Well... As far as I know... PSP 7 came out about 2 years after 6. When it came out, it was priced around a reasonable $99, which was the same price that 6 was when it was new. Word is now they're beta testing PSP 8 already. Updates aren't always happening as fast as some competitors, but if the program has few bugs to begin with. Honestly, if they keep in line with the pricing strategy (new version same price as old, and discounts for upgrade) then it can't be a bad thing. Also from my experience with JASC's PSP6 the manuals and help menus actually tell you things about the software. In fact, the help menu is useful to the point you don't really need the manual. I don't know if you noticed, but there are many things left out of Corel's Bryce manual (probably why this forum is so popular.) And the help menu isn't of much use (which is why most Brycers have that dog-eared manual lying around nearby - if not various website printouts and Susan Kitchen's book.) If Jasc somehow got Bryce, I would assume that the documentation and help menus would be one of the biggest and foremost things to fix. Assuming the critical nature of such an investmet, I'd also guess that they would review the program code and do something to make it more stable and robust. (You know, things like "internal error: Bryce failed because of conflict with Bryce", etc... Has Corel done anything about this yet?) Also if Bryce were priced at a budget level, it should be profitable as it would be available to more hobbyists. I dunno if you noticed, but usually software below $100 is on the shelves where you can look at it. Therefore, it gets more exposure. It wouldn't be hidden in the glass cabinet with the pricey stuff that would be in direct competition. It seems this strategy would work well for sales of a 3D application, PSP obviously proved it can work in the 2D market. Well, to put it this way. JASC has no major 3D program as far as I know. Their 2D software is priced and geared towards the home user. By obtaining Bryce, it would make perfect sense in the way that the company could enter the 3D market. And IF they had an pricing/marketing policy for 3D that was the same as 2D - then the 3D program market would truely enter the hobbyist price range (you know, beginners and the curious. If you're getting started and live on a modest budget would you rather pay $90 or $300+ ?) I would think of this as a potential win/win situation. Since currently there isn't much in decent 3D rendering/modeling software for less than $300 (excluding pirated stuff and crippled/watered trialware.) To round it up is I'm saying, company C has a product that they don't care about because it's not "competitive" in the market (high end) that they're catering to. Company C sees it as "why should I improve the product when it's not doing good in the market I'm interested in." Company C is caught in a loop, since they lack the vision either make their program better or try catering to a different market. Company J would benefit from such a product because it covers an an area (3D) of their market (entry level) which they don't yet serve. Company J would be competive in their market with company C's product. Since it would do well for them, they would see that investments are made to improve the product. For another anology, I'll put it in "car terms"... Cadillac was trying to sell a car called the Cimmaron in the mid 1980's. It was a complete dud for them. However, the same car was quite successful for Chevrolet - if you didn't know - it's the Cavalier. In this case, the product was still owned by the same company - but the divisions trying to sell the same product served entirely different markets. An obvious example of a decent product, yet a market mismatch. I dunno if this makes enough sense. I don't even come close to having a degree in marketing or economics, but that's the best way I could put it.

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.