soooo, what was this big announcement MTH was going to make...

[jnichols]

Forgive me for another post, but I have a thought for all those who still think DCS is proprietary...

So I got out and buy an MTH DCS system. I am very happy with it's performance running my 3-rail trains, and I would really like to expand it's use to the other areas of my railroading currently operating under DCC control. I decide to purchase a cheap PLC with two communications ports on it and I write my own interface between the DCS system (through the provided DB9 serial connector mind you) and my Digitrax DCC system using a LocoBuffer box and very common ASCII protocol. So now I'm using a DCS remote to control my DCC decoder equipped locomotives, and I can still run my DCS equipped locomotives as well. How is all this madness possible I wonder? After all, DCS is proprietary.

The point behind my rant is that anything is possible, and lumping the DCS system into the "it's a niche product" category is a very narrow minded way of looking at things. The fact that DCC decoders from other manufacturers will work on competitors command control systems is great. So why isn't the DCS system just another competitive command control system? This has been the point of my various posts here from the beginning. It makes no sense to write off DCS as a proprietary system, when in fact all of the DCC systems are proprietary. Wouldn't you think that if I can write an interface to allow the DCS system to communicate to a DCC system, the engineers at MTH could...[;)]

[robengland]

If I look deep in my soul, I have to admit that I really don't care enough about MTH's image that I wouldn't buy their product if it was attractive enough. If they came out with something more attractive I'd buy it. Call me shallow but the issue just isn't that important to me that I would spend more or forego the best. And I suspect most of the market is like me. Right now they have nothing that would attract me. So let's see what the market thinks of MTH's products. My personal opinion is they'll go the way of Keller and Astrac and AristoCraft and all the other proprietary command systems of the past: niche if they are lucky, extinction for most.

On the topic of "proprietary", yes all DCC systems are proprietary, except for the protocol for talking to the decoder. That's a big "except". The fact is that if I finally get too sick of Digitrax's cruddy user interface designs, I do have the choice of scrapping their gear and going Roco without re-chipping all my locos, and all my JMRI software and CTC will still work too.

Sure, the NMRA missed a huge opportunity to define protocols for throttles, command stations and stationary decoders too so we could have better competition through more mix-and-match, but that would have required some vendors to abandon existing proprietary foundations which politically wasn't ever going to happen. At least we have one non-proprietary layer which is one more than DCS.

[AntonioFP45]

DK, you had me going there for about 2 seconds.......lol!

Ironrooster, good analogy as it is what happened with IBM years back. I may be incorrect, but I do believe that if MTH had tried to get into HO 5 or more years ago, and worked with a manufacturer like Walthers or Athearn (as well as the NMRA), ........who knows?

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

The big announcement? According to a friend that is a mole at Mike's place, MTH's K-4 is not an HO model. It is a OH, or 1/86.9 scale model. This scale will be much more widely accepted than HO and a patent is pending. ....

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

I love it.

On the subject of compatibility, the PC analogy again comes to mind. The early PC's were not all 100% compatible. That came with time, as people learned and stop buying the less than 100% compatible. I don't know how compatible all the DCC systems are since many of them don't submit for testing with the NMRA. But those that aren't 100% compatble with the standard will either change or fade away as people start buying decoder equipped locomotives and expect them to be handled correctly. You can have extra features, but you have to correctly implement the standard ones or lose sales. MTH is too late to this market to try and impose their own proprietary system - like IBM found out with OS/2.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

jnichols,

You are one of a select few who have bothered to offer why you think DCS is better Thank you!

You will have to pardon me if I disagree.

As was stated it the other posts and by me else where on the forums Corporate image is everything. Look at Enron would you buy there stock now I wont.

MTH has soured me in there actions and in these moles who do nothing more than make MTH look worse, then they already do. It will take a lot for MTH to overcome these issues with the HO group even if there system is better in everyway.

It will take more then a system that can run the planet before I consider it. I look at a companies actions and history before I will do business, I look at all angles even if its my phone service or the plastic model I need for my train I consider my options and the company that makes it before I will spend my very hard earned dollars on it.

There actions towards the other companies by MTH which may have been legal were not morally correct, why would they choose not to in some small way help expand the hobby and work with the other companies, oh nevermind I forgot corporate greed they are obsessed with the mighty dollar forget the fact this is a hobby and not life and death. So instead of trying to get a piece of the pie it looks to me as if they are really trying to take the whole thing. (yes perception is the key to all of this).

If i am wrong ok I can live with that but after all it is only my opinion.

My apoligies to any if my comment offed or are wrong in any way .....

[jfugate]

Droll, very droll, DK. [:o)]

[davekelly]

The big announcement? According to a friend that is a mole at Mike's place, MTH's K-4 is not an HO model. It is a OH, or 1/86.9 scale model. This scale will be much more widely accepted than HO and a patent is pending. Apparently MTH has sent letters out to some manufacturers stating that any models discovered to actually be OH scale will quite possibly violate this soon to be approved patent. Labeling the model as HO even though it is actually OH scale would not change the violation.

On another front, apparently Mike is also looking at some new technology to assist in avoiding derailments. This new technology, which is the result of years of research and testing concerns wheel flanges. Apparently making the flange larger than scale will help keep model trains on the track. This "diameter dependent tracking device" is the subject of a pending patent and should revolutionize the hobby.

Sorry, guys, just couldn't resist.

[jnichols]

Joe,

I agree with most of your statements. MTH has not done the best job of managing their "public appearance", and that is a problem that will haunt them for a very long time I'm sure. It's also unfortunate that in this day and age, perception is often more important than right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

I still argue that the term DCC is misused all too often, but this is just symantics at this point. I would like to see people making references to specific DCC manufacturers, and not the obligitory protocol that they all use however. For example, a post which compares the Lenz Set100 to the DCS system makes more sense in my mind than a blanket DCC vs. DCS comparison, which leaves way to much on the table to be discussed. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Remember that because the DCC protocol is open in nature, there is little to stop MTH from integrating DCC into their existing product, something I feel quite confident will happen. So then the argument comes down to which handheld remote do I want to control my trains with: A high tech 2-way 900 Mhz backlit LCD remote with a well designed GUI and logically arranged function keys, or someone's generic DCC system handheld.... Hmmmmmmm.... I think I'll stick with the MTH version, you guys are free to use whatever floats your boat!

Again, peace out and thanks for opportunity to post!

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

AntonioFP45,

The QSI lawsuit from MTH's perspective is a counter suit ...

... MTH was simply indicating they had been issued several patents, and the letter was a way to avoid future patent infringement litigation ...

As to your thoughts about the NMRA, and the fact that MTH has bowed out of participation ... is the NMRA always right?

Now onto the big one, DCS is proprietary and DCC is not ... you don't think Digitrax or Lenz is proprietary? The one place where this logic is blurred is in the decoders, but even there are discrepancies and problems, especially with programming ... Yes and no, and this is where I find all this talk about open platforms as misleading and underinvestigated.

You made mention of the BLI website ... MTH patents do not have anything to do with BEMF. This is a motor control technology that has been used for years, and certainly was not developed by Mike or his team at MTH. What was in question was the scale speed in 1 mph increments ...

Now I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here, I love DCC and think it's very cool. I have had several different systems, and liked them all for different reasons, and enjoy my Super Chief everyday. But I also have DCS, and feel that from a system (not communications platform) standpoint, DCS is better thought out and better implemented.... [;)]

Hmm, some interesting thoughts.

Regarding MTH and their "litigation happy" reputation, perception is often more important than reality. And if you notice, MTH's name comes up often as the "injured" party in some legal action, and they also are now known for "mass mailing" letters drafted by their lawyers to every DCC vendor on the planet.

So what are people supposed to think if MTH and lawyers comes up in every other sentence discussing the company?

Makes me think of the book "Up the Organization -- What they didn't teach you in Harvard Business School" ... in it the author talks about how his PR firm lawyers and the lawyers at ABC were up in arms over some issue regarding a pro golfer contract. It looked like a real nasty court show-down was on the horizon, so the author invited the head of ABC out to lunch.

They discussed the issue and came to an agreement without too much pain, and then each agreed to call off the lawyers. Great example of how to wisely solve business differences.

MTH, rightly or wrongly, has developed the opposite reputation. MTH comes across as a company with a chip on their shoulder, and something of a bully. Again, public perception is often more important than reality, and once a perception has been set, a company will need to go WAY OVER the other direction with press to the contrary to ever hope to see their reputation change in the public's eyes.

The easier solution to this problem would be for Mike to form a completely new company and start over building a more positive reputation.

As to your contention that DCC is fraught with proprietary issues and compatibility problems, remember that the lawyers say that using the exceptions to make legal precedent makes for bad law. Just because one can name several cases of compatibility issues does not invalidate that for most users 95% of the time, locos with any manufacturer's decoders will just *run* on another person's DCC system with no issues.

And you can demonstrate that easily, which is enough to convince most people of the clear advantage of the open standard.

[jnichols]

AntonioFP45,

I appreciate your post and thoughts, and also the thoughts of the others here, but I'm still concerned there has been too much influence from the rumor mill advocates. Here are my thoughts...

The QSI lawsuit from MTH's perspective is a counter suit. QSI initiated litigation concerning the alledged patent infringments over the ProtoSound series sound systems that they were developing for MTH. When MTH decided to create their own system (DCS/Proto2), QSI threw up the red flags and cried foul play. Now as everyone knows, nothing has been determined yet, and Mike Wolf may have in fact been in the wrong, only time will tell, but remember all this stuff concerns O-scale products and does not have direct impact on the HO marketplace.

As far as the letters sent out to the DCC manufacturers is concerned, why does everyone perceive these as threats? I read the letter, and while the language used is very strong, I didn't get the feeling that the sole purpose of the letters was to be threatning. My take was that MTH was simply indicating they had been issued several patents, and the letter was a way to avoid future patent infringement litigation. Now if you don't like the way the system of patents works, then take it up somewhere else, Mike was simply playing by the rules that all the companies adhere to.

As to your thoughts about the NMRA, and the fact that MTH has bowed out of participation, I really don't know. Unfortunately, the standards of command control as outlined by the NMRA folks is pretty DCC oriented at this point. With the involvement of Lenz early on, all things command control started looking like all things Lenz. As time progresses this will of course change and you will see a broader acceptance of different technologies. Besides, is the NMRA always right?

Now onto the big one, DCS is proprietary and DCC is not. Again, DCS is a package of hardware and software that forms a system, DCC is not. DCC defines a commincations protocol for use with 3rd party equipment. So let me get this straight, you don't think Digitrax or Lenz is proprietary? Have you ever tried to operate a Lenz throttle on a Digitrax system? Of course these systems are proprietary. The one place where this logic is blurred is in the decoders, but even there are discrepancies and problems, especially with programming. So let's be clear about what is being said here, DCC is an open communications standard wherein there are rules and guidelines that 3rd party manufacturers can follow or not. Example, Digitrax transponding is not compatible with the Lenz or NCE systems to my knowledge, so wouldn't this be deemed proprietary? But a Digitrax transponding equipped decoder will work on a Lenz command system equipped layout, right? Yes and no, and this is where I find all this talk about open platforms as misleading and underinvestigated.

You made mention of the BLI website. Unfortunately this one little niche in cyberspace has probably single handedly dealt the worst blow to MTH, and it's ridiculous. MTH patents do not have anything to do with BEMF. This is a motor control technology that has been used for years, and certainly was not developed by Mike or his team at MTH. What was in question was the scale speed in 1 mph increments. This is part of the MTH patent, and this is what BLI should have focused on. Instead they jumped on the MTH owns BEMF bandwagon, and like the good little lemmings we are, we read and hated Mike. Reality check here, I too read this announcement on the BLI site and was mad at Mike, until I researched the claim and realized how ridiculous it was. You know, my favorite part of this debate is involving Lionel, remember them? Lionel uses the QSI chip, and the BEMF and scale speed in 1 mph increments features are in fact activated and working wonderfully. So why is BLI whining so much? Because they have an audience, that's why!

Now I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here, I love DCC and think it's very cool. I have had several different systems, and liked them all for different reasons, and enjoy my Super Chief everyday. But I also have DCS, and feel that from a system (not communications platform) standpoint, DCS is better thought out and better implemented.... [;)]

[cjcrescent]

Joe;
I have to partially agree with you. DCS will remain, at the very best, a niche player. Reason I don't see extinction is that it is already in use, how widepread I don't know, in O Gauge by some of the modelers. I think that alone will keep it around. But as long as it remains proprietary it doesn't have much of a future outside of O. Just going on the history of command control systems of the past, it seems that , it didn't matter who had what, as long as it was single source item, (proprietary), and not compatible with the other players, it remained a very minor player. I know these systems of the past were not digital, but still, you couldn't take an Astrac, Onboard, CTC-16/80, Dynatrol, or Zero-1 equipped locomotives and run them on any layout equipped with a system other than what was installed in the loco, including a plain DC layout.
DCC has the definite advantage of being able to take any DCC decoder equipped loco, even one with the cheapest decoders, no matter who makes it, and use them on any DCC equipped layout, no matter the "brand name", and still have full decoder functionality under DCC.
I believe that until MTH gives full functionality to their DCS stuff under DCC control, it will remain a very minor player. I really don't see it happening.

[jfugate]

If you pay attention to the market, it's not the best product that wins, but the best marketed.

MTH's DCS offering is clouded with confusion, unclear motives, proprietary secrecy, rumors of legal threats, and unsubstantiated hype. About the only thing positive about DCS is that DCC/DCS controversy is making it known, but the other issues don't excite people and in fact make them very wary.

Show me one case where a propietary standard that was kept close to the vest beat out an open standard and I might believe that DCS has a glorious future ahead of it.

Otherwise, its future lies somewhere between the Mac and the Betamax -- between niche player and extinction.

[ndbprr]

Assuming that MTH has invented a better system in DCS one should consider that Betamax was far superior to VHS recording yet VHS survived because of number of units sold and a market foothold. Personally I don't care if he gives them away he will not get one cent of mine and I would put the thing out in the trash at the first chance no matter how superior it is.

[simon1966]

Jnichols, thanks for being the first MTH flag waver in a very long time that has bothered to put considered opinon on the forum rather than just antaganostic comments. Justified or not, MTH has a huge image problem in the HO/N market, demonstrated daily on this forum. MTH is seen as a threat, not an enhancment to our hobby. If the trolls that feel it neccesary to keep fanning this feeling of animosity they are simply solidifying the resolve of many, never to spend a dime on MTH products.

[AntonioFP45]

Hello JNichols,

You gave some very good responses however your comment:

QUOTE: ....especially when people belittle a competitive product or attack the organization responsible for it with very little information of their own.......

The issues were clear enough already, were they not?

1. The QSI lawsuit and the "knee-jerk" reaction from DCC manufacturers due to "threats of litigative action. That sure would spook me if I were a DCC vendor.

2. MTH would not work with the NMRA regarding the command control standards. Many HO and N scale modelers take the NMRA standards seriously. MTH "seemed" to thumb its nose at it. Whether true or not, this was and still is the perception.

3. DCS is basically propietery, DCC is not.

From your info, DCS has potential but unfortunately it was MTH that took its aggressive action, not the posters on this and other forums.

When modelers went to BLI's website and saw the notation regarding the elimination (or disabling) of the Back EMF feature and at the same time read from DCC vendors as to how the litigation threats affected them.............what in the world would you expect? Several DCC vendors then "clammed up" for a while and would not even answer e-mails.

Bruce Petrarca from Litchfield Station was the only DCC business dealer willing to provide detailed comments on the situation. Seems like MTH's unfamiliarity with HO and N scale customers, unwittingly, made one heck of an impact. (more like a trainwreck!)

Your posts are very intelligent, but your slant makes it sound like that most DCC modelers are "emotionally blinded" and should consider embracing DCS, inspite of what's happened.

To be fair, it would be good to see MTH post a comparison chart. But as was stated before, this is Beta vs. VHS. It's doubtful that modelers will be "hanging up" their Super Chief sets. Lok Sound and Digitrax threw their hats in the ring----Soundtraxx Tsunami is finally a reality and reports coming indicate that it's a winner. So, businesswise, this makes if even tougher for MTH entering HO.

But as stated before, this is a forum of opinions. The loudest voice will be those dollar bills in the backs of modelers pockets.

Peace and 10-4.

[jnichols]

Paul,

You make good points, although most of these are based on speculation and admitted lack of absolute knowledge, just like my points are. I enjoy these little discussions, especially when people belittle a competitive product or attack the organization responsible for it with very little information of their own. But alas this place of opinions is in fact just that, so I share my opinions in hopes that some poor joe looking for a "better mousetrap" does indeed find it (or at least researches it a little bit on his own before making up his mind).

For the record, it's my opinion that there is no way to proclaim the better system in a setting such as this. This must happen on an individual basis and preferably when done one on one with the systems in question. I have watched the anti MTH/DCS posts here and elsewhere with great amusement, and honestly I grow tired of defending what is not my job to defend. Oh sure I chirp in here or there, and sometimes I feel like somebody actually read what I typed and took something from it, but honestly I grow weary of this topic.

If you really want to understand DCS, or the capabilities of the system, check out the OGR forum at: http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x

Peace out!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

bangert1,

There is no solid information available right now that I am aware of, only rumor and speculation. My guess is that over the next several months more information concerning the DCS/HO situation will be revealed to us. But I feel confident in saying that a DCC interface from MTH is highly probable, and the Proto3 chip working with DCC has already been discussed in great detail both on the MTH website and elsewhere. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess!

Thanks for the response. It would be interesting and good for the hobby if it is compatible with the standards that have been set and used for some time now.

[Paul3]

jnichols, DCC may not be a command system, but it's a lot easier to type than "communications platform" or "open source communication architecture" or whatever one calls it. I think everyone who knows what DCC is realizes that when one types "DCC", they are only talking about the architecture, not the physical command system.

jnichols wrote:

QUOTE: While there has been much talk about how friendly all of the DCC players have been to one another because DCC is an open platform, this couldn't be farthest from the truth. As an example, do you guys honestly think Lenz and Digitrax sit around a table and share ideas with one another? This is not happening I can assure you.

Actually, that's exactly what I think is happening on the NMRA DCC Working Group, chaired by Stan Ames. According to the Summer 2004 public minutes, AJ Ireland of Digitrax, Bernard Lenz, Kar Kobel of Wangrow, Matt Katzer of KAM, Fred Severson of QSI, and a couple other manufacturers (plus non-manufacturers) were all in attendance. What do you think these guys are talking about? I don't think they are talking about the Boston Red Sox' chances winning the next World Series...

Sure, they aren't giving out trade secrets, but for example, they are currently working on support for up to 16 more DCC Functions (F13-F28) according to the latest news from Cinncinnati. In fact, they have several open topics that can be found here: http://www.dcc.info/WGpublic/active-topics.html

QUOTE: Remember that DCS is not only a command control system, but also a communications platform. While MTH devoloped it and currently they are the only ones using it, who knows what will happen as time goes on. I have heard many insider rumors about MTH licensing the DCS system to other manufacturers. If this happens you will see much broader appeal to the system, and it's many advantages over the current crop of DCC systems will be easier to understand.

Currently, I see no advantages over DCC at all, unless one really likes being able to broadcast your voice from the loco's speakers or have oily smoke coating the tops of one's models. If there are others, what are they? It seems everytime someone asks this question, the pro-DCS folks disappear. You don't have to post a list here, but perhaps MTH has a webpage listing all their comparison info you could point me to? (note that I'm not the only one asking here)

QUOTE: Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block...

However, on that really long MTH vs. the world thread a while back, an MTH employee said that the DCS system will not run a DCC loco, and IIRC, that they didn't have plans to make it do so. That was a while ago...perhaps they changed their mind?

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[jnichols]

bangert1,

There is no solid information available right now that I am aware of, only rumor and speculation. My guess is that over the next several months more information concerning the DCS/HO situation will be revealed to us. But I feel confident in saying that a DCC interface from MTH is highly probable, and the Proto3 chip working with DCC has already been discussed in great detail both on the MTH website and elsewhere. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jnichols

Me thinks there is some confusion regarding DCC and DCS. Here are my thoughts...

Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block... [;)]

You may be correct that MTH will operate on a DCC system. Does anyone know for sure that they will actually do that>??? If any new comer to HO wants to be sucessful, they should at the least be compatible with the whole HO world and standards.

I would not purchase a new HO locomotive that is captive to a new system and could not be run on a normal DCC or even DC layout.
No one as every spelled out the differences of DCS compared to DCC and what if any the compatibilities are.

The Live steam Mallard is a prefect example of a real interesting engine that requires its own track and sytem to run on.

I would appreciate knowing the comparisons.
Thanks

[jnichols]

Me thinks there is some confusion regarding DCC and DCS. Here are my thoughts...

First off, DCC is a communications platform, not a command control system. Digitrax, Lenz and NCE (and others) all make command control systems that utilize the DCC standards and protocol. While there has been much talk about how friendly all of the DCC players have been to one another because DCC is an open platform, this couldn't be farthest from the truth. As an example, do you guys honestly think Lenz and Digitrax sit around a table and share ideas with one another? This is not happening I can assure you. Both of these companies have invested time and money in their ideas, and both have patents to reflect this work. And although the decoders from various manufacturers will indeed operate on competitors command control systems (most of the time), this is not without it's own set of problems and grief, especially from a programming standpoint (just ask anyone who's tried to setup a QSI decoder on a stock Lenz system.... ;). It's also bad to make PC vs. MAC references here, as that analogy doesn't really apply. A better comparison to the computer industry could be made if DCC was thought of as Ethernet (or basically a communications standard), and DCS was a unique concept where in a turn key solution from software to hardware was provided to the end user.

Remember that DCS is not only a command control system, but also a communications platform. While MTH devoloped it and currently they are the only ones using it, who knows what will happen as time goes on. I have heard many insider rumors about MTH licensing the DCS system to other manufacturers. If this happens you will see much broader appeal to the system, and it's many advantages over the current crop of DCC systems will be easier to understand.

Besides, as I understand it, not only will the MTH locomotives operate on a DCC system (albiet with limitations due to the control architecture), but MTH fully intends on developing a DCC interface for use with the DCS system in order to control anyones DCC products. When that day arrives, the old Super Chief will quickly find it's way on the old auction block... [;)]

[dinwitty]

I dont know about DCS, its MTH's proprietary control system.

If MTH is going to enter the HO market, their controller should be DCC compatible.

I wont be buying a K4. Not what I am modeling. Lots of other K4's out there.

They would have to sell a normal DC model or their DCS model.

Now if they go the route and make an HO Little Joe, I might go for it....

but I will certainly change a DCS controller to a DCC controller.

[railroadyoshi]

Ill just say that most of these latter responses have great insight and thank you

What is DCS?

[IRONROOSTER]

Command control systems were around for many years without becoming mainstream. DCC by being an open standard has had compatibility and competition. This has led to constant improvement and price reductions. In turn this leads to more modelers using it. So while everyone may only have a piece of the pie, the pie keeps getting larger. With a proprietary system the pie stays small and eventually shrinks away.

Eventually, as ease of use and price improves, DCC will replace DC as the standard control system. Other control systems be at best a niche market like Marklin.
Enjoy
Paul

[simon1966]

A question for all the MTH flag wavers out there. I did not get a clear answer to this at the NTS when I asked the MTH booth personell.

Aside from running them in DC mode, can you run locomotives from other manufacturers on a DCS equipped layout?

I am certain from my converstaions that you can not take a DCC decoder equipped locomotive and put it on a DCS layout. Can you purchase the DCS decoders to install in other manufacturers locomotives?

If not DCS will fail in HO simply because a DCS owner will be limited to the locomotives manufactured by MTH. With the wide range of high quality locomotives available on the market from well established reputable makers, it is highly unlikely that an HO'er will turn their back and be willing to go MTH exclusive, no matter how good the DCS system is.

[Anonymous]

I really can't see DCS doing well in the HO market - DCC is just too well established now. If you asked any of the big European manufactuers I'd guess none of them have any intention to have anything to do with it at all - the only non-DCC digital systems they're involved with are their own (Fleischmann's FMZ for example) and they now offer systems to enable the user to integrate the two - multi-system decoders and throttles that can handle both systems. The danger is that MTH's behaviour (particularly their apparent enthusiasm for court proceedings) will stifle DCC development as manufacturers will be terrified of "breaching" one of MTH's patents. I will never buy any DCS product as I do not like proprietory systems and monopolies - they're unhealthy as there's no guarantee of long-term support if the one manufacturer discontinues production and support, and manufacturers have been known to do this in an effort to force people to "upgrade". If it had been made so that the decoders were dual-mode (as with some Fleischmann ones) there would probably be a greater market, but with a single manufacturer offering DCS and everyone else offering DCC, I think people will either be converting DCS locos or just not buying them.

[3railguy]

QUOTE: As a proprietary standard, it is destined to remain a niche player, just like the Mac. While, like the Mac, it may have some improvements over the open standard DCC just as the Mac is in many ways a better designed system than the PC ... that still doesn't change the fact that open standards tend to rule.

Wouldn't Marklin be a niche marketer like you describe? They have proprietery system and their trains are pricey. They have made several attempts getting into the American market with American prototypes with no real success. I foresee MTH heading the same way. A pricey line of trains with a non-standard operating system.

[selector]

Imagine if Walmart greeters snarled at you when you walked through the door! You'd still shop there 'cuz the shopping's good right?

I don't think so.

Even if their lawyers recommended the letters to all potential litigants (including QSI customers) for sound reasons, their artless and ham-fisted approach to its content and distribution leaves them with few champions.

[AntonioFP45]

Joe,

Your post is one of the best, responses I've ever read regarding the MTH scenario. Perception of businesses in society today, unfortunately, is often more powerful than the hardcore facts. An easily identifiable example today is GM which, since the 1980s, has found out the hard way.

[jfugate]

If you look at the two models used in the personal computer arena for selling systems -- open system (PC) or proprietary (MAC), you'll see the future for DCS.

As a proprietary standard, it is destined to remain a niche player, just like the Mac. While, like the Mac, it may have some improvements over the open standard DCC just as the Mac is in many ways a better designed system than the PC ... that still doesn't change the fact that open standards tend to rule.

Even if MTH fully deserved to eat Lionel's lunch in their lawsuit, MTH's "warning" letters sent out to DCC manufacturers came across as mean-spirited. My own opinion is that MTH believes stirring up controversy in the hobby is a way to get free publicity, but I think they will find this technique is going to backfire.

Regardless of what the truth is, often the perception that is generated is far more potent than the truth. And MTH's approach has generated more than it's fair share of animosity. If people keep getting the wrong idea, then MTH I think you need to ask yourself what it might be that you are doing or not doing that is feeding that idea.

In MTH's case, their "bull in a china shop" approach to moving into new markets only furthers the public's idea, rightly or wrongly, that MTH is the "dark side of the force" among up-and-coming model manufacturers.

The only way out of this hole they have dug for themselves, IMO, would be for them to behave more like Lenz did with the DCC standard, and release some of their clever new developments as open standards for all to enjoy. That might begin to demonstrate that MTH has a heart after all.