Gaps on the market

Before I migrated from Quest3D to Unity3D, I tried to ‘push’ Act3D developers to fill a gap with a product for real-time architectural visualisation.
Answers on the forums were similar to discussions in some of the Blender forums (‘no need for that’, ‘you can write it yourself’, etc.)
A few years later they came out with Lumion3D, but for me and for some of the former Quest3D users it was too late.
I haven’t write the review about Lumion3D yet, but I think there will be no surprise that it is the best dedicated RT archviz tool on the market, although its interface is definitely not for me (it is too ‘basic’) and it still misses some important features, especially compared to the unlimited possibilities in Quest3D.

Anyway, as they state on their site:

26 of the top 100 Architect companies in the world are now customers of Lumion.’

If they had listened to me, maybe that number would be even bigger…

I still see several possibilities in CGI market in different areas; I’m curious when will some companies recognize them and make extra money.

Some thoughts on innovation

Making something what is worse than the existing product in every aspect is not innovation.
If you are using a 3D package like Blender or Max, you will find – as an example – tons of 3rd party renderers.
A few weeks ago I downloaded one again (promised incredible speed, I was curious) and installed it. Let me to be honest, I can’t remember its name and it doesn’t really matter at all. It was a commercial renderer. Someone(s) put a lot effort to make it. They obviously failed. It was slow, it has a weird GUI, it had no support for animated scenes and so on.

I will never understand this.
There is a quote: if you do it, do it well. Or don’t do it at all.

I can accept all of the mistakes, lack of features from a free product (what does not mean that I will not make any critiques and suggestions). But: did these developers ever check the features of the competition?

In IT we see the biggest fails (and falls) since years. HP, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Nokia… And Apple became more and more successful.
Why?
They had a leader with vision. Not someone ‘Mr. Grey’ with dozens of degrees from a fancy university. I think he would never get a job as a leader nowadays with the same skills, attitude, but without his results, his past.

Apple made (or bought) innovation. They had a designer to design something popular (although I don’t think that Ive is a good designer at all, just take a look on the side and the back of the old iPod Touch models).

In user interaction/user experience their products didn’t lie. They offered what they promised, at least on software level (I’m not talking about the quality of the hardware).

We don’t need tons of average products. We need one good product with fair pricing.