DISQUS

Some of the reasons I'm hesitant to switch from Windows to Mac:
- current investment in Win OS (not just CAD but related business apps)
- personal lack of problems dealing with Win XP (irregardless of whether Mac OS/Linux are more stable - no argument from me - the issue hasn't been stability; I very, very rarely crash, thus such discussions are pragmatically meaningless to me at this time)
- the surprising number of problems I hear from Mac owners (some of whom will still defend their machine with fanatical zeal even though they're forced to shell out additional money or make a trip to the "bar" for help).
- I enjoy building my own machines and find the limited options available from Apple unappealing.

By the way, like Matt, I use my own money to purchase the tools I use. In fact, if NX were in my price range, I might actually give the Mac more consideration. As I currently run Wildfire and would have to run a Mac in emulation, I don't see sufficient ROI to warrant a switch at this time.

Just added another:

#IDQuo is a new tag for those soliciting industrial design quotes. Ideally it'd accompany a link to an RFP.

Unfortunately, the ID community hasn't quite caught on with the tags. That I've initiated two of the three you mention is unfortunate (and btw, there's another, #IDJob, intended for openings that quietly pop up on forums, in LinkedIn groups, etc).

The #IDT001 (to be followed by #IDT002, aso) also hasn't caught on yet. As a consequence, I'll be giving some thought to how its use might be promoted. Having recently been reminded of Superstruct and all the ways people found to use free socnet applications to self-organize, I'll probably look into using Twitter as one part of a broader online Industrial Design community - even though, ironically enough, I've long claimed "Industrial" Design is dead; maybe I can help shift the community to a post-Industrial mindset which allows for the inclusion of emerging technologies (such as those offered by Shapeways, 3DVia, Ponoko, aso).

The #IDComp tag was spurred by my frustration with design competitions employing draconian rules which, among other things, grab every entrants' intellectual property as a condition for entry regardless of whether or not they receive an award. The most recent competition rules I've read even prevent entrants from using their work in a portfolio. Hopefully the tag and the surrounding discussions will help alert young designers to the potential negatives and promote a bit more fairness.

Thanks for posting them. I'm refusing to post any blog entries until I force myself to finish the series I started, so your doing so is appreciated.

Agree. There were some noticeably absent elements. But what struck me most in the second video was this sense that all these developments were occurring within large corporate organizational structures; very status quo. I think that perspective misses quite a lot.

There were a few videos posted to YouTube last year demonstrating this technology. I think the first one I posted to one of my Ning groups was this LEGO kiosk, but the video got pulled so I replaced it with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKF1qRcTXhM

If you hunt around, you may find a video of this LEGO kiosk in action.

Reminding me of my own comments on avatars and identity. This post might be of interest: http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1214 (and since I don't recall if he's mentioned, I'll point you to "Nash the Slash" as an interesting example of a real life avatar, of sorts).

Perhaps it's not just the VW app which needs to change but the plethora of business approaches still largely based on brick and mortar preconceptions and legacy occupations which no longer provide the benefit they once did.

Virtual PLM's tied to digital direct manufacturing changes the game in ways we've not seen since the adoption of standardized parts and assembly lines.

The work flow is changing and efficient businesses will have to update their "best practices" manuals if they want to stay competitive, afaic. And rather than testing whether or not a VW enhances a process, the deeper issue of whether the process itself is still valid will sometimes need to be addressed.

"Has Linden Lab decided to turn toward the Enterprise market in a desperate attempt to be viewed as a meaningful platform and not an 'over hyped alleged phenom'?"

I don't believe so. The Enterprise cards were on the table years ago before the hype materialized. And I still think (from this old post - http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1027 ) that there's a fair chance we might see a "premium grid" when they open source the server.

"This product is more than a device for cutting paper; it’s worth watching for what it can teach the emerging 3D fab market" - http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1252

Thanks for the reminder. I'd failed to keep an eye on this.

Something like this would definitely make a high-quality tablet PC worth my money.

(and nice to know you read my tweets)

As mentioned below, MS now has Truespace, but perhaps more relevant is that 3DVia is tied to MS's Virtual Earth. This is potentially of greater interest since 3DVia appears to be the beginnings of a nexus for the CAD world and a mirror world. That may soon mean that companies like Whirlpool won't bother using SketchUp - uploading their products to a Google Warehouse for use in Google Earth as a subtle means of advertising - but will simply move their CAD data from a Dassault application onto a shared online host.

Since people here at Mashable seemed to be so surprised, you should know that about a month ago Linden Lab announced SLim would be available two weeks ago.
.
"Listening to Joe Linden (of Linden Lab). Stated they're releasing a thin text/voice client (no 3D) that connects to SL." - 7 Aug 2008 http://twitter.com/reBang/statuses/880545043
.
There should be no surprise.
.
The bigger question might be: did they release it prematurely in order to respond to Makena's announcement.

Surprised you weren't aware, but glad to see an update. Thank you.

btw, it's "reBang". Capital "B". There's a reason for that which will hopefully become more clear in the next year or so.

You get it. And yes, when companies fully appreciate the possibilities, those which action - and many will not, because they'll hesitate to move beyond their core expertise - they'll likely be as disruptive within their segments as the iPhone has been within the cell phone industry.

What I find generally surprising is the assumption that the future of 3D social applications starts with a 2D browser like IE or FF, and then 3D plug-ins are grafted on to it. Surprising, because browsers built into a CAD application aren't new. Surprising, because there's no reason not to expect a 3D client with browser capability to emerge on the scene.

-

Some of us are just waiting for Linden Lab to strip their client down to the bare basics: access to a virtual world (whether Second Life, OpenSim, an IBM server, or something else) with an easily accessible browser. Nothing more than a perhaps a 15Mb download (tiny in comparison to today's 1Gb+ game demos). The content creation functionality (modeling, scripting, etc) can all be either provided through separate clients or perhaps via a plug-in architecture.

They've been trying to integrate the Mozilla code for a couple of years now, with most of the progress having come fairly recently. And if you read the most recent Linden Lab blog post by their CEO, he indicates they're moving forward on a stripped down client as I described above. So it might actually happen as I've suggested it could.

None of this is to say that a Linden Lab 3D client is the future. Not at all. But there's no reason to persist in the belief that we'll be going from 2D to 3D instead of the other way. It could be Dassault. Could be PTC. Could be AutoDesk. Or even someone unexpected. And when viewed from that perspective, as a designer and user of highend CAD, I find things become much more interesting; I start seeing e-commerce in a whole new light (e.g. http://blog.rebang.com/?p=577 ).

Not sure why this is getting so much coverage. I've personally believed a *mix* of private/public virtual worlds (layered atop a public utility-like 2D/3D internet) will co-exist just as similar constructs co-exist in real life (e.g. executive country clubs) and in other net-based virtual forms (e.g. invitation-only socnets).

"Linden Lab could roll out another platform that would be compatible with the original, but which was improved in a number of ways ... And what would drive people to Linden Lab’s new platform besides a nicer world? Security. Security for world builders and for those who want to engage in real world interactivity.</eM" - "The Innovation of Insecurity"

Why 3D virtual worlds would be the exception to the rule makes no sense to me.

"you assume something I never said."

I assume something based on the (apparently) mistaken belief that Mashable has enough integrity to provide both sides of an argument. My bad.

"I'm not biased, mind you, in the sense that I have nothing to gain or lose here, as I'm not representing any side of the music business."

You do, however, potentially have something to gain in that regurgitating the popular mantra gains eyeballs and advertising dollars. Or do you blog without pay at Mashable? Perhaps you go on "tour"; a lecture circuit? Please share your schedule.

In other words (and this is just one example), no, you will not find any posts by me in which I defend the RIAA, unless they do something I deem is worth defending.

Nor am I am asking (and this is just one example) for you or anyone else to defend either the RIAA or current IP laws. What I am asking for are any entries which don't take what appears to me to be a "free everything" entitlement perspective.

Still, I don't think my writing is unfair and unbalanced. You, for example, as "proof" that what I've written is not fair and balanced, have only managed to pull the "touring costs money" argument"

Not true. Re-read my initial comment: "as if touring is a simple, easy-to-manage and predictable affair where big profits are a sure bet; where venues are well-managed, tour buses never break down, and gasoline prices never rise and eat into the band's bottom-line."

I didn't say it was only about money; sometimes it's simply about getting on the road. Broken down transportation occurs regardless of the money involved and has consequences that go beyond making money.

"Or are you suggesting that touring is so unprofitable that most bands are losing money from it, and they need to compensate in other ways?

I'm suggesting that by neglecting to discuss the realities of touring, you contribute to the polarization of an ongoing debate by arguably making it seem a simple alternative which solves every musician's "business model" problems. Just hit the road, and all problems are solved. Easy.

Furthermore, that through this neglect you seem to promote a distinctly anti-IP position when even Lessig supports the concept of IP and copyright, and has stated his belief that creators should be given both the right (and the respect) to decide how their work will be distributed.

"Critical thinking is not as strange to me as you might think; but if by using it I don't reach any counterarguments to what I'm writing I'm not going to pull them out of thin air just to make the article seem more "balanced"."

I'm sorry to a) that your critical thinking skills are unable to generate "any counterarguments" whatsoever, and b) it's unfortunate you don't seem to have the imagination to even understand the worth in presenting a counter-argument (if you had one) to an audience and then letting them decide for themselves.

Of course, if you're so brilliant as to not perceive any critiques in your thinking, I suppose it makes sense to believe that anyone reading your entries couldn't possibly offer one instead.

No matter. I'm finding other sites - with far less advertising and self-promotion - increasingly suit my interests, and so will no longer bother you with my inconvenient expectations for journalistic integrity. Apparently this is just a blog.

Please pass my regards to Pete, and tell him to watch Replicate (while reminding him what I said about jewelry).

"In this particular article, I've tried to present not mine, but Joss Stone's side to the story. As I've noted in the article, it works for her; I never said this particular model works for everyone."

Exactly my point. You selected a perspective and then presented it. You chose a "side to the story" and wrote a fluffy piece around it on a highly trafficked blog; no questions, no counters, no critical thinking involved.

Seems to me you're always presenting this same perspective, and that this perspective is the one you apparently favor since I can't recall you providing any counter-balance to it; any reasonable critique or questioning of it. Under other circumstances, this might be called having an agenda, or even propaganda. It certainly doesn't seem to resemble impartial journalistic reporting as I understand the profession (then again, perhaps you'll invoke the "it's only a blog" defense).

If I'm incorrect in this assessment - and I concede I could very well be - please feel free to post links to your entries on Mashable which present the other side of the story; another perspective. I'd very much enjoy reading something that seems a bit more "fair and balanced". I just can't recall anything you've written that qualifies.

I'm currently following (via YouTube, Twitter, their site, aso) a relatively well-known indie band that's on tour. From what I see the whole "touring solves the problems for musicians" perspective you're essentially presenting here has a fair number of gaping holes.

More importantly, it's a shame that Mashable seems to focus on only one side of the story as if touring is a simple, easy-to-manage and predictable affair where big profits are a sure bet; where venues are well-managed, tour buses never break down, and gasoline prices never rise and eat into the band's bottom-line.

Biased much?

@Josh - this is a "single-player social" game, so I don't believe we'll see any collaboration beyond the sharing of creatures & creations (and through the online Sporepedia only it seems; not through an application interface).

-

So far people are doing what I (and no doubt EA/Maxis) expected: pushing the envelope of acceptable content. There will likely continue to be discussion surrounding censorship, but I'm now focused on the tools *as* tools and the very restrictive EULA governing them. To that end, I've shared some links with the person behind the Virtually Blind blog. Hopefully he'll be covering the ongoing issues, as they seem especially timely in lieu of the "Meshwerks vs Toyota" copyright decision.

Couple of things I wrote which you might find relevant and of interest:

"Next Generation Product Development Tools, Part 15" - http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1435

"Toys of the Trade" - http://futurismic.com/2008/05/14/toys-of-the-trade

Both are very much about "Spore", but in the context of other tools.

Congrats. Actually, I learned of you through the O'Reilly site (the name stood out). Looking forward to see how things go for you.

I'm following this fairly closely (have had a "spore" search feed for some months now) and the response to the UI is impressive. However, it's somewhat difficult to make "products" when limbs are looking around or stretching or whatever, so I'll be grateful when the game ships so we get to play with the tame tools (vehicles, buildings, etc).

"think about what 3D CAD would be like if it was this simple"

Already done, and exactly what I asked myself some time ago; recently wrote about this in Part 15 of a series on next gen product development tools.