From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 21 0:49:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CB015747 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:49:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21382; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:48:00 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991120195344.0452f8d0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:57:18 -0700 To: "David Schwartz" , "Jonathon McKitrick" From: Brett Glass Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Cc: "Erick White" , In-Reply-To: <000001bf306f$c463a130$021d85d1@youwant.to> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:18 PM 11/16/1999 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: >Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak >Advantix, you >need an Advantix camera. And that means you need Advantix film. And of >course, your film processor needs a machine that can process >that film. To >get the advantages of newer technological developments, you need a new >everything. This is really evidence that Microsoft does not operate by >locking people into inferior developments but actually by continually >reinventing its products to keep them leading edge. Ironically, you've picked an example that proves exactly the opposite. As any photographer or photofinisher can tell you, Advantix has no significant technological advantages over good old 35mm film -- just a few gimmicks. The real reasons Kodak introduced Advantix were as follows: (a) To recapture a larger share of the photofinishing market just before selling off its photofinishing business. This maximized the price it could ask when it spun off Kodalux. The Advantix cartridges had a few features which were patented, as well as other quirks which made them incompatible with existing processing equipment. None of these made the product significantly better. But because of the patents, Kodak could either bar other photofinishers from processing the film or charge them high prices for equipment that was compatible. (b) To increase its market share in the film business by preventing other film manufacturers from making the film. (Or, again, to charge those manufacturers royalties on every Advantix cartridge they shipped.) (c) To drive makers of competitive photofinishing equipment (including minilabs) out of the market by refusing to let them make Advantix-compatible equipment. Alternatively, Kodak could charge them big bucks for the "privilege," sapping their profits. Consumers suffered as a result of all of these tactics. Our local photo shop, which had a Norita minilab, couldn't do Advantix film, and so had to ship the film to someone with expensive Kodak equipment -- usually Kodak's own Kodalux division -- for processing. Not only did this cost more; it was far slower than the one-hour service we could get on 35mm film. The photo shops were hurt as well; their inability to use their existing equipment on Advantix film cost them business. With all of these drawbacks, and only trivial advantages, how did Kodak get consumers to adopt the Advantix film format? Simple: They dumped cameras, just as Microsoft dumped IE. Kodak even paid camera manufacturers to bring out Advantix cameras, just as Microsoft paid ISPs to force their users to use IE. Kodak's tactics were unethical in that they manipulated markets and hurt consumers. And most likely illegal even in the absence of a monopoly. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message