@arthurys - I believe you may have misunderstood my point.
I went into thorough detail explaining that the technical robustness is often less important than the impression in the market. That to compete with SketchUp would require a tool that was less intimidating and offered a “quick massing” option where one could go soup-to-nuts in an hour, similar to SketchUp.
You suggested we’re “missing out on” the following:
the one main consistent thing that users would say is that “Sketch Up is much more approachable software”.
It’s false to say this point was overlooked. In fact, it was the most fundamental point to my first post. In my second post, I defended that exact point over the counter-point that SketchUp’s userbase is the sole basis for its continued success.
If you re-read my first reply, I’m communicating that point in great detail. If you re-read my second reply, you’ll see that I’m defending this same useability point by clarifying to @jdhill that marketshare alone does not alone account for SketchUp’s success and I again return to the simplicity (along with the secondary, tertiary effects that result).
Furthermore, while SketchUp and Rhino can be compared because they are both, first-and-foremost, modeling tools; the suggestion that Rhino and Revit offers an analog, is misleading/false. While Revit can (painfully) do freeform modeling, it’s a true BIM tool, through-and-through.
If you were to use BricsCAD BIM or Vectorworks, I’d be more apt to consider the point; however, pedantic reasoning aside: two different markets for very good reason, not to mention BIM doesn’t have any business in the industrial design/3D printing space, etc.
If we’re talking about the specific niche of architecture (to be clear, I’m not limited my comments to architecture alone; there is a large industrial design/3D printing contingent in this market/aid to developing word-of-mouth) … every experienced person in architecture knows the world of difference between the idea phase (simple massing) versus the intention of BIM, which is not at all effective at the idea phase, unless you have relatively simple/limited parameters to begin within.
I recently developed an 8-unit “Tahitian village” on a five acre private island. There would be no way for me to iterate dozens of designs in Revit to pitch that. Not because it doesn’t have a welcoming interface, less marketing, fewer tutorials, etc. Rather, because Revit’s objective has no relation (nor price-point for that matter) to a modeling tool, for those familiar with BIM v freeform-modeling.
In SketchUp or Rhino, however, I can create a dozen initial sketches to sell my friends/investors on the deal and begin discussing the direction of the project. While I could accomplish the entire project in SketchUp or Rhino – make no mistake – that doesn’t make it functionality similar to Revit.
I suspect you’re not arguing that Rhino is similar to Revit in this regard; however, your point:
But then how can you stop short of that same thought process and not also say that Revit is by far a superior software than Rhino, when it comes to the whole Architectural process than both?
The answer: quite easily; there is no parity here.
The statement leaves the impression that you see an analog. Revit cannot be “superior” to Rhino because they are doing two entirely different things (both use-case/marketing-niche, as well as functionally). To the contrary, Rhino can be considered “superior” to SketchUp because they’re both modeling tools that have the option of quick massing to create architecture at all levels, from rough sketches, to construction docs.
Again, we’re not discussing the product’s architecture alone; we’re discussing the market.
Sidenote: unless we’re arguing for sake of argument, or of of the positions is overly pedantic, the ability for a plugin to offer “BIM” features doesn’t make Rhino any more of an analog to Revit.
In short:
I think we all agree that SketchUp enjoys a large market share (41 million activations) due to several factors. Approachability, ease-of-use, modern/clean interface, and expedience in simple push/pull modeling being one of those factors. The point is that Rhino could invest in some UI and “quick massing” modes, rewrite the narrative, and potentially capture a chunk of that market.