplicate modellers, lots of duplicate functionality between D|S and Carrara, and so on. And if it requires a specialized group of developers who can understand and develop those duplicate functions in those very different apps, it gives a legitimate reason to wonder if it’s what DAZ wants to do in the long term. Simple, reasonable question.
So if, for example (and this is only a hypothetical for discussion) the revenue from Hex is tiny, and Carrara already has a modeller function, does it make sense to continue expending resoures on Hex? And that question goes for all the DAZ product line. The same questions you’d be asking if you ran DAZ.
Point three dismisses the facts that Daz have built Daz Studio (to be independent of any possible “third party software developments) while continuing to develop Hexagon Bryce and Carrara, and in the last year have added genesis technology to the main two figure handling applications DS and Carrara. (both of which are still in development)).
Again, I really don’t know what you’re saying. All I stated was the fact that to add the “buzzword” features to Carrara would take many years. That’s a fact. An obvious fact. Just look at the history of any major feature development in any 3D app. So I won’t pursue it.
Point five,. Investors can withdraw at any time. but that doesn’t prevent a company seeking alternative investors or other avenues of funding.
Aside from the innaccuracy about “any time”, what you’re saying is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I said you need to keep investors happy, by providing a return on their investment. You said all you have to do is look for more investors. Huh?
Andy, if you can’t provide investors a return on their investment (ie, a profit), then you can look around until you turn purple and you still won’t find any investor out there who’s going to give you money. Again, I’m shaking my head trying to understand your point.
Point Six,. All the other “professional” 3D software makers have not added support for Poser/Daz Content to their programs, despite being larger and better funded,
Oh, wait, I think you’re agreeing with me on this one, so I’ll move on…
Point seven,. unfortunately shows a complete lack on understanding of Daz3D as a business, and it’s development history.
I said that DAZ has changed course towards content, not software. Is that not true? It’s no longer selling most of its software, it’s now only selling content. Before the free giveaway they were selling software, now they’re not. That’s a change. I’m not sure what your problem is with that, unless you want to argue about some detail specifics about what percentage revenue they’ve gotten from content vs. software over the years. If you have those numbers, and I’m wrong about that, then fine, I’ll admit I’m wrong.
Andy, you can keep saying I don’t know what I’m talking about if that makes you feel better, but the issues I raised are reasonable ones, based on facts, experience, and a bit of reasonable conjecture based on rational analysis. If that’s not enough, then I’m sorry, that’s all I’ve got.