Quote -  Having both application and content in house is unusual, but beyond their flagship figures, a lot seems to be brokered. Daz, IMO is all about doing something new here, not necessarily replicating the traditional 3D business model(s). They're coming at 3D from many directions, figure rendering, modeling, models, avatars and more I've probably missed.

It's not really that new of a concept... in Asia. Take a look sometime at what all gets built by companies like Sony, Samsung, and the like. When you're done there, you can see some really radical companies like Hyundai and Daewoo, which builds and sells a frighteningly diverse product line (for instance, Daewoo makes everything from cars, to ships, to pistols, to electronics, to... well, you-name-it).

It's just that here in the Western half of the planet, we're kind of used to seeing companies stick somewhat in their comfort zones.

Quote - Is it Microsofty? Probably not. MS rarely ventures into hardware and usually fails miserably - X-Box being an exception.

Actually, Microsoft has been casting about for a long time to find new money-makers. They know that Windows/Office aren't going to be cash cows forever, so they need something to keep the long-term moey rolling in. The funny thing is, even as widely-selling as the XBox is, it is still in a really deep financial hole. They've sunk $9bn into the thing so far since 1999 (not counting the $1.2bn "red ring of death" fiasco), and it wasn't until 2009-2010 that the division started turning a $150m/quarter profit. Now they get to throw more money into building the next gen boxes.

Interstingly enough, Microsoft does have some hardware that makes them a tidy (if not relatively small) profit: re-branded Logitech accessories like mice, keyboards, webcams, etc.

Quote - Daz looks more like Apple to me, building a self-contained ecosystem.

It's called "vertical integration" - IBM has been doing it since the dawn of computing, and HP is trying to horn in on some of it nowadays too (though in HP's case, they're crawling up into enterprise networking and storage components).

Quote - It's a work in progress, scattered, lacking a high degree of integration etc. Also, I think they need to give users a better idea of where they're going, at least at the big picture level. I have doubts that they can pull it off, but I guess I admire them for taking the shot.

A lot of it is due to the small staff. Big companies can execute these things better, though in that case you run into the danger of bureaucracy and politics hampering progress (see also Microsoft, Goolge nowadays, etc).

Big-picture wise, IMHO, they seem to be moving in the same general direction that they did in 2005... providing users with a soup-to-nuts CG experience. A one-stop CG hobbyist emporium, if you will. Along the way, they picked up some software that fits into that vision, but they also picked up some excess bits that don't quite fit (Bryce and Hexagon, ferinstance). In some of those cases, they did it out of (no, seriously) nostalgia (I'm pointing at Bryce), so as to avoid having the software end up in some larger corporation's graveyard. 

 

As for being able to pull it off, I think they're at a bit of a crossroads at this point. Only time and user enthusiasm will tell for certain.