Ron,
Yes… Just about every computer electronics company. Can you imagine buying an HP computer and having to buy ONLY an HP printer because it was the only printer that worked with that computer? Nope…because there are standards so all this stuff can work together.
Baloney.
No company makes a product that encourages someone to buy their competitors products. You're confusing standards with competition.
Electronic component companies don't typically make consumer electronics products, rather, they make components. If their components are identical to their competitor's components, they compete on price, quality and availability.
Consumer products companies, like HP, don't do something that encourages the consumer to buy the competitors product instead of HP's. HP's computers and peripherals are standards-based so many competitor's products can connect and interoperate with their products. They compete primarily on price, quality and features. They certainly don't strive to make a computer and encourage you to buy some other company's peripherals.
MTH's DCS and Lionel's Legacy are not standards based. Your HP analogy doesn't work.
Because when you fail to be flexible and find ways to expand a customer base rather than trap a customer base, your business can grow
Being "flexible" isn't encouraging consumers to buy the competitor's product instead of your own, and investing valuable resources and expense to do it.
. And there are more people in the middle than the diehards.
Right!
Those people need to be encouraged to buy MTH engines. They don't need to be given any additional reason to buy MTH's low-cost, low-margin (if any margin) kit to instead enhance a competitor's product so that it can better run with theirs. What MTH wants them to do, ideally, is to sell or otherwise discard their existing engines and buy MTH's instead.
You may not have intended to be belittle. But there are times when your posts read that way.
My posts tend to state what I believe to be true and how they are perceived is out of my control. When I state something I tend to do so in a manner that leaves no doubt as regards what I'm stating.
If someone lacks the understanding or knowledge to fully comprehend what I'm saying (I make no representations as regards anyone in this discussion), they are free to ask me to better explain my thoughts and I will attempt to clarify my statements. If they'd rather just argue, I'm up for that as well. 
There have been times in the past when someone has a thought and you are quick to vehemently dismiss it and claim MTH will NEVER do this. That sort of reply can appear belittling to the poster and other readers with common interests.
First, I severely question your use of the word "vehemently". I respond in a straightforward, direct way to that to which I disagree.
Second, regarding my prognostications about what MTH is, or is not, likely to do in the future. Tell me what I've stated is unlikely to happen (I rarely say "never") and where I've been mistaken. You should find something, however, I doubt that there will be very much.
Third, the fact that someone doesn't care for my tone or attitude, or finds my statements to be "belittling", is much more that person's problem and than it is mine.
Tell me, do you believe my statement regarding DCC...
DCC is a technology. Technologies don't make profits or have shareholders. Companies do.
... was belittling, or just reality?
as soon as I figure the logistics (space and storage concerns) of the tear down.
