Hi everybody,
I've read a few discussions in this newsgroup about SpaceClaim. I just
finished an interview with Howie Markson, Senior Director of Marketing
of SpaceClaim.
I asked Howie several specific questions, trying to understand how
different this is from other CAD systems (such as SolidWorks). If you
are interested in knowing more about this product and the company
behind it, this can be a good source of information.

The complete interview is available on the Novedge blog:

    http://blog.novedge.com/2007/06/an_interview_wi_1.html

Let me know your opinion about the interview and mostly about the
software.


Franco Folini

P.S. I do not sell SpaceClaim or related products.

After reading this and seeing once again the involvement of Mike Payne
we have to ask a few questions. For example, one of the claims Space
Claim makes is that they are much faster than parametric modelers on
the big stuff. I have no doubt that they are. You have to wonder if
Mike Payne has realized this all along and by implication the SW
folks. Is this interview an admission that the parametric modelers
really have an upper limit on model size and that that limit lies
within the boundaries of ordinary everyday practical problems?

>From what they were talking about or more precisely dancing around in
the interview was the fact that most of the parametric information we
build into models doesn't get used. For example, the lightweight state
in an assembly is really just turned off parametrics. So are locked in-
context relations. So is the fact that SW doesn't naturally solve all
the way down through an assembly when rebuilding.  What they seem to
be saying in the interview is that they are using something similar to
parametric relations to help build geometry and then taking it out of
the picture once it is built. This is kind of the way most of us
work.

It would be interesting to see the list of licenses in the help/about
menu for Space Claim. I would suspect one of the usual geometry
kernels like parasolid or acis. What else is in there? Inquiring minds
would like to know.

TOP

SpaceClaim will never succeed in marketing to small machining job
shops because the small machining job shop business is very cyclical.

When times are good you upgrade. When times are tough you don't and
find a way to make due. The subscription model that SpaceClaim is
trying to use cuts off one of SpaceClaim's biggest potential
adopters... small machining job shops. Think3 made exactly the same
kind of moronic mistake.

Perhaps we should call Think3 and SpaceClaim marketing departments
Dumb and Dumber.

Too bad as SpaceClaim has some truly innovative technology that is
badly needed in the market.

Truly amazing how both companies manage to commit marketing suicide.


Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

TOP,
IMHO, your description of SpaceClaim is too much SolidWorks centric.
It's like describing a motorbike as a car with only two wheels. I'm
not the best person to talk about specific details of SpaceClaim. I
hope to have soon the opportunity to play with their system in order
to get a more direct, first hand experience.

Regarding the modeling engine, according to the news, SpaceClaim uses
ACIS. IMHO, it would not make much a difference for the end user if
they were using Parasolid. It seems that they are not using d-cubed
(the constraint manager). D-cubed page doesn't list SpaceClaim as a
customer. This leave space for a few options, including in-house made
constraint manager. I'm not a SpaceClaim person and, like you, I don't
know the answers.

Franco

On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SpaceClaim will never succeed in marketing to small machining job
> shops because the small machining job shop business is very cyclical.
>
> Think3 made exactly the same kind of moronic mistake.
>

Jon,
That was exactly one of my questions in the interview. SpaceClaim
claim that today users are different, almost ready for a subscription
based license system. I'm not sure I agree with Howie Markson on that
point (Joe Costello and think 3 tried the subscription just a few
years ago). Personally I believe subscription is a great idea and it
can put back the  power on end-users hands. But I'm not sure people
are ready for that.

Franco

TOP wrote:
> After reading this and seeing once again the involvement of Mike Payne
> we have to ask a few questions. For example, one of the claims Space
> Claim makes is that they are much faster than parametric modelers on
> the big stuff. I have no doubt that they are. You have to wonder if
> Mike Payne has realized this all along and by implication the SW
> folks. Is this interview an admission that the parametric modelers
> really have an upper limit on model size and that that limit lies
> within the boundaries of ordinary everyday practical problems?

I think it's saying out loud what everyone has known all along, that 
parametric modelers carry a lot of baggage with them in the form of 
history that direct editors don't. I can easily believe that they are 
faster, since there is no history, constraints or parametric 
relationships to rebuild.

> 
>>From what they were talking about or more precisely dancing around in
> the interview was the fact that most of the parametric information we
> build into models doesn't get used. For example, the lightweight state
> in an assembly is really just turned off parametrics. So are locked in-
> context relations. So is the fact that SW doesn't naturally solve all
> the way down through an assembly when rebuilding.  What they seem to
> be saying in the interview is that they are using something similar to
> parametric relations to help build geometry and then taking it out of
> the picture once it is built. This is kind of the way most of us
> work.

Maybe, but I think the "algorhithms" they talk about are only activated 
when you try to edit something. Geometry is geometry. Parasolid is as 
good as IGES or SW native or ACIS or whatever. It seems to have some 
sort of a "feature recognition" thing going on to help it edit.

The licensing is only problematic if you don't consider this: Think of 
it as the same price as SolidWorks maintenance, but without the upfront 
purchase price. The overwhelming majority (90%+) of new SW customers buy 
subscription, AND they pay the $3995 or whatever. Spaceclaim customers 
will only pay the subscription costs.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:23:12 GMT, matt <m_lombard@ver_zon.not> wrote:

>The licensing is only problematic if you don't consider this: Think of 
>it as the same price as SolidWorks maintenance, but without the upfront 
>purchase price. The overwhelming majority (90%+) of new SW customers buy 
>subscription, AND they pay the $3995 or whatever. Spaceclaim customers 
>will only pay the subscription costs.

  But if they fold or hike prices beyond reason you are SOL ... and
they *might* force you to "upgrade" to buggy versions.
-- 
Cliff

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:23:12 GMT, matt <m_lombard@ver_zon.not> wrote:

>TOP wrote:
>> After reading this and seeing once again the involvement of Mike Payne
>> we have to ask a few questions. For example, one of the claims Space
>> Claim makes is that they are much faster than parametric modelers on
>> the big stuff. I have no doubt that they are. You have to wonder if
>> Mike Payne has realized this all along and by implication the SW
>> folks. Is this interview an admission that the parametric modelers
>> really have an upper limit on model size and that that limit lies
>> within the boundaries of ordinary everyday practical problems?
>
>I think it's saying out loud what everyone has known all along, that 
>parametric modelers carry a lot of baggage with them in the form of 
>history that direct editors don't. I can easily believe that they are 
>faster, since there is no history, constraints or parametric 
>relationships to rebuild.

  Probably about everyone but jb knew that <g>.
-- 
Cliff

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:23:12 GMT, matt <m_lombard@ver_zon.not> wrote:

>>>From what they were talking about or more precisely dancing around in
>> the interview was the fact that most of the parametric information we
>> build into models doesn't get used. For example, the lightweight state
>> in an assembly is really just turned off parametrics. So are locked in-
>> context relations. So is the fact that SW doesn't naturally solve all
>> the way down through an assembly when rebuilding.  What they seem to
>> be saying in the interview is that they are using something similar to
>> parametric relations to help build geometry and then taking it out of
>> the picture once it is built. This is kind of the way most of us
>> work.
>
>Maybe, but I think the "algorhithms" they talk about are only activated 
>when you try to edit something. Geometry is geometry. Parasolid is as 
>good as IGES or SW native or ACIS or whatever. It seems to have some 
>sort of a "feature recognition" thing going on to help it edit.

  Recall jb's rants about wonder systems that add their OWN invented history
& parametrics to "dumb" models?
  What if it's wrong?
-- 
Cliff

I spoke with a guy who worked with Think3 (he was not a user or a
designer, just a salesman) and I had to ask him what he thought if
lease/rent programs?
He of course thought it was a great idea.  So, I asked have you ever
bought software for use in design or for your own use this way....
ah,... no.
So, I asked why he thought it was a great idea?...  Well, you don't
pay as much up front and the online help at T3 was very good!
Why is it aways the non-users in the industry which keep pushing great
ideas, which are not?
I personally think it's a bad idea, always have and always will.
I want access to my data using the program I paid to use.  It should
not turn off access to what I have paid to use!

Obviously they are not listening to the users,  most likely the non-
user or business people???  You betcha!!

I personally hope they FAIL at this totally.

...


On Jun 7, 9:11 pm, Franco Folini <fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > SpaceClaim will never succeed in marketing to small machining job


> > shops because the small machining job shop business is very cyclical.
>
> > Think3 made exactly the same kind of moronic mistake.
>
> Jon,
> That was exactly one of my questions in the interview. SpaceClaim
> claim that today users are different, almost ready for a subscription
> based license system. I'm not sure I agree with Howie Markson on that
> point (Joe Costello and think 3 tried the subscription just a few
> years ago). Personally I believe subscription is a great idea and it
> can put back the  power on end-users hands. But I'm not sure people
> are ready for that.
>
> Franco

Franco,

Can't imagine why I would try to think in SW centric terms in this
forum. :)  Until I can try it I have to think in terms of what I have
already used/seen and what others here have seen. I suppose I could
have spoken of it in Rhino centric terms also as Rhino excels at
modifying imported geometry as well as it's own. Or UG centric terms
as UG has some very good tools for working with imported geometry and
even for making it parametric if necessary. SpaceClaim is just a word.
It doesn't really suggest anything to me like SolidWorks or AutoCad or
Unigraphics or Parametric Technology. And yet it isn't quite like
Rhino, Anvil, Catia, Revit or WindChill either. The only thing I think
I really understand clearly about it is the claim it would have on the
space in my wallet and that is a negative.

The thing I had going for me when I first looked at SolidWorks is that
I had recently taken Pro/E training so I understood parametric
modeling a bit. SolidWorks just made it very easy, addressed the file
size and bug problems I was having with another software and was
affordable. I don't have any reference frame for Space Claim nor do
most people IMHO. That is what they have to get across to the peeps.
What does Space Claim have that nobody else has and what will that do
for me?

So when they have a 3D modeling challenge between SpaceClaim and
SolidWorks on a 5,000 part assembly with some real world factors
thrown in I may start to understand why I should even listen to these
guys.

TOP

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:19:35 -0700, zxys <paul@zxys.com> wrote:

>I spoke with a guy who worked with Think3 (he was not a user or a
>designer, just a salesman) and I had to ask him what he thought if
>lease/rent programs?
>He of course thought it was a great idea.  So, I asked have you ever
>bought software for use in design or for your own use this way....
>ah,... no.
>So, I asked why he thought it was a great idea?...  Well, you don't
>pay as much up front and the online help at T3 was very good!
>Why is it aways the non-users in the industry which keep pushing great
>ideas, which are not?
>I personally think it's a bad idea, always have and always will.
>I want access to my data using the program I paid to use.  It should
>not turn off access to what I have paid to use!
>
>Obviously they are not listening to the users,  most likely the non-
>user or business people???  You betcha!!
>
>I personally hope they FAIL at this totally.

  Just as a side note ... 
  IIRC Licom Systems (AlphaCAD/AlphaCAM  http://www.planit.com/uk/alphacam/) 
tried a *somewhat* similar approach ... the software has to call home to mama 
& get paid to operate (under at least some options).
  Probably did a job on some pirates & illegal users with hacked
copies.
  I think you could "rent" it by the hour of use or similar period.
  Last I heard Licom had been happy with the results.

>On Jun 7, 9:11 pm, Franco Folini <fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > SpaceClaim will never succeed in marketing to small machining job
>
>
>> > shops because the small machining job shop business is very cyclical.
>>
>> > Think3 made exactly the same kind of moronic mistake.
>>
>> Jon,
>> That was exactly one of my questions in the interview. SpaceClaim
>> claim that today users are different, almost ready for a subscription
>> based license system. I'm not sure I agree with Howie Markson on that
>> point (Joe Costello and think 3 tried the subscription just a few
>> years ago). Personally I believe subscription is a great idea and it
>> can put back the  power on end-users hands. But I'm not sure people
>> are ready for that.
>>
>> Franco
>
-- 
Cliff

"But I'm not sure people are ready for that."

Hopefully they never will be. It's a stupid idea that marketing morons
love because it gives them the numbers they want. This marketing scam
made think3's Joe Costello into a has been and it will do the same to
the the marketing idiots from SpaceClaim. It's an even dumber idea
than Alibre's "Kmart CAD."

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

personally, I would follow a marketing plan similar to what Adobe has
done with Photoshop

1. Fixed price for a license ($649)
2. reduced price for upgrade ($199)
3. Have an extend version that is right under $1k price point.
4. Download free trials of either
5. Allow enough to be pirated that it builds a base

On Jun 11, 7:19 pm, zxys <p...@zxys.com> wrote:
> I personally think it's a bad idea, always have and always will.
> I want access to my data using the program I paid to use.  It should
> not turn off access to what I have paid to use!

IMHO zxys is confusing two different problems:

1. The property of data.
I believe that all data should belong to the end-user, not to the
software manufacturer. We should be able to access our CAD files the
same way we look at a printed drawing, even if/when we don't have any
active license for the software used to generate your data. To achieve
that we need standard file formats. My point is that buying or renting
the CAD system doesn't change or solve this problem. The solution is
elsewhere: in the file format.

2. Renting the software.
When you rent you have more freedom to switch to a different system
than when you purchase the software.
Also, when you are under subscription you have more power to request
improvement on existing features, user-interface, data-translation,
etc.
The software manufacture has less pressure to add fancy feature just
to attract new users, and more pressure to make the existing features
working better.

Franco

Actually, you just made it more confusing for no reason?   Why?
Because... you sell stuff?

First, we ALL understand the data is the users.  That is not the
question or the problem.
And, we understand they give the user access to export the data in a
generic format.

The problem is with the rent/lease license crippling the program to
manipulate the data.
Functionality should not be turned off or forcing the user to continue
on subscription.

Most users initially pay for a program or up to a point in time
because the software does what they want or does not do enough,...
But, they have use of the software functionally indefinity!

The Rent/Lease subscription will lock the user out of the use of the
software after it's term has expired, that is unacceptable.

I do NOT see how/what/where there is incentive with Rent/Lease
software!
It's a SCAM which has interest from the sellers point of view or a non-
user corporate mentality.

Anyone,... think about it,...  think about Rent/Lease companies and
what/who they are and if they provide good and competitive
products??????

Who, who in the industry does this??     Let's see,... IBM,  Oracal,
Novell, Sun,...   does that ring a bell????   Who has dealt with these
companies and what do you think of them and their Rent/Lease
programs????

Any of you guys been there,.. done that?

It's a scam for SALES PEOPLE (SCUM) and SUITS (MORE SCUM) who want to
see a clean/clear forcast for their pockets!

Back to you Franco,... let's see,... Novedge,... you sell stuff?   No
this is a tough one to figure out for me,....

End of story!    Next!

....



On Jun 12, 12:52 pm, Franco Folini <fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:19 pm, zxys <p...@zxys.com> wrote:
>
> > I personally think it's a bad idea, always have and always will.
> > I want access to my data using the program I paid to use.  It should
> > not turn off access to what I have paid to use!
>
> IMHO zxys is confusing two different problems:
>
> 1. The property of data.
> I believe that all data should belong to the end-user, not to the
> software manufacturer. We should be able to access our CAD files the
> same way we look at a printed drawing, even if/when we don't have any
> active license for the software used to generate your data. To achieve
> that we need standard file formats. My point is that buying or renting
> the CAD system doesn't change or solve this problem. The solution is
> elsewhere: in the file format.
>
> 2. Renting the software.
> When you rent you have more freedom to switch to a different system
> than when you purchase the software.
> Also, when you are under subscription you have more power to request
> improvement on existing features, user-interface, data-translation,
> etc.
> The software manufacture has less pressure to add fancy feature just
> to attract new users, and more pressure to make the existing features
> working better.
>
> Franco

Let's look at it this way. Suppose I went to work and announced to my
boss that from now on the wages he was paying me were to rent the work
I produced. As long as he paid the rent he would have access to the
models, calculations and designs that I had produced and that he had
in production. If he ceased to pay me he would also cease to be able
to use all or part of the above named creations. Now a multiple choice
question:

a) I would be out the front door in 30 seconds and not welcomed back.
b) He would say what a great idea. And to prove it he would raise my
rent.
c) Men in white suits would show up and fit me with a special jacket
with straps.

TOP

Adobe = Successful company.

SpaceClaim = Going nowhere fast despite what appears to be great
technology. Time to fire anyone who signed off on this marketing scam
and start again. Same for think3.

Even Joe Dunne coudn't sell this bullshit scam and Joe Dunne can sell
anything.

In The Mean Time:

Franco Folini should think about getting on the cutting edge and
finding a way to create or market advanced video tutorials done by
expert users. Franco's got the marketing end figured out; now he
actually needs exclusive product he can sell. Advanced video tutorials
done by expert users are the answer.

Here is one thing you will never find on the Novedge Blog:

http://www.eff.org/br/

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

On Jun 12, 3:21 pm, TOP <kelln...@cbd.net> wrote:
> Let's look at it this way. Suppose I went to work and announced to my
> boss that from now on the wages he was paying me were to rent the work
> I produced. As long as he paid the rent he would have access to the
> models, calculations and designs that I had produced and that he had
> in production. If he ceased to pay me he would also cease to be able
> to use all or part of the above named creations.

TOP, thank you for the great example!
May be you didn't realize it, but you are with me!
You don't need to work for your entire life from the same company in
order to allow them to access the result of your work ( = no need for
a non-expiring license).
What is important is that the result of your work is available to the
paying company in an accessible file format, and is not locked with a
password only you know ( = the open/standard file formats will
guarantee access to your data, not the license).

Franco

Franco,

Good twist in trying to see the brighter side to all of this?  Cute.!

But guess what, Franco, that is wishful thinking and a nice twist to
what we all know as "reality".

Have you EVER designed anything before?   Seriously, a REAL project
which made it to market?
Let's make it simple,.. say, 150 fully related parts and say 4
configurations,.. concept to manufacturing?

Please, let use know?

...



On Jun 12, 8:51 pm, Franco Folini <fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:21 pm, TOP <kelln...@cbd.net> wrote:
>
> > Let's look at it this way. Suppose I went to work and announced to my
> > boss that from now on the wages he was paying me were to rent the work
> > I produced. As long as he paid the rent he would have access to the
> > models, calculations and designs that I had produced and that he had
> > in production. If he ceased to pay me he would also cease to be able
> > to use all or part of the above named creations.
>
> TOP, thank you for the great example!
> May be you didn't realize it, but you are with me!
> You don't need to work for your entire life from the same company in
> order to allow them to access the result of your work ( = no need for
> a non-expiring license).
> What is important is that the result of your work is available to the
> paying company in an accessible file format, and is not locked with a
> password only you know ( = the open/standard file formats will
> guarantee access to your data, not the license).
>
> Franco

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:52:11 -0700, Franco Folini <folini@gmail.com> wrote:

>1. The property of data.
>I believe that all data should belong to the end-user, not to the
>software manufacturer. We should be able to access our CAD files the
>same way we look at a printed drawing, even if/when we don't have any
>active license for the software used to generate your data. To achieve
>that we need standard file formats. My point is that buying or renting
>the CAD system doesn't change or solve this problem. The solution is
>elsewhere: in the file format.

  If you wanted to use IGES as a universal part database ....
  Otherwise you are limiting the applications software to a common
set of basic capabilities. 
  Everyone would have to use the same entities (graphical & non-graphical), etc.
too. Not good.
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:52:11 -0700, Franco Folini <folini@gmail.com> wrote:

>The software manufacture has less pressure to add fancy feature just
>to attract new users, and more pressure to make the existing features
>working better.

  These being the features some users need but which would
not work with a "standard universal" part database structure?
-- 
Cliff

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:33:17 -0700, jon_banquer <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>This marketing scam
>made think3's Joe Costello into a has been and it will do the same to
>the the marketing idiots from SpaceClaim.

  http://tinyurl.com/2tbjto
  http://tinyurl.com/2l2ytr

HTH
-- 
Cliff

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:33:17 -0700, jon_banquer <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's an even dumber idea
>than Alibre's "Kmart CAD."

  http://tinyurl.com/yo6ckj

HTH
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:02:08 -0700, jon_banquer <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>SpaceClaim

  http://tinyurl.com/yomvt7

  "I have been way ahead of anyone else in stating what needs
to happen and both what SpaceClaim and Kubotek are doing prove I was
and am on the right track for what is needed."

  "The tools that are in SpaceClaim go way beyond remove and replace face
and would make my job a lot easier and a lot faster. http://www.spaceclaim.
com/Resources/SpaceClaim-Videos/Introducing-SpaceClaim.."

  "Looks like the person who developed SaladWorks is on a new venture 
trying to get it right. http://www.spaceclaim.com/company.html "

  Etc.

HTH
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:02:08 -0700, jon_banquer <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Franco Folini should think about getting on the cutting edge and
>finding a way to create or market advanced video tutorials done by
>expert users. Franco's got the marketing end figured out; now he
>actually needs exclusive product he can sell. Advanced video tutorials
>done by expert users are the answer.

  Why? Because you want (free demo) videos & cannot read or grasp much?
-- 
Cliff