Commentators censored

[Walddk]

Let me say this once and for all, so that no misunderstanding is possible:

 

BBO does not censor and will never impose censorship upon our commentators. They are all adults and therefore capable of knowing what's right and wrong. We have had examples of commentators who overstepped the line, but our remedy is very simple:

 

They will not be invited again. We have very few rules the commentators must abide by, but we have no intention of interfering with their comments as long as they are put forward in a civilised manner.

 

Roland

[fred]

The reason for this? "Bridge politics" and the well known America-Europe rivalry that seems to be sadly present in the minds of many Americans and Europeans. In my experience, most bridge players from America and Europe are above this sort of stupidity, but it is unfortunately the case that some of our most powerful "leaders" are not.

 

This is sad and a bit strange.

 

I subscribe to the American-Europe rivalry in the sense that I was supporting Italy against the USA in the final.

 

But a rivalry for broadcasting? Perhaps it should be pointed out the extent to which the BBO Estorial Vugraph was a European affair: organised by a Dane off-site and a Frenchman on site, with a commentary team that seemed to me to be more European than North American (with a few South Americans and Australasians to improve the international quotient).

I will try to clarify.

 

As far as I can tell there are some bridge politicians who are concerned that BBO is getting to be "too big and powerful". This in itself may not be the problem, but the fact that BBO happens to be an American company makes some Europeans feel threatened by our success.

 

In my mind this is totally absurd. For one thing, anyone who knows us personally will tell you that BBO is first and foremost about bridge. Business is a secondary but necessary concern. Where we happen to live does not enter into the equation. Besides that, Sheri and I are Canadian citizens whose grandparents were born in Russia, Poland, England and Austria. Uday and his family come from India.

 

The world would be a much better place in my view if everyone understood that we are all really Africans. I have little hope that the Bush and Chirac types will ever figure this out, but I would have expected more from the supposed leaders of the bridge world.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

The reason for this? "Bridge politics" and the well known America-Europe rivalry that seems to be sadly present in the minds of many Americans and Europeans. In my experience, most bridge players from America and Europe are above this sort of stupidity, but it is unfortunately the case that some of our most powerful "leaders" are not.

Funny, this was my experience in Australia too.

[Walddk]

As far as I can tell there are some bridge politicians who are concerned that BBO is getting to be "too big and powerful".

If it hadn't been so sad, it would be hilarious. So they think we should be punished because we are big? Could it be that we are big because we deliver quality and promote bridge in the best possible way?

 

At the end of the day it's our fault anyway I suppose. We elect the politicians we get, do we not? I wish there were more bridge players among them. Politicians who have both feet solidly planted in thin air are useless. Fred used the word "stupidity". I dare say that this is stupid beyond belief!

 

Roland

[42]

Stupidity, envy and greediness often rule :( Look what happens in the name of God (our, theirs,....), look how people deal with nature, many more examples can easily be found. Whoever thinks it could be different in bridge is perhaps a dreamer (me included) although the ability to draw conclusions and making reflections is there (at least at a higher level ...ehemm..). We can just do it better by putting things on the table and discuss them - even controversal but always with respect. Then there is hope that people understand where the quality is and where they feel good; and the crowd grows (I know what I am talking of, look at my member number ;)). I feel that my bridgehome is BBO, thanks to you who made it to such a place!!♥♥♥

Caren

[mike777]

This issue is, IMO, very delicate.

 

What constitutes censorship and what constitutes freedom of speech ?

In which context ?

 

A friend of mine used to have political statements in his profile. The statements in themselves were not offensive, but they were definitely "taking a view" about specific issues.

 

Yet he was asked to remove them or be banned.

Talking with me, he complained to me that it was censorship.

 

Was it ?

If this was a republic, yes.

But here we are like guests in someone else's house: somebody who hosts us for free, and legitimately sets the rules.

We might disagree with some or most of the rules (personally, I do believe that BBO has nothing to fear from Swan, at least right now, given the extra lousy interface of Swan).

 

Indeed,  I definitely disagree with Uday's position on the point you raised, but the comparison to censorship seems improper to me: censorship, to me, tends to imply the banning of a legitimate right, that is, the freedom of speech in a public place.

 

But if you are invited at dinner at my place and I ask you not to mention some specific topic, it's not censorship: you are my guest in my house, you are free to leave if you dislike the house's rule.

Well we have had this discussion before. If you invite me to your house and say I cannot discuss something, yes that is censorship. If I yell in your front yard at 2 am in the morning that you are a lousy politician and you call the cops on me, that is censorship.

 

Censorship is not just by governments and is very often legal and ethical.

BTW in an other post they mentioned highlights with other networks logos shown. In fact as technology improves these logos are being edited out! In fact people are being edited out!

[hrothgar]

As far as I can tell there are some bridge politicians who are concerned that BBO is getting to be "too big and powerful". This in itself may not be the problem, but the fact that BBO happens to be an American company makes some Europeans feel threatened by our success.

While I find this attitude regretful, I don't think that it is particularly surprising. BBO's management team has had enormous success promoting this little corner of the bridge world. Let me pose a couple questions (I'm not particularly interested in the answer, however, I think that the questions themselves have some value to them)

 

1. Assume that we treated BBO as a national or even a zonal authority. I'm quite sure that BBO's membership is significantly larger than most countries. I suspect that BBO membership will be larger than most zonal authorities in the near future.

 

2. Assume that we treated BBO as an “event”. If we compare the numbers of tables played during the course of an average week on BBO with other large events like the ACBL Nationals, who comes up on top? Here once, I suspect that BBO has surpassed to competition.

 

For better or worse, you're focal to one of the biggest forces in organized bridge. You don't have the same budget or the number of director reports as the ACBL in Memphis. At the same time, BBO is still undergoing rapid growth while the ACBL and the WBF are struggling.

 

BBO's size makes it a player. The unique nature of the online environment makes it a threat. Online bridge is a classic example of a disruptive technology innovation. As always, the big incumbents like the ACBL and the WBF are having enormous trouble adapting to a rapidly changing environment. As I've noted in the past, I think that “Platform Leadership” is the critical dynamic that will shape online bridge. Successful entities will own one or more platforms which they can use to provide services to their customer base. The BBO client can be viewed as one platform. The Full Disclosure file format is a second. Sadly, the established players don't seem to even recognize the battlefield on which these issues are being decided.

[inquiry]

Well we have had this discussion before. If you invite me to your house and say I cannot discuss something then yes that is censorship. If I yell in your front yard at 2 am in the morning that you are a lousy politician and you call the cops on me, that is censorship.

 

Censorship is not just by governments and is very often legal and ethical.

 

BTW in an other post they mentioned highlights with other networks logos shown. In fact as technology improves these logos are being edited out! In fact people are being edited out!

I think you confuse a couple of issues. Censorship (we will not go all the way back to roman censors), is technically (as far as I am concerned).. the act of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so (this one is taken from freespace.virgin.net).

 

Ok, you would drop the "economic or legislative" part and include things like BBO. But, and this is key, BBO has no power to stop commentors or members who post here from going to rec.games.bridge and posting their views, from printing fliers and pass them out, from starting their own webpages and putting the info on those pages, from opening a public chat line and telling members while they are kibitzing they can go there for personilzed messages and then telling them about it. In fact, despite this "censor" many people continued to repeatedly give the link to swan bridge.

 

What you have here is not censorship in any meaningful way. Censorship exist when you are not allowed access to the material by any means. This requires, in effect, goverment sanctions. Take the movie "Debbie does dallas". You can't rent that from blockbluster, is that censorship by blockbuster? No, because you can get it from other sources (I assume of course, as I have no personal knowledge). Maybe mail order, maybe download from internet, maybe some "sleazy" outlet near or far from you. Now consider a movie with child porn. You can't get that at all. Not from anyway (at least legally). IS that censorship? I guess so (but clearly we all would approve of that type of censorship).

 

What about books about witches and warlocks? Expect to find them at a christian bookstore? IS that censorship? Business and individuals have a right to pick and choose who they associate with (within reason) and what material they allow. If I was throwing a party and had some friends who were very liberal and some who were very conservative and who have come to blows over political discussions in the past, I might very well "Forbid" political discussions at the party, by anyone. IF you come to that party, I would expect you to follow those rules. Is that censorship? Of course not, because everywhere else, in everyway, you are free to share your political views as you see fit. Just not at my party.

 

Here the commentators were free to mention the swan site (just not over and over), and did so. When mrdct mentioned the site, he was apparently "yelled" at by the other commentors (lets call this group censor if you like). But no big hammer fell on him. He was not banned from the BBO site, he got no official sanction (as far as I can tell) from the BBO staff. His action of leaving in mid match might mean he will not be invited back again as a commentator (after all, we need people who will be here when they say will), but that is not up to me to decide.

 

Just as blockbuster decides what to carry, just as christian bookstores decide what to sell, BBO can decide what is and what is not appropriate for their business. Here they made a decision to limit mention of the swansite. What ever else it was, it was not censorship... not in any meaningful interpretation of the word. All you have to do is look at all the mentions that david bird made of that site well after this post was started, or even rolands occaissional mention. And all you have to do is see the lack of force behind the "instruction" to the commentatos and the freedom people had to find this information. For isntacne, click on the world bridge link provided in the news and in links posted by roland and you would EASILY find your way to the swan site due to links on the WBF pages.

 

After all, like blockbuster, if we don't like pornography, we don't have to carry it or help you find it when you come to us for movies. So we don't want to help people find swan... that is life. I doubt they were sending users BBO's way either.

 

Ben

[mike777]

As I said we have had this discussion before. But you did get to the heart of the matter what is the definition of censorship. I strongly disagree with your definition. Censorship is not just by governments. Yes in your example Blockbuster chooses to censor itself and that is ok. If we take government out of the definition we can add in self censorship and corporate censorship and many other sources.

 

As I said I think the vast majority of censorship is welcomed. A lot of free speach is just cheap speach. As in most issues competing rights are involved. One wants knowledge to be free and readily available and one wants to be able to sleep at night without the mob on the front sidewalk all night long. One hates the USA tabloids for hurting many people but we do not want Libel laws as in the UK.

 

The UN has just published the right to free speech and free press but also says diversity is important so restraints on speech and the press are encouraged. Print what you want but do not be mean to those in power is typical doublespeak

[cherdano]

Maybe we need an off-topic/small-talk board? I don't see what the discussion on the definition of censorship has to do with BBO Vugraph issues.

 

To be honest, I would also like to have the title of this thread, which seems unnecessarily aggressive to me, go away, and not have it reappearing everytime I go to forums.bridgebase.com due to some new posts...

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Just as blockbuster decides what to carry, just as christian bookstores decide what to sell, BBO can decide what is and what is not appropriate for their business. Here they made a decision to limit mention of the swansite.

My leftist political leanings are really going to come to the forefront here...

 

I believe that industrial concentration creates implicit and explicit social responsibility. To use your own examples, there is a few big difference between a local Christian bookstore and Walmart. Local Christian bookstores don't have a dominant position in distribution channels. A decision by a local bookseller to stock or not stock a particular item does not have a significant impact on product availability.

 

Walmart is a VERY different beast. Walmart has enormous channel power. There are large numbers of towns where box store distributors are (essentially) the only game in town. Back in 1999, Walmart decided that the company would not fill prescriptions for emergency-contraception. The company was forced to back down under the threat of legal action. I certainly don't want to start a debate about Walmart (or worse yet abortion)- I simply want to point that there are some strong arguments that run counter to your line of reasoning.

 

From my own perspective, BBO is approaching monopoly status. Associated with this, I believe that the management has an obligation to ensure that they are behaving in a socially responsible manner. Unlike the case of people versus Walmart, bridge players really don't have any external course of remedy. With this said and done, I do believe that its in BBO own best interest to avoid conflict (or the perception of conflict) with the user base.

[mike777]

[there is a few big difference between a local Christian bookstore and Walmart. Local Christian bookstores don't have a dominant position in distribution channels. A decision by a local bookseller to stock or not stock a particular item does not have a significant impact on product availability.

 

Walmart is a VERY different beast. Walmart has enormous channel power. There are large numbers o towns where box store distributors are (essentially) the only game in town. Back in 1999, Walmart decided that the company would not fill prescriptions for emergency-contraception. The company was forced to back down under the threat of legal action. I certainly don't want to start a debate about Walmart (or worse yet abortion)- I simply want to point that there are some strong arguments that run counter to your line of reasoning.

 

From my own perspective, BBO is approaching monopoly status. Associated with this, I believe that the management has an obligation to ensure that they are behaving in a socially responsible manner. Unlike the case of people versus Walmart, bridge players really don't have any external course of remedy. With this said and done, I do believe that its in BBO own best interest to avoid conflict (or the perception of conflict) with the user base.

Interesting post.

 

As I just finished a book that postulates that the entire world body of knowledge doubles every 3-4 years, I post this. This means knowledge increases at an exponential rate.

 

A few points. Keep in mind Sears used to be the giant. Walmart is huge but it can be beaten and go broke. Think of shopping in a virtual world, with touch, smell, etc?

 

Uday pointed out in another post that BBO cannot be used on PDA and many other portable units.

I can certainly envision BBO beng supplemented as technology drastically increases. BBO may stay on top or some bright 16 year old from India Tech school may have Killer app the we all move to.

 

Wireless bridge?

Holographic Virtual bridge?

Team match leagues?

Chip in our heads bridge? ok I think my partners say I got this one now ;).

[Clinch]

From my own perspective, BBO is approaching monopoly status.  Associated with this, I believe that the management has an obligation to ensure that they are behaving in a socially responsible manner. 

I tend to agree. What is unclear to me is what the long term business plan or vision is for BBO.

 

Uday refers to Swan as a "competitor" in an earlier post. In what way? Why is it not a good thing to have more bridge, wherever you can get it? Are local clubs competitors? Is the vugraph available in Estoril a competitor?

 

I get confused when I read some of these threads. I'm sure I can't be alone. This whole thing about being invited into someone's home (presumably because the service is free) just doesn't reconcile itself with a description of swan as competition (presumably because BBO wants to make money).

 

There are also a lot of statements in "management" responses that I feel are designed to curtail discussion, rather than to encourage it, along the lines of:

 

- That's a pretty low priority for us right now.

- It doesn't feel right to me, so we are not doing it.

- I'm not particularly interested in whether anyone agrees or not.

 

These are not direct quotes, but they are typical of several littered across threads. Maybe they are ok when the enterprise is a couple of guys in a room seeing if they can build a good product that will fly. When the enterprise gets bigger, questions of civic responsibility do arise.

 

Like just about everyone, I think the majority of the time, BBO gets it right. That is why it is so popular.

 

I still don't see the end-game, though. When I see threads that say the World Championships were a triumph for BBO, then I really don't see the end-game. What good thing does world domination give us?

 

Peter.

New York, NY.

[reisig]

I can't speak for other commentators - but noone ever even suggested that I NOT mention another site. So - I have no idea where all this started. None of the commentators that I know have ever said anything to me about what can be discussed or not discussed during a vugraph session.

[inquiry]

Well, I will take exception to the suggestion that Bridge Base is a monopoly. Even if there was no competition, there is no large bar to entering the market place. All you need is a a programmer or two and a server and good internet connection to establish competition. This is exactly how BBO overtook the two big dogs in the online bridge kennel (okbridge and MSN) in about two years. But the fact of the matter is that today there are plenty of other bridge sites, TopBridge, Bridge Club LIVE, e-bridge, swan bridge, Funbridge, MSN, Stepbridge, okbridge, to name a few. In addition, some of the commercial bridge software allows you to connect to others and play on the internet. There is also things like floater. And, as noted above, there is nothing to stop a few people from getting together and trying to create a better gaming site. As good as BBO is, it is not yet perfect. I will mention that no other site that I have visited come closes to BBO in quality for me.

 

And what we are talking about here is simply information. The information that was “censored” was that Swan bridge site had real-time result data. We will ignore for a moment that it took over a week for this “censorship” to start, and that this censorship was really just a restriction on overly promoting the other site. For sake of argument, we will say that it was a total ban that everyone had to follow.

 

Would this be censorship even by the very large standard of the definition that mike777 wants to use (any restriction whatsoever on “freedom of speech”)—here we will use speech very broadly to include typed words by commentors on a bridge playing website.

 

No doubt, as well all know, the right to free speech is not unlimited. For example. Limits on free speech - no right is absolute. There are certain kinds of speech which are restricted. For example: Slanderous speech is not allowed, as you cannot destroy a person's reputation by spreading false information. Neither is seditious speech - calling for the overthrow of the government.

 

Other restrictions on Free Speech are equally well established. But lets examine what “freedom of speech” is based upon legally. In the US, it is called the First amendment to the constitution, which reads.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

There it is, in black or white. Freedom of speech is related to what congress CAN NOT DO. Congress can not ban speech. That is what is guaranteed, no laws against freedom of speech. And I will assure you, in case you where wondering, Congress really, truly had nothing to do with the banning of discussion of the swan bridge site during the vugraph.

 

Now we all know that expression is a form of speech. Some schools limit what people can wear to class (must wear uniforms, can not wear gang colors, etc). By what authority do the schools (which in these cases I assume are public) exercise such authority? If congress can make no such rules, I think the same would apply to lower ranking government units (state, county, city, etc). Want me to protest against your schools ban on miniskirts, I am there. Ban on gang colors, I support you in theory, but you are on your own with that one. But nowhere is there a prohibition on what private companies can or can not withhold from their “broadcast” or “printed material”.

 

That is why what happens on BBO forum and BBO game site are not "censorship", nor an abridgement of the freedom of speech. As I said earlier, the commentors had plenty of other means by which to share their information. Let me give but one more example. Imagine the republican party holding a convention. Why don’t we see people up there on the stage telling us why we should vote for the demoncrat? Are the republicans against Freedom of Speech? OF course not. To find the demoncrats, look outside at the protestors, or at the democratic convention, or on TV and newspaper ads. The demoncrats are no more denied their constitutional rights by not being able to speak at the republican national convention than was Swan by not having people sing its praises live during BBO vugraphs.

 

Too many people take the simplistic, dogmatic view that “freedom of speech” means every thing they want to say, and when they want to say it is constitutionally guaranteed. I assure you, this is simply not the case, and in more ways than you don’t have the right to yell “fire” in a crowed theatre for fun. You have a legal right to express your views, but BBO has no legal obligation to allow you to express those views (whatever they might be) on their gaming site. Type something derogatory in your online profile, and you will be truly censored by the BBO police..... freedom of expression? Yes, you have it. And BBO has freedom of expression too.. freedom to remove you from their site if you behave in an inappropriate manner.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Well, I will take exception to the suggestion that Bridge Base is a monopoly. Even if there was no competition, there is no large bar to entering the market place. All you need is a a programmer or two and a server and good internet connection to establish competition. This is exactly how BBO overtook the two big dogs in the online bridge kennel (okbridge and MSN) in about two years.

Barriers to entry take many forms. You are certainly correct that a couple programmers could, in theory, sit down and create their own own online bridge site. However, this is VERY different from establishing a viable competitive server.

 

There is a very basic concept in business known as a network effect. A network effect occurs when the "value" of a system is a geometric function of the number of users. The best known example of this "Metcalf's Law" which states that the value of a computer network is proportional the square of the number of nodes. While this might sound very ivory tower, it actually has quite a lot of explanatory power: 15 years ago, computer networking was characterized by a large number of private networks (AOL, Compuserve, Genie, MSN, The_Well, any number of BBS, ...). Over time, all of these networks were subsumed into this wonderful Internet that we all know and love. The reasons behind this had nothing to do with the management experitise of Bill Gates or Steve Case or whomever. Rather, its a simple fact of life that one network with 100 users is many times more useful than two networks each containing 50 users. There is a lot of business literature out there which studies network effects and tries to predict how the market will consolidate.

 

I'd argue that Online Bridge is an example of a market which is likely to be dominated by network effects.

 

1. The ability of players to find games is a function of the size of the user base. In turn, this creates feedback loops benefitting large sites.

2. Third party application developers focus on the largest market segments, creating an additional feedback loop

 

It is certainly possible to markets to tip. As you yourself note, BBO was able to displace an entrenched competitor. However, it should be noted that BBO penetrated the market by leveraging a radically different business model (free pricing as opposed to $100 - $200 annual usage fees). More significantly, OKB's management team seemed to lose interest in improving the site. From my perspective, they went into a mode in which that were trying to milk the user base for as much money as possible before exiting the business.

[mike777]

Well, I will take exception to the suggestion that Bridge Base is a monopoly. Even if there was no competition, there is no large bar to entering the market place. All you need is a a programmer or two and a server and good internet connection to establish competition.  This is exactly how BBO overtook the two big dogs in the online bridge kennel (okbridge and MSN) in about two years.

Barriers to entry take many forms. You are certainly correct that a couple programmers could, in theory, sit down and create their own own online bridge site. However, this is VERY different from establishing a viable competitive server.

 

There is a very basic concept in business known as a network effect. A network effect occurs when the "value" of a system is a geometric function of the number of users. The best known example of this "Metcalf's Law" which states that the value of a computer network is proportional the square of the number of nodes. While this might sound very ivory tower, it actually has quite a lot of explanatory power: 15 years ago, computer networking was characterized by a large number of private networks (AOL, Compuserve, Genie, MSN, The_Well, any number of BBS, ...). Over time, all of these networks were subsumed into this wonderful Internet that we all know and love. The reasons behind this had nothing to do with the management experitise of Bill Gates or Steve Case or whomever. Rather, its a simple fact of life that one network with 100 users is many times more useful than two networks each containing 50 users. There is a lot of business literature out there which studies network effects and tries to predict how the market will consolidate.

 

I'd argue that Online Bridge is an example of a market which is likely to be dominated by network effects.

 

1. The ability of players to find games is a function of the size of the user base. In turn, this creates feedback loops benefitting large sites.

2. Third party application developers focus on the largest market segments, creating an additional feedback loop

 

It is certainly possible to markets to tip. As you yourself note, BBO was able to displace an entrenched competitor. However, it should be noted that BBO penetrated the market by leveraging a radically different business model (free pricing as opposed to $100 - $200 annual usage fees). More significantly, OKB's management team seemed to lose interest in improving the site. From my perspective, they went into a mode in which that were trying to milk the user base for as much money as possible before exiting the business.

Well the progression may go from pay to play to free play to get paid to play.

 

Many studies show people care alot about privacy but even more are willing to sell it at the right price!

 

If bandwidth is in theory basically costfree and unlimited then as practice approaches theory, all heck breaks lose. As computational speeds approach 10 to the 42nd power cps things get real cheap. IBM is close to 10 to the 11th cps now.

[inquiry]

Sorry Richard, but the BBO model proves you wrong. When BBO started it had a hard time fielding two or three tables. OKBRIDGE had over 100,000 paying customers if I remember correctly. MSN Zone (and before that Gaming zone with the funky little castles) had lots of members too.

 

IF unbeatable network effects prevented others from winning, then BBO would not have stood a chance. Yet it grew from a hundred members to thousands in no time. And with was when OKBRIDGE had a lot of good players to act as a draw for those wanting to test their mettle.

 

Even today, okbridge and other sites offer things BBO will not. Rating systems for instance. Those who value an online rating system for all players may prefer the other sites. I also know people who swear the OKBRIDGE GUI is better than BBO's (no one thinks swan is better). I prefer BBO's. Still others think the average play level on OKBRIDGE is higher, and prefer that site. Again I disagree, but there you go. Choice abounds. Maybe as mike points out, the person who makes a PDA-version GUI might win the next battle. Or maybe the site with the best robots (someone might add JACK), who knows. But I know all about "network effects" and barrier to entry... I have posted and written extensively on the microsoft monopoly case. But whatever you think about barrier to entry, the one here is low, and it is not clear that BBO even has a monopoly. At anyone time, there has never even been 10,000 users on line at one time. How many bridge players do you think there are in the world. I am willing to bet you that less than 10% (well less) of all Bridge players have even HEARD the name BridgeBase Online.

[Walddk]

The whole issue is ridiculously simple. If I owned BBO, I would definitely not advertise for any other bridge site, using a link that has the name of that site in it. Is that so strange?

 

I own a bridge bridge centre 20 miles North of Copenhagen. Do I advertise for the three bridge centres in Copenhagen? Of course not! Do they advertise for me? Of course not! Everybody knows that we are all there, and trust me, if people really are interested in knowing about them all, they will find out.

 

Just like they will find out about BBO's "competitors" if that is their wish. We can't and should not stop them, but it would be totally wrong to feed them with information about how to go about it. Quality will prevail, and the customers are smart enough to figure out where that quality is.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

While we are on the subject of monopolies, Swan Games had a monopoly on "real time" scores (See fred's post). Yet they did not provide for their "readers" a statement on the page in real time that said... "hey, you can watch this match live on BBO vugraph" along with a link.

 

Since that data (real time) was only provided to swan, that was a real monopoly with no chance for competition. Go attack swan if you believe information wants to be free. As for me, I think Swan had no obligation (zero) to mention BBO.

[hrothgar]

Sorry Richard, but the BBO model proves you wrong. When BBO started it had a hard time fielding two or three tables. OKBRIDGE had over 100,000 paying customers if I remember correctly. MSN Zone (and before that Gaming zone with the funky little castles) had lots of members too.

There are certainly examples in which which competitor's have successfully established themselves despite the presence of network effects. BBO is an obvious example. However, this type of displacement doesn't result from 1:1 competition. In the case of BBO, the new enterent was able to competed based on price. Fred and company offered a completely free bridge site compared to OKB which charged $100 a year. BBO offered a number of other perks - the chance to play with/against Fred was certainly a draw during the early days. Personally, I switched over when I became convinced that OKB wasn't innovating any more.

 

Its also possible for a market to segment itself in the presence of Network effects. For example, it could be argued that the market has segmented based on the quality of players. The "jokers" who can't follow suit play on the MSN game Zone. The best of the best play on OKB. These players value the $100 membership fee as a barrier to entry that weeds out the riff-raff (this is the so-called country club argument). Intermediate players flock to BBO. Obviously, its also possible to segement based on language or some other criteria. Even so, I suspect that if we had good statsitics available, they'd demonstrate steady concentration.

 

Lets turn and consider what would be necessary for a new enterant to successfully establish themself. Price competition is no longer available as an avenue for differentiation. (Pretty damn hard to undercut free). BBO is up and running on WINE, which means that you can't differentiate based on client support. (I doubt that the PDA market is large enough to support a competing service). If I were going to try to break into the market, I'd probably focus on Chinese language support. It might be possible some kind of standards based play; Establish an open interface between the client and the server and try to promote a competitive market for GUIs. However, my gut says that the market isn't big enough to support this.

[hrothgar]

While we are on the subject of monopolies, Swan Games had a monopoly on "real time" scores (See fred's post). Yet they did not provide for their "readers" a statement on the page in real time that said... "hey, you can watch this match live on BBO vugraph" along with a link.

 

Since that data (real time) was only provided to swan, that was a real monopoly with no chance for competition. Go attack swan if you believe information wants to be free. As for me, I think Swan had no obligation (zero) to mention BBO.

The leadership of terrorist organizations like El Qaeda never signed the Geneva Convention. However, this isn't grounds for the United States to go arround torturing detainees.

 

When you admire and respect individuals, you hope that they will choose to do the right thing, even when those arround them behave less admirably.

[Walddk]

Excuse me, Richard, but what has this political manifesto to do with this thread? I thought this was a bridge forum.

 

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

Bill Gates took on a monolithic IBM and won (absolute power corrupts absolutely while absolute dominance induces absolute complacency)

Did Fred et al take on OKB etc.? Who knows. What I do know is that I love what they have done and until they betray the goals and ideals that I admire then they have my support.

[mike777]

Sorry Richard, but the BBO model proves you wrong. When BBO started it had a hard time fielding two or three tables. OKBRIDGE had over 100,000 paying customers if I remember correctly. MSN Zone (and before that Gaming zone with the funky little castles) had lots of members too.

There are certainly examples in which which competitor's have successfully established themselves despite the presence of network effects. BBO is an obvious example. However, this type of displacement doesn't result from 1:1 competition. In the case of BBO, the new enterent was able to competed based on price. Fred and company offered a completely free bridge site compared to OKB which charged $100 a year. BBO offered a number of other perks - the chance to play with/against Fred was certainly a draw during the early days. Personally, I switched over when I became convinced that OKB wasn't innovating any more.

 

Its also possible for a market to segment itself in the presence of Network effects. For example, it could be argued that the market has segmented based on the quality of players. The "jokers" who can't follow suit play on the MSN game Zone. The best of the best play on OKB. These players value the $100 membership fee as a barrier to entry that weeds out the riff-raff (this is the so-called country club argument). Intermediate players flock to BBO. Obviously, its also possible to segement based on language or some other criteria. Even so, I suspect that if we had good statsitics available, they'd demonstrate steady concentration.

 

Lets turn and consider what would be necessary for a new enterant to successfully establish themself. Price competition is no longer available as an avenue for differentiation. (Pretty damn hard to undercut free). BBO is up and running on WINE, which means that you can't differentiate based on client support. (I doubt that the PDA market is large enough to support a competing service). If I were going to try to break into the market, I'd probably focus on Chinese language support. It might be possible some kind of standards based play; Establish an open interface between the client and the server and try to promote a competitive market for GUIs. However, my gut says that the market isn't big enough to support this.

As I said you can beat free. Pay players to play bridge. All you need is a workable model.

 

BBO on a cellphone, hmm whatever a cellphone is?

 

A very old issue, there was a tiny market for ESPN and for VCR's until marketing created one. Chicken or Egg problem. Do you find a demand and create a product for it or do you find a product and create a demand for it. See Sony Walkman. See IPod. If music went to IPod and now video is going tiny, I see no reason why Bridge cannot. I repeat just think really tiny like Nanobots. I see no reason why computers cannot be internalized, only takes time and smart people.

 

btw would not be surprised to see the Zone go wireless and tiny in the foreseeable future. You can play alot of games on a tiny but clear screen. BTw2 I see the "electronic paper" is coming out. If newspapers become readable on tiny screens, bridge must be right behind it.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/tc_nm/...mn_pluggedin_dc