If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
DJAurand wrote:
Corry Welcome to the real world of business; You can ride the wave or be down by it. Kind of like Microsoft and Macintosh, isn't? You can go with the big player or be a small fry This is soooo 1998. Since you brought up Microsoft and by implication similar business models, let me ask you: 1) Is your endorsement of iPIX based entirely upon pragamatism - that is, because your clients demand it? 2) If a viable alternative were available, *and* these clients were open to your use of it, would you consider it? If yes, under what circumstances? 3) Would you consider an open source-based system under any circumstances? With these questions I'm trying to understand your apparent enthusiasm for this company which by its vicious barratry has driven honest, creative people practically underground. To me, supporting iPIX is neither good for innovation nor business, at least not in the long term. Oh, by the way, they're in Oak Ridge not Knoxville I stand corrected. Corry -- It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"DJAurand" writes:
So why does iPIX still hold the patent in the US and not Mr Dersch? Because Dersch had better things to do that spend a fortune on legal fees getting the patent invalidated. My understanding of the infringement case was that they settled out of court and that Mr Dersch agreed to not market (sell) his product in the US. That's why he gives it away on the net. No. He has ALWAYS given it away on the net, including before IPIX ever heard of him. He gets a good salary as an academic and is not that interested in being in the software business or fighting legal battles. He instead accepted a settlement that let him keep giving away the software as he was doing before. He may have given up the right to commercialize it, but I don't think he cared that much. What you call predatory I call agressive. Hypothetical Question: A franchisor of 10 Sheraton hotels, all in your state, likes your work but needs the virtual images in the iPIX format since StarwoodHotels.com only supports that format. Thats 10 hotels needing 10 images each at $150 each or $15,000 plus expenses. Are you going turn down the contract? What does that have to do with anything? It's reality in the business world that sometimes you have to hold your nose and deal with sleazy people. That doesn't make them smell any better. You probably think Microsoft is the "Evil Empire" too? If you mean do I think Microsoft engages in predatory and monopolitistic illegal business practices, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact established in a court of law and upheld through two different appeals. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"DJAurand" writes:
So why does iPIX still hold the patent in the US and not Mr Dersch? Because Dersch had better things to do that spend a fortune on legal fees getting the patent invalidated. My understanding of the infringement case was that they settled out of court and that Mr Dersch agreed to not market (sell) his product in the US. That's why he gives it away on the net. No. He has ALWAYS given it away on the net, including before IPIX ever heard of him. He gets a good salary as an academic and is not that interested in being in the software business or fighting legal battles. He instead accepted a settlement that let him keep giving away the software as he was doing before. He may have given up the right to commercialize it, but I don't think he cared that much. What you call predatory I call agressive. Hypothetical Question: A franchisor of 10 Sheraton hotels, all in your state, likes your work but needs the virtual images in the iPIX format since StarwoodHotels.com only supports that format. Thats 10 hotels needing 10 images each at $150 each or $15,000 plus expenses. Are you going turn down the contract? What does that have to do with anything? It's reality in the business world that sometimes you have to hold your nose and deal with sleazy people. That doesn't make them smell any better. You probably think Microsoft is the "Evil Empire" too? If you mean do I think Microsoft engages in predatory and monopolitistic illegal business practices, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact established in a court of law and upheld through two different appeals. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"DJAurand" wrote in message ups.com... Bart iPIX's patents have been repeatedly upheld in US Federal Court. Which says something about both the USPTO and the federal court. They own the US patent and they protect it They hold a patent on something that is different from other "inventions" (large amounts of prior art). Yet they bully small inventors out of business with their litigation claims that can drain the resources and bankrupt an individual. It doesn't mean they are right, they just have more money so the others cave in before they do. Thus monopolizing the business, causes some to be driven in their arms due to lack of alternatives. Their pricing structure reflects that there is lack of competition. They haven't lost a single case. Money buys justice in some systems. I'm not saying that they buy the judges, they just hire more lawyers. What part of that don't you get? I think I have a reasonable understanding of what really happens, having witnessed the struggle of Prof. Helmut Dersch who offered a free utility based on prior work. They hassled him once and backed off, then the next(?) year (probably looking to improve their bottom line) they hassled him again, and Helmut couldn't justify the legal expense of fighting the same battle again (probably every year), so he gave up. I suggest you read some background (see the link I provided which amongst others leads to http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html) before questioning someone elses understanding. Bart |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"DJAurand" wrote in message ups.com... Bart iPIX's patents have been repeatedly upheld in US Federal Court. Which says something about both the USPTO and the federal court. They own the US patent and they protect it They hold a patent on something that is different from other "inventions" (large amounts of prior art). Yet they bully small inventors out of business with their litigation claims that can drain the resources and bankrupt an individual. It doesn't mean they are right, they just have more money so the others cave in before they do. Thus monopolizing the business, causes some to be driven in their arms due to lack of alternatives. Their pricing structure reflects that there is lack of competition. They haven't lost a single case. Money buys justice in some systems. I'm not saying that they buy the judges, they just hire more lawyers. What part of that don't you get? I think I have a reasonable understanding of what really happens, having witnessed the struggle of Prof. Helmut Dersch who offered a free utility based on prior work. They hassled him once and backed off, then the next(?) year (probably looking to improve their bottom line) they hassled him again, and Helmut couldn't justify the legal expense of fighting the same battle again (probably every year), so he gave up. I suggest you read some background (see the link I provided which amongst others leads to http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html) before questioning someone elses understanding. Bart |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"DJAurand" wrote: Corry Welcome to the real world of business; You can ride the wave or be down by it. Kind of like Microsoft and Macintosh, isn't? You can go with the big player or be a small fry No, not really. Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple several years ago, and the company actively creates and markets software for the Macintosh platform. Doesn't sound like what iPix has done. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Corry
1) My endorsement is mainly based on pragmatism. The other part is I like the product and I've had a good relationship with their support department with technical problems and management working on business developement. The clients I work directly with are usually totally unaware of the various vitual imaging products. When I'm competing with other virtual image providers, the fact that they can use the same images in their local site and their franchise site is an overwhelming edge. I just present the advantages and disadvantages in an open an honest presentation and I have yet to loose out. 2) I've looked at many other virtual image technologies. I'm in business to make money, I've looked at alternatives so I could avoid buying Keys or an annual license, just buy the software once. But its much more than that; they came up with the Link method of providing the virtual tours (Realtor.com didn't want to host and manage thousands of images from all over the country, so iPIX did, providing a URL link to the tour for them to use instead, a technique which the other software providers now imitate. None of the iPIX Images on StarwoodHotels.com are hosted on the site, they're hosted by iPIX), iPIX built the business relationships with the real estate and travel industry that their competition never did (Quicktime VR owned early virtual imaging but never developed business relationships. Bamboo.com merged with iPIX combining Bamboo's real estate contracts with iPIX's better technology and photographer model), they've continued to build relationships with other multimedia software companies (their software has been able to produce Quicktime VR images for several years and the new Interactive Studio can output Shockwave w3d files, they are adding a RealViz plug-in and are working with iSeeMedia to produce a plug-in for them). They already have an output that is supported by the PTViewer, its either an Equirectangular Projection or a Cubic Strip, I don't remember which. If my clients want a different format than .ipx, I can probably produce it with the iPIX software now or shortly. As a multimedia business why would I want to use more limited products? And they provide multiple methods of using the images no one else does or did (the Sheraton took 3 months to get the iPIX Images added to their website. In the meantime they were e-mailing the iPIX eGallery and eBrochure constantly. They are self-contained .exe files that contain the images and a player in one e-mailable file) 3) I will look at and consider any alternative. I have been. I have to. The fortunes of business change too much. iPIX Corp is still not profitable which worries me a lot. But iPIX is such a better "total package" of virtual imaging software, features and business opportunies, I don't see anyone stepping up to replace them unless they fail fiancially. My enthusiasm is based on iPIX providing a much, much more complete tool than its competition. Does Apple even offer the Quicktime VR Authoring software in a Windows version yet? iPIX has long offered Mac Versions of their software. I've found them more creative and innovative than any of their peers, not just in their software but in the supporting tools and business relationships they've built that benefit producers like me I acknowledge, iPIX has been very heavy handed in protecting their virtual image patents. But they developed much of the market for virtual imaging through their work with the real estate and travel industries, the 2 buggest users of virtual imaging. The demand that is growing for virtual imaging was largely created by iPIX. My observation, talking with users of competing software, is the biggest complaint they have about iPIX is the different financial model they use. iPIX sold their software cheap (about half the price of Quicktime VR) and gave away the real estate version, but charged for Keys to produce and host images. The "geeks" wanted to buy it cheap or get it free and not have to buy Keys. I have Realtors who have purchased the virtual image software but are then mad that Realtor.com won't host the virtual tour FREE??? After all they paid $500 for the sofware & equipment, they shouldn't have to pay any more, should they? iPIX adapted and is now an annual liciense. By having a continuing revenue stream, iPIX has had the money to continue to develop their software (Interactive Studio is the 3rd version I've seen in 6 years), provide additional multimedia tools and support tools like Host@iPIX The biggest selling feature of all iPIX's competition, except Quicktime VR, is low price. That's about all they have to offer. Doug Aurand |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bart
Stripped down to the essence, iPIX has successfully defended their patent. Is that not correct? You can argue details and side issues, but they won, its settled, move on. Doug |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Cory
This real world scenario came to mind; Imagine I'm preparing a proposal for a hotel who's Franchise Website supports iPIX (Hilton, Sheraton, Marriott, Radisson,etc) but the websmaster of their local website won't host iPIX Images (somehow they didn't fire him over this). He's a rabid suporter of Mr Dersch and will only host images that use the java PTViewer. With the iPIX Interactive Studio I can ouput Equirectangular Projections or Cubic Strips (I'm nout sure which the PTViewer uses, but can create both just by clicking a few buttons) for the webmaster to use with the PTViewer and .ipix files to be provided to the Franchise Website or Host@iPIX who can provide a URL Link to the virtual tour to the Franchise Website. And I probably wouldn't charge any extra for the extra files I can do the same if the webmaster insists on Quicktime VR or Macromedia Flash/Shockwave. ALL FROM THE SAME SOURCE IMAGES!!!! Why in the world would I want to use somebody elses software that would drastically limit my output choices?????? Why would I want to incur the cost of the other software and the Mac G3 to run the Quicktime VR Authoring software????? (I checked, there's no Windows version of the Quicktime VR software) Doug Aurand |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cory
This real world scenario came to mind; Imagine I'm preparing a proposal for a hotel who's Franchise Website supports iPIX (Hilton, Sheraton, Marriott, Radisson,etc) but the websmaster of their local website won't host iPIX Images (somehow they didn't fire him over this). He's a rabid suporter of Mr Dersch and will only host images that use the java PTViewer. With the iPIX Interactive Studio I can ouput Equirectangular Projections or Cubic Strips (I'm nout sure which the PTViewer uses, but can create both just by clicking a few buttons) for the webmaster to use with the PTViewer and .ipix files to be provided to the Franchise Website or Host@iPIX who can provide a URL Link to the virtual tour to the Franchise Website. And I probably wouldn't charge any extra for the extra files I can do the same if the webmaster insists on Quicktime VR or Macromedia Flash/Shockwave. ALL FROM THE SAME SOURCE IMAGES!!!! Why in the world would I want to use somebody elses software that would drastically limit my output choices?????? Why would I want to incur the cost of the other software and the Mac G3 to run the Quicktime VR Authoring software????? (I checked, there's no Windows version of the Quicktime VR software) Doug Aurand |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ipix | Alan Smithey | Digital Photography | 3 | December 31st 04 02:02 AM |
Converting Ipix to .mov etc | Gadgets | Digital Photography | 3 | December 5th 04 07:00 AM |
Converting Ipix to .mov etc | Alan Smithey | Digital Photography | 0 | December 3rd 04 03:19 AM |
FS: iPIX Camera Kit - NOW REDUCED TO $985.00! | John | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 14th 03 01:39 PM |