Appeal for API/SDK Support in Chief

[gteacher]

Michael:

You raise some good points. But you also have re-written history somewhat.

Sketchup was originally developed by a very small company called “Last Software” The SDK was originally developed by that company but not fully completed when bought by Google as a plug-in for its Global maps program. Once Google realized what they got, they turned it into a standalone program and paid “Last Software a small fee (very)to complete the SDK. Google never fully developed Sketchup and basically used it as a cash cow and an advertizing novelty. This resulted in its sale to Trimble after they milked for what it’s worth.

The point here is that it really doesn’t take many resources to develop a SDK. A company as small as Last Software had no trouble infunding this small expense as many likewise small companies do. The key is not expense but the quality of the final product. That’s my sub thread here and why the interface and Ruby are so important.

My listing was just to point out that virtually every successful company realizes the importance of a SDK to increase the value of their software. I do agree that if software can do everything imaginable, no SDK is needed. That isn’t practical with CAD programs and why most successful CAD and user intensive programs offer a SDK. A company can’t afford to chase every desire/need of every user. That is the value of a SDK. Good customer relations (SDKs) help to create successful companies NOT big companies create SDKs.

This trend has proven successful, properly done, in most every instance and is the present trend – not the future. If Chief waits until Softplan or CadSoft “bests” them, they may lose a lot of customer loyalty.

I believe Chief understands this, but thinks the issue can be delayed because its user base is not aware of what the competition can or will offer. Chief, correct me, if I’m wrong?

[Alaskan Son]

Gerry,

I realize that it doesn't take much in the way of resources to develop an SDK. My point wasn't that a company needed resources to develop them, it was that the bigger companies have resources that give them the ability to profit elsewhere. A good SDK in my opinion may not be financially profitable for a company like Chief.

[Sledge]

Well there was a product called Unix that is now commonly used as Linux thanks to a group of people such as Linus Torvalds. Gee it's even on mobile phones.

[gteacher]

Michael:

I knew we'd agree sooner or later. "Great Minds". Only pointing out that the issue of a API/SDK or not, Enhancement of Ruby or not does not depend on interest, resources or finances by Corporate Chief. Only the perceived customer interest (market) --- apparently -- not much. The rest was just my opinion on a possible direction after that.

As to profitability - see post #22

[lbuttery]

Michael:

the more "powerful" chief is the larger its market share ...

if chief can do X, Y, and Z because of API/SDK/RUBY then more users will want to buy it...

more power = more interest, more desirable

go to the Sketchup website and check out all the Ruby scripts that are available
consider all the "power" they offer to Sketchup users

then consider that ALL of those scripts were created by users - not Google

Lew

[Alaskan Son]

Lew,

I really think your reasoning is flawed. I don't believe Sketchup as a program made much money for its owners in the way of profit from sales. They were (and are) able to take advantage of it to profit in other ways. Chief most likely cannot afford to do that. Developing a good API/SDK/Ruby interface would only lose them money from lost upgrade sales and lost SSA sales. Look at all those plugins you mentioned for Sketchup. You can buy just about all of them combined for what one year of SSA costs, and Sketchup couldn't have been profiting much from that. Chief Architect would be taking a huge risk for a payoff of "larger market share" that may never happen. Then what?? Take it away and lose the customers it does have?? Or perhaps gain that larger market share and then charge what its competitors charge. Its very simple logic...

You want Revit or Archicad...so go buy Revit or Archicad. If Chief does what you want how do you figure they're not going to raise their price if it turns out to be successful??

It just sounds like you think we're all somehow going to get something for nothing.

And to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have the capabilities you're requesting. I just think it won't be free, and if you really need it why don't you buy a comparable program that has it for $5,000 and $800 or $900 dollars a year for support??

[Alaskan Son]

Gerry,

You said it all in post#22. For that logic to work there has to be a store full of some other goods to profit from. What does Chief have?? They would have to change their whole business model and develop new products, or sell out to a big corporation.

[gteacher]

Michael:

Mr. Spock, Your logic is flawless.

Unfortunately it’s the same logic adhered to by the competitors of Walmart while Sam was putting them out of Business one at a time. This: by an insignificant small town dry goods store with NO funds.

Convenience, customer loyalty, perceived value (perception is reality) make the difference between great success and great failure. Yes, Chief will have to increase Sales to cover the expense, but I don’t think the expense would be that much and certainly not for an extended period.

The returns are much greater. Understand, that most companies, even Microsoft, are willing to lose money on some services to gain market share. Grocery stores, by policy, lose money on about 10% of the items in their store. All start-ups of initial products lose money in the first two years.

The only question is the demands of the user. You cannot make a lost leader out of something that no one wants. That is Chief’s question and where most of us disagree. Is there enough interest in an API/SDK/Ruby to increase interest in Chief and draw people to it?

I agree on one fact. The stakes are higher here. Sketchup initially drew interest to its SDK because of its price range. (Free to students). Chief’s price range greatly reduces casual interest. However, Chief could easily create a “stampede” by putting a small SDK in its Home Pro line. I for one would approach this by making small initial expenditures, perhaps ½- 1 person and let the users dictate the direction by their interest. That’s somewhat what they tried with the introduction of Ruby, but their effort was a Fail because it was too limited, which is my point as a warning. Most good products fail because their initial offering is too timid. – Realized by Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.

I would start small and build. There is no reason that Chief could not charge a small extra for an add-on like this, assuming that it offers some quality and value. A quick independent survey would verify this.

I also believe that Chief could find investors willing to assume the risk for this in exchange for part of the fee. There are many ways to approach this and they are doable on ALL counts, except for the question of interest.

Chief needs to investigate by some independent means or someone else eventually will. Perhaps, after ONLY 20 years, Chief has just become stodgy.

[Alaskan Son]

Gerry,

I don't think you're hearing my point. Chief has NOTHING ELSE TO SELL. It would be like that company you were talking about selling ONLY those bags of whatever it was for a loss. Chief doesn't sell anything else.

You're not really comparing apples to apples with the businesses you're trying to compare either as they're all in the market of selling a vast selection of products. And all those companies you mentioned are a huge part of whats wrong with our country in my opinion anyway. A whole TON of not much of anything. What we need are good quality specialized products that are good at what they do and that's it. Yes those companies you mentioned were financially successful, but that's not much of a measuring stick for a QUALITY product or company. You mention Lowes, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart like they're something to look up to. Maybe as a way to make money but that's it. No substance, and they just push the need to buy more and more garbage at a low low price.

And no one has ever answered my questions (and I've asked it on other threads as well)...why don't you guys buy those programs you're describing and use them instead?? There IS a reason. Chief is simple and it works. Its a tool made for a specific purpose. I think that's a big thing that's wrong with our society...so many people think everyone and everything has to be well rounded and good at everything. Its the reason so many people and products can sort of do a lot of everything and aren't really good at anything. Chief should just focus on doing what it does and doing it better. I don't think there's any reason they have to jump on the bandwagon.

[Sledge]

And no one has ever answered my questions (and I've asked it on other threads as well)...why don't you guys buy those programs you're describing and use them instead?? There IS a reason.

1000s of people ARE using the other software. For THAT reason they aren't on this forum to answer your questions. Perhaps instead of asking in other threads here, join those forums and put the same question to those users. You may just convert them yet!!

[lbuttery]

would only lose them money from lost upgrade sales and lost SSA sales

Michael:

sorry but I see the opposite happening

with each new upgrade Chief would have new features
that would "beg" for new plug-ins to be created

with "power" users will flock to Chief

the "WOW" factor will pull them in

"Wow, I can do X" !!!"

"Wow, I can do Y" !!!"

"Wow, I can do Z !!!"

"I gotta buy Chief and download some of those Ruby plug-ins"

"My clients will drool when they see what I can do"

Lew

[MarkMc]

I could see it being useful for the kitchen market SO long as someone is writing the scripts and sharing them, which I believe would happen.

If it made it possible to shortcut work-arounds, rotate dimensions, add nomenclature especially modifications, get a reliable item list or schedule, change door style faster...
For just that I'd pay extra but more importantly it would overcome some of Chief's deficits compared to the competition in kitchens.

Sure the larger part of Chief's market is "buildings" but they spend a few bucks going to KBIS; must be something there for them. I regularly recommend CA to folks but with several serious caveats but I've met more KD's who've abandoned Chief than use it. They will not likely catch 2020 or ProKitchen (who may win the market share battle) but there is a healthy part of the market who are like me and need more than those programs offer at this time. so Chief is (my) best option. But I currently have to supplement it with TurboCad, Bluebeam, and Excel oh yeah and 2020
If AutoKitchen had any keyboard support, if 2020 ever becomes stable, fixes dimensions (ahem) or realizes what Envisioneer integration means to them, and I don't yet know what is missing from ProKitchen but they have the current buzz...
... I realized yesterday that I may be better off paying the higher support to ProKitchen (but get a competitive upgrade) and adding that to my toolbox than upgrading my two licenses to Premier. I'll stay on CA support but I'm interested in productivity, drawings are just a tool, a part of what I do to make a living. I want them to be fast and as easy as possible. Easy sells- look at the iPhone.

[Alaskan Son]

Michael:

sorry but I see the opposite happening

with each new upgrade Chief would have new features
that would "beg" for new plug-ins to be created

with "power" users will flock to Chief

the "WOW" factor will pull them in

"Wow, I can do X" !!!"

"Wow, I can do Y" !!!"

"Wow, I can do Z !!!"

"I gotta buy Chief and download some of those Ruby plug-ins"

"My clients will drool when they see what I can do"

Lew

Lew,

You're missing the point. All that performance won't come without a price and wow factor won't come free. There ARE programs that meet your guidelines. Why aren't you using those??

Any of the comparable programs out there that meet your expectations are more cumbersome (especially when you have to deal with all the add-ons and plug-ins you're talking about), harder to learn, and usually FAR MORE expensive.

Chief is simple, fast, and relatively affordable. It has all you really need to model most any residential or light commercial building and you get it all in one easy to use program.

[Alaskan Son]

1000s of people ARE using the other software. For THAT reason they aren't on this forum to answer your questions. Perhaps instead of asking in other threads here, join those forums and put the same question to those users. You may just convert them yet!!

I'm talking about the people on THIS forum that keep asking for "industry standard BIM" and an API/SDK.

They're all asking for something that's already out there. And there's a reason they're using Chief and not that other program. They all think that somehow Chief can add it without eventually doubling its price and becoming too complex for the average Chief user.

[lbuttery]

becoming too complex for the average Chief user.

Michael:

the API/SDK/RUBY can be totaly ignored if desired

a user doesn't have to go anywhere near it to use chief - just as it is being used today

I don't make symbols - I don't go anywhere near the symbol making tools

yet, I love that they are there and that other chiefers are capable and willing to make symbols
that I can use - some for free and some for fee

I know that CA spent $$$ creating those symbol making tools - tools that I will never use
yet, I am pleased that they are there

I'm sorry you can't see the "power" that will be unleashed if CA will ever "open the doors"

The API/SDK are already in use by the CA programmers -
they just need to make it available to the users

Lew


I don't create symbols - I don't go anywhere near the symbol making too