It impacts my ability to earn that money if we stubbornly refuse to use a standard if our client demands it.
However, more specifically, I refer to the money -saved- by not making an overhead-only employee spend dozens and dozens of likely charged hours preparing a ground-up standard, and instead paying a nominal fee for an already-prepared standard.
You look at this standard as if it's supposed to be some globally enforced standard in coming...
Look at it as a marketed product... because that's pretty much all it is. "Hey, don't waste time and money and billable hours doing something we'll sell you for cheap!"
You churn your own butter too?
If access to milk and churns were easier, probably. However I eat little butter, and that isn't the discussion.
Your argument holds little credability. You state that a client asked that you use the standard, and you didn't. and it has not impacted your work with said client. So in fact you must be creating your own standard, and not using this one. You said that you were not.
I have never implied an irrational fear that this standard will infact consume the world cad market.
I have repeatedly stated it's adoption would be faster and easier for most IF they could use it without need to buy the stupid book, given that autodesk is already stuffing our templates full of those layer names, etc.
Wouldst thou use the standard and argue it's merits from that vantage point.
Or wouldst thou argue that given the standard were five or ten times more costly than all would readily adopt it?
