Richter Scale^® Articles

(First published in the CAD++ Newsletter in late 1994)

As you may have gathered by now, this issue of CAD++ has a distinct AutoCAD Release 13 flavor, and, in keeping with that theme, this month's column will give you a view at what opportunities and pitfalls this latest AutoCAD release will offer.

Superstition

The first hurdle this latest AutoCAD release has to leap over is the fact that it is numbered 13. Triskadecaphobes (those afraid of the number 13) are unlikely to upgrade. After all, with a version number like that, it's likely that some nasty thing will happen to what ever system you install it on, never mind the type of bugs a 13th release might hide, just waiting to spring out at the least opportune moment.

Motivation

Before I get into some of the details of supporting Release 13 with your products, it's important to explain the core reason Autodesk does what it does. As a publicly held company, Autodesk's Board of Directors - the group that sets Autodesk's goals and direction - bows to a greater power, namely Autodesk's stockholders. The directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, which translates to making decisions that will benefit the stockholders. More simply put, if Autodesk can make its stock price increase, the stockholders remain happy. As of this writing, Autodesk's stock is at an all-time high (it's at $67/share), which implies that investment community is quite happy with all of Autodesk's recent actions. That's something to keep in mind as you read the rest of this column.

Changes in the Dealer Channel

A few weeks ago, Autodesk delivered a major ultimatum to existing U.S. AutoCAD dealers: "In order to sell Release 13, you must sign a new dealer agreement." That in itself would not be a major deal, except for the fact that the new agreement significantly changed the way dealers have to do business when selling AutoCAD.

The first major change is that AutoCAD dealers may only sell AutoCAD face-to-face (yes, you have to be close enough to touch, handshake, etc. - no phones, FedEx, or UPS permitted). Previously, AutoCAD dealers could sell AutoCAD over the phone, and ship it out to customers anywhere in the country, as long as they offered to support the product at the customers site (for a fee, if they were inclined to charge one). This previous arrangement created a lower price for AutoCAD because selling it mail order required less overhead on the dealer's part. Also, it allowed educated AutoCAD users to deal with a dealer they wanted to work with instead of their local dealer (many customers on CompuServe have complained about their local dealers being rather inept). Note that this change is retroactive to pre-Release 13 versions of AutoCAD as well.

The second change is that Autodesk cut dealer margins on AutoCAD, which means that AutoCAD's retail price and street price will be close to the same. One dealer I spoke to indicated that the price he has to pay Autodesk for Release 13 will be about the same as the price he used to charge customers for Release 12. That's quite a difference if you figure that Release 12 street prices ran about $500 to $1000 below the retail price of $3750.

Why Did Autodesk Do This?

Simply said, to help keep their stock price up. Autodesk has been between a rock and a hard place of late. Their product value has been eroded by highly competitive dealers who've been selling AutoCAD at near cost in order to get customers in the proverbial door. Mail order sales of AutoCAD have helped decrease those prices. Smaller dealers with less grandiose plans found it difficult to compete, and therefore, stay in business. Add to that rumors that Autodesk would itself help kill the dealer channel by selling direct or using general distribution to sell AutoCAD, and you end up with a dealer channel that's very nervous, and a few mega-dealers who, for the time being, account for a large part of Autodesk's sales.

Autodesk had no real choice if they wanted to strengthen their dealer channel (which is technically a huge outside sales force). They had to tighten their grip on their dealers. The new agreement does just this - it helps remove some of the uncertainty that was demoralizing the dealer channel, it will increase the sales of smaller dealers who previously couldn't compete easily, and it pares down the power that the self-made mega-dealers had over Autodesk. Analysts like this type of move.

However, many customers will not benefit from the new dealer agreement, as they will now have to pay higher prices for the same product (in the case of Release 12), or a significantly higher price to get Release 13. Also, the more aggressive dealers who had invested in mail-order sales of AutoCAD will be quite resentful that Autodesk has changed the rules all of a sudden, and may look to move their customer base to other CAD packages.

Upgrade Resistance

If you read various PC trade journals, you'll find that more and more editorials are suggesting that users don't really need all the upgrades that the big software companies are foisting off on them. After all, there are only so many features you can add to a word processor, spreadsheet, or CAD package before such features start bordering on the useless or very specialized (and not applicable to the masses). I think Release 13 is guilty of some of those foibles as well, and based on comments made by AutoCAD users at trade shows, user group meetings, and on CompuServe, some others seem to feel the same way.

If you add to the new bells and whistles in Release 13 that it will come with a higher price tag (more or less artificial based on the new dealer agreement), Release 13 starts looking like a less attractive upgrade to customers. It's even worse when Autodesk tells those of us who are dedicated DOS users (because we want performance and better reliability) that they plan on converting everyone to Windows real soon.

We Don't Do Windows

While most of us have Windows (and most AutoCAD users do too), Autodesk officials recently stated that only 10% of their installed user base was licensed to use AutoCAD Release 12 for Windows, and I would be willing to bet that some notable percentage of those users still used their Release 12 DOS versions illegally instead of being quagmired under Windows. These numbers are a painful reality for all the 3rd party AutoCAD developers who enthusiastically jumped on the Windows bandwagon at Autodesk's urging a year or two ago. The numbers mean that close to 90% of all licensed AutoCAD users use DOS versions of AutoCAD. Certainly helps define the market for developers, doesn't it?

Multiple Platform License

In my mind, probably the best thing, all things above considered, that Autodesk is offering as part of the Release 13 package is a multiple platform license that lets you run both the DOS and Windows versions of Release 13 interchangeably. That's something users have been asking for for nearly two years. One might assume that they didn't want to hold back upgrade sales for DOS users, especially since only a small percentage of AutoCAD users use it under Windows. Just a warning though - the pre-release versions of Release 13 require gobs of disk space if you install everything, including all the versions, all the samples, and the multiple language dictionaries. By my count, well over 140MB of disk space.

Recommended System Configurations

As it was recently explained to me, for Release 13 users, Autodesk recommends at least a 486/50 system with a 150MB hard disk, SVGA, and 12MB (DOS) or 16MB (Windows) of RAM. Add 4MB to the RAM requirements if you plan on doing solid modeling. For some users, this will require a sizable investment in upgrade hardware.

The Impact on Developers

I'm not going to cover the impact on dealers, as you've already committed yourself to the new contract, or are looking for other CAD products to sell to your customers in lieu of AutoCAD.

I'm also not going to cover how Release 13 impacts end users beyond what I've already covered.

I will touch on the topic of AutoCAD consultants briefly - many of them are probably screwed by virtue of the new Autodesk dealer agreement, for a couple of reasons. The first is that most consultants can't qualify (or don't want to) as AutoCAD dealers. The second reason is that by forcing customers to deal face-to-face with their dealers, the dealers are in the best position to sell consulting services to the customers, and independent AutoCAD consultants won't even get a chance, unless they ally themselves with a dealer network.

Outside of those three categories, that pretty much leaves AutoCAD add-on developers. Based on everything I've already covered, here are some basic rules that all AutoCAD 3rd Party Developers should follow (or at least consider):

Rule #1: Don't restrict how dealers can sell your product. Unless your dealers are in a hole without your product (they rarely are) you can't excise this sort of leverage. And even if they are very dependent, any strong handedness will tend to build resentment against your products and your company. Build relationships - not ultimatums.

Rule #2: Do try to create standalone versions of your add-ons. With Release 13, the cost to a user to use your Release 13-based add-on will be about $3800 plus the cost of your product. If you do not require AutoCAD to run your product, your market potential increases significantly. If you need a drawing engine to run your product, a number are available at much less than AutoCAD's entry price.

Rule #3: Don't develop only for Windows, if you're developing AutoCAD add-ons. DOS has by far the greater market share, and with the Release 13 multiple OS license, every Release 13 user is potentially a DOS user.

Rule #4: Don't name your product with a "13" in the title.

Rule #5: Do make sure your add-ons work with Release 13. This means you shouldn't cut yourself out of any potential sales and may mean some more development effort for you. Make sure to keep compatibility with Release 12, and possibly earlier versions if you already have that support. There's still a large untapped market among current users for most any add-on.

Rule #6: Don't scramble in a mad rush to make Release 13 specific versions of your software. If you do, you may suffer a lack of sales due to slow acceptance of the "c0" release of an AutoCAD release or as a result of "Upgrade Resistance". Using new API technology like Rx might be attractive, but take your time and do it right. Don't rush. The market will still be there a year from now, and probably a lot more ready for your R13-specific product.

Rule #7: If you ever go public, keep in mind that your target audience will no longer be your customers. Instead, it'll be your stockholders. Stockholders can make your nastiest customer look angelic when your stock price starts dropping.

Conclusion

While Autodesk may tout Release 13 as "the most significant release of AutoCAD yet", it's difficult to know if they mean that in terms of hard disk space requirements or technology. Either way, armed with the seven rules I've posed above, you should be able to more safely tackle the next major release of AutoCAD without loosing your shirt.

(This column first appeared in the August 2, 1994 issue of PC Graphics Report, and was subsequently reprinted and quoted in a number of magazines)

Many of you are aware that I'm a big proponent of getting 3D onto the PC desk top, in terms of both hardware and software. I want to see 3D on every system that ships, which is one of the reasons I helped start a VESA Committee (specifically the VESA Advanced Graphics Interface, or VAGI, Committee) to standardize a free 3D API which would foster acceptance of 3D technology.

My thinking was that if a wide range of applications are 3D enabled, that helps create the demand for broad, affordable 3D hardware support. Widely available, low cost 3D hardware justifies the development of 3D enabled software. There's an obvious problem with this approach, however, namely it's a chicken and egg situation - which one will happen first? It's been an issue for any 3D API on the PC, as well as for all the myriad high-end 3D graphics boards and applications various vendors have tried to be successful with in the PC market (and frequently failed with as well).

Ironically, it looks as if the thing to break the chicken/egg cycle will be pure software. Enter 3D rendering APIs. Specifically, 3D rendering APIs which provide decent performance, but without the use of hardware acceleration. These include Intel's 3DR, Criterion's RenderWare, RenderMorphics, Microsoft's Win/G and Argonaut, as well as the proprietary mechanism used by the gruesome but insanely popular 3D game, DOOM by id Software. All of these mechanisms focus their performance around the system CPU, and not on graphics hardware..

Recently, while at SIGGRAPH in Orlando, I had a chance to speak with Mike King of Criterion, who explained to me that RenderWare's main task is to render to a local PC memory resident buffer, which then gets copied to the display, on a frame by frame basis. If the graphics hardware has extra goodies, RenderWare apparently doesn't really take any advantage of them. The exception is if a low-level 3D library, such as that offered by Matrox for its MGA boards, is available, in which case RenderWare can use that functionality, but potentially sacrificing some of the performance it gains from cutting corners around mathematical accuracy in favor of visual presentation and performance. DOOM works in fundamentally the same way (but no hardware acceleration support at all), in particular the rendering to a PC based memory buffer. Following in this line of reasoning, Microsoft has designed a new interface, Win/G, to provide such fundamental memory to screen blitting capabilities to Windows applications, in an attempt to move game developers from DOS to the Windows environment. At Spring COMDEX, DOOM was seen running under Win/G, and Argonaut and RenderWare libraries support Win/G as well.

With the visual performance that these software-only renderers seem to be provide, it almost leaves one wondering why 3D hardware is even necessary. Then you see Jurassic Park, T2, or some other such 3D graphics animation feature, or play some of the newest VR games, and realize software may be fine for some things, but powerful graphics hardware is required nonetheless for real improvements in display performance. Now if only the various APIs would take advantage of it... It will happen, and I would argue, must happen, as part of the normal evolutionary process in PC technology. However, the low-cost 3D software, using software rendering needs to happen first, in order to provide for future extensions which deal with hardware acceleration.

3D Performance

All this talk about visual 3D performance brings something else to mind, namely how does one measure such performance, and once measured, what does it actually mean?

Over the last year, I've had over a half dozen aspiring vendors of 3D graphics hardware quote me some great numbers, such as "this chip will do 250,000 gouraud shaded triangles per second" (frequently the number is repeated twice, apparently to help me understand that this is a really good thing). I'm sure that the sophisticated graphics workstation user, who probably also deals with multi-tasking, multi-threaded operating systems, and has a $50,000 per seat purchasing budget for computer equipment, has a reasonable sense of what this all really means.

But, up until recently, such numbers had no real meaning for me, and I'm ashamed to say that even now my pulse still doesn't quicken when being quoted big triangle numbers, although I have a better time visualizing what they represent. And, this is only because I've been developing some 3D driver extensions for AutoCAD Release 12 which offer near-real-time manipulation of complex rendered scenes. Considering that I've been involved in personal computer (including pre-IBM PC systems) graphics for about 15 years now and still basically can't comfortably correlate the triangles/second rating to reality, how do you think that the average PC user is going to feel when he gets these large unrelatable numbers whipped at him or her? Especially next year when the 3D PC hardware wars really start heating up.

You may want to consider this a strong suggestion to create a 3D performance measurement that relates to the experience of the average PC user who is being targeted as the purchaser of new generation 3D PC hardware. Might I suggest the DOOMMark, which could measure how many frames per second of DOOM play you can get at a given resolution, on a given system?

Another aspect of the whole triangles/second measurement currently being bandied about is that while the graphics hardware can support such amazing drawing rates, frequently the systems these graphics devices are located in can issue drawing requests for only a small number of triangles per second. I've heard (and can't substantiate myself, although many of you can) that a 60 MHz Pentium system can only generate between 30-50K 2D triangles per second (based on the assumption that the CPU has to perform the transformations on the original 3D triangles to generate a 2D viewed triangle). The exact numbers aside, bandwidth issues are a very real limiting factor, even with today's Pentium systems and local bus adapters.

One other 3D performance issue I think needs to be addressed is that of expectations. Those of us in the graphics industry know (or at least should know) the limitations inherent in PCs and graphics hardware, and therefore can state with confidence (at least for the time being) that a sub-$5000 system combination will not be able to produce the same real-time graphics performance a high end SGI system can. However, the typical PC user has no such experience to draw from, and instead might use clips from CNN, scenes from Jurassic Park or Lawnmower Man, and the capabilities of his or her Super Nintendo as a reference point, all of which make PC 3D look rather disappointing. Heck, DOOM, a software-only 3D program, looks better and responds faster than much of what I've seen so far on expensive PC 3D graphics boards.

PC users need to be educated as to what "3D" really is in terms of PCs, and be shown the benefits of PC 3D, not as a comparison to unrealistic portrayals in the media and elsewhere, but as solutions/environments that stand on their own. This is going to require a lot of work, particularly in educating the PC press so they can explain it all to the end users. Of course, your company's advertising and marketing efforts will need to explain it all as well so you end up with customers who get more than they expected, and not less than they believe is possible.

The Workstation Mentality

Much of what I've covered so far in this week's column I could attribute to what I call "The Workstation Mentality". This terms stems from the fact that many of the new entries in the 3D hardware market are from companies that have no experience in the PC market, but lots in the more expensive (and hence lower volume) workstation market. These companies try to apply the experience they've gained in marketing workstations to the PC market, often with disastrous results, and rarely realizing their mistake until too late, even when outsiders try to point the problem out. Typical symptoms of The Workstation Mentality include:

• Thinking that because their hardware is 3D, PC people will automatically buy it, and therefore forecast sales volumes that even a fledgling mass-market graphics chip/board company would be proud to see in their first year.
• Pricing their product(s) such that board level implementations often range in the $1500 to $4000 price range because that's "competitive" in the workstation market. That won't work in the PC market, where a high-end graphics board is one in the $600-1000 price range.
• Assuming that the PC market is full of 3D applications that can immediately take advantage of their hardware. For the record, there are very few packages shipping today that can do that, with lots of effort. This includes MicroStation PC v5 and AutoCAD Release 12 for DOS (and not much else). The name aside, 3D Studio does NOT support any external 3D acceleration of the core rendering process.
• Figuring that Windows NT will be the platform of choice for anyone wanting to use 3D technology (since Daytona will ship with OpenGL, I guess). In reality, the largest volumes will probably be under a combination of Windows 3.1, DOS, and Chicago, assuming 3D APIs which really do take advantage of accelerated 3D hardware start shipping on these platforms. Mind you, Windows NT (Daytona actually) is probably the best 3D platform right now on the PC, but only for the next few months. And I still haven't seen more than one OpenGL application announced for NT (it's MicroStation).
• Assuming that all monitors in the PC market are created equal since that's the case in the workstation market for a given workstation - the monitor's sold with the workstation. This is another fallacy, as most any PC graphics board company will tell you (and proves by virtue of all the special monitor tweaking utilities provided with their boards).
• Believing that on-board (if not on-chip) VGA compatibility is not required. This is a major fallacy. All PC graphics boards should have VGA compatibility, but it should be disableable in devices which a user might want to use in a dual screen configuration. The reason it should be on-board or on-chip is that many power users (the most likely early adopters of 3D technology) are likely to have fully loaded systems, and will not want to devote two slots to graphics boards unless they have a specific application which requires dual display usage (and even that can sometimes be done with two video connectors on a single graphics board).
• Assuming that PC users understand what 3D means in a computer context (see my diatribe earlier in this column to see why that's not the case).

As an aside, if any of you reading this think I'm specifically singling you out with the comments about The Workstation Mentality, trust me, I'm not. The 7 symptoms I described above are endemic at at least a half dozen different companies I've spoken with over the last year. It's quite uncanny how similar the manifestions of The Workstation Mentality actually are.

Human Interfacing with 3D

In the last couple of months, I've gotten intimately familiar with the 3D side of AutoCAD, and I must say that AutoCAD does a downright lousy job of letting people manipulate 3D objects. Now, that not entirely Autodesk's fault either. Granted, other applications deal with 3D manipulation much better, including Autodesk's own 3D Studio, but every application seems to deal with interfacing to 3D in a different way. Several different things contribute to this confusion:

• Displays. They are all 2D. Makes it tough to see the back of the object without doing some contortionistic manipulations on your input device.
• Input Devices. Most PC users only have mice or just keyboards. Some might have 3D/6D input devices, but with the exception of the Logitech CyberMan ($80 or so), all the rest of them are bloody expensive. Of course, workstations seem to come equipped such devices, but PCs don't, further contributing to a lack of 3D understanding among PC users.
• Our childhoods. While many of us got to play with blocks, tinker toys, and other "3D" toys in our early years, society has forced us to think and deal more in 2D, even to the point of taking the 3D world around us and applying it in 2D - we even applaud such efforts and apply labels like "Realism" to them. Sigh.

All in all, we need to make people 3D aware by making them deal with the world as a 3D entity. People need to be able to think in 3D, and manipulate in 3D in order for 3D to become completely natural on the desktop. Obviously, that's not going to happen tomorrow, especially to people who are beyond their childhood years and thus have a more difficult time (re)learning basics. What we can all do, however, is try to come up with a portable, standard, 3D interface paradigm that will make using 3D applications, and therefore 3D hardware acceleration, much more intuitive.

Conclusion

In order for 3D hardware to truly become the premiere PC product category of 1995 (or 1996 if you're a pessimist), there must be 3D graphics software shipping which can be dynamically adapted to support 3D hardware acceleration just by replacing DLLs, runtime libraries, etc. The new breed of smart, software-only renderers must evolve to support such hardware. Alternately, something like VAGI needs to get to market (and VAGI needs resources in the form of human bodies to get that accomplished), and/or Intel and Microsoft need to be encouraged to further expand their 3DR and 3D DDI interfaces across multiple OSes, as well as include greater support of more advanced graphics functionality. Finally, some sort of standardization needs to come about in the area of input devices for 3D applications and software, in order to help further promote the growth of 3D software acceptance.

If you are an active 3D hardware vendor now, or plan on being one soon, the only way you'll be successful is by grooming the PC graphics market into one that readily accepts and requires 3D technology. That takes time, money, ingenuity, and cooperation. Maybe what this requires is a marketing coalition of 3D hardware (and software?) vendors. Anyone want to start such a consortium?

(First published in the CAD++ Newsletter in mid-1994)

You may recall a few issues ago, I harped on how people who used a single phone number for both voice and FAX numbers presented a poor image to potential customers. In this month's column, I'd like to expand the concept of image, because image can be a small company's biggest asset.

If you're an engineer, discussing an "image" probably smacks of marketing drivel - the technology is the most important asset, right? Nope. Without the image, the technology has little value. You could have the best new product in the world, but if people can't be convinced that they should pay attention to you, it's likely that no one will find out how great your product really is.

What does an image do?

Before I go into what it takes to build an image that will benefit your business, it's important to understand what an image accomplishes for you. Basically, an image is what gives both existing and future customers their impression as to the state of your business. This applies to initial impressions as well as the on-going impression people have of your business. A negative image will turn off customers, while a positive one can rally them to your offerings. A lack of any image whatsoever will result in no gain for you at all.

How to Gain a Negative Image

To be able to create a positive image for your company, it's good to know what things turn people off, and therefore contribute to a negative image:

• Arrogance. Unless your customers are from New York City, being arrogant will rarely gain you any business. Arrogance can be sensed via lack of patience with callers, belittling the knowledge or needs of potential customers, not being willing to compromise and take a customer's needs into account, not being sensitive to your customers' concerns, or just being plain rude.
  
• One Man Shop. Unless you are a consultant selling your own time, if you give the impression that your company consists of one person, and you're hard to reach in person, it conveys a lack of stability, and as a result, the customer will look for other options that are not as likely to let him or her down. For consultants, since they are selling themselves, this is not really an issue.
  
• Shoddyness. If you are selling a product, and the product and accompanying materials look shoddy (poor photocopies, spelling mistakes, handwritten diskette labels, software crashes frequently or doesn't work), you'll get a reputation for releasing incomplete product. If you're a consultant, similar points apply to the work you produce for a customer.
  
• Inconsistency. This includes keeping wildly varying hours, having a different look and feel in all your promotional and packaging efforts, as well as being reliable one week and unreliable the next.
  
• BS (Bovine Excrement). Never ever lie or make something up when you don't know the answer.
  
• Non-existence. If you do nothing to promote your offerings, you will do the one thing that's almost worse than gaining a negative image, namely have no image and no recognition whatsoever.

The Positive Image Factors

Based on all the things I mentioned as contributing factors to a negative image, let's take a look at positive image building factors.

• Professionalism. This does not necessarily mean wearing a suit and tie. Instead it means that you treat your customers with courtesy, that your products and promotional materials aren't shoddy feeling or looking, and that you are reasonably accessible to your customers.
  
• Friendliness. Make sure to be willing to talk to your customers in such a way that they feel good about talking with you (again, avoid any signs of arrogance). If your customers have a problem, and you can help out, do so. Same goes if they have concerns about your products. If you just cannot accommodate their request, be apologetic instead of terse. Above all, listen to your customers - they're a valuable resource. If you can establish a rapport with your customers, they'll help you sell your products or services.
  
• Stability. Make your customers feel comfortable about doing business with you. In your promotional materials, list the year the business was started - even if it's only a year, it helps build the impression that you plan on being around for a while. Get separate FAX & voice phone lines (see my column a few months ago). Make your business seem large enough to handle your customers' needs, even if you're the only person in it. This can be done by taking credit cards, shipping via parcel carriers or overnight service, having professional looking brochures and order forms (not necessarily multi-color, but at least a colored paper and possibly colored ink - I'll discuss printing in a future column), and a solid product. As part of stability, it's also important to show focus. Don't offer a zillion different products for different markets unless you can make sure each one gets lots of attention from the support perspective. Small companies generally can't effectively do dozens of things at once, and even they somehow can, they create a confused image for customers, who don't understand what the company really does.
  
• Knowledge. In order to create a relationship built on mutual trust (which is a positive thing), it's important to both be knowledgeable about what your product does, and how your customers work. However, if you don't know something, or don't understand something, again, don't make it up. Be honest and admit you don't know, but also offer to get the right information. Once you do, learn from it, because the same question is likely to come around again at some point.
  
• Visibility. Get your company's name out there - this is marketing (which I'll also cover in an upcoming column). Write press releases, talk to magazine editors, write articles, talk to user's groups, get on-line, etc. Make sure that when a problem comes up that your product could solve, that someone will immediately point to your product as the solution, even if they haven't personally used the product. If you want some great ideas for doing this sort of stuff, let me recommend "Guerilla Marketing" by Jay Conrad Levinson. This inexpensive paperback book can be found in your local bookstore's marketing or business section, and is chock full of invaluable marketing ideas and tips.

Now, I've mentioned the small company image issue several times as a negative, but seeming to be too big a company can cause other problems, because customers are used to getting lousy support from large companies. There's a balance that needs to be struck - being large enough to appear stable, but small enough to care.

Some of the things you can do to strike that balance include establishing a recognizable company name - don't use your own name. Using your own name for the business makes it appear small, and if you actually are successful with the business named after you, and sell it at some point down the road, you may loose all rights to use your name in any other business fashion, ever again. This has happened to several well-known individuals, including the Amos from Famous Amos cookies, the Moog who invented Moog Synthesizers, and countless others. When you choose a name, and you plan on doing business in other parts of the U.S. or world, you should also check to make sure your name does not infringe on someone else's trademark. There are several ways of checking for conflicting names (we use a company called Thompson & Thompson, which has offices nationwide). In any event, once you get a clear name, register it with your state government or town (which you register with depends on what state you're in and what the relative laws of company creation are), and get a nice, memorable logo designed. A decent company name and logo will go a long way to helping you establish the image you want for your company. The other image building factors I suggest above will further bolster your company's image, and help make it more successful. It can be a lot of work initially, but all the positive image building factors should ultimately become your way of business life, and your corporate philosophy.