Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 20 Nov 1999 21:57:18 -0700
From:      Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
To:        "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>, "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc:        "Erick White" <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit"
Message-ID:  <4.2.0.58.19991120195344.0452f8d0@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <000001bf306f$c463a130$021d85d1@youwant.to>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9911161953330.54981-100000@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19991120195344.0452f8d0>