[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Nov 7 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 7 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2005, 11:45 PM, said:

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]

inquiry, on Nov 7 2005, 11:50 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Nov 7 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 7 2005, 11:45 PM, said:

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

[hrothgar]

I have a friend who owns a Cellphone gaming company called "Unplugged".
About a year ago we actually looked in to whether or not it would be possible to do a version of BBO for cell phones. We decided that it wouldn't work: The main problem was one of demographics: People playing games on cell phones are TYPICALLY killing 2-3 minutes sitting on a bus or waiting for a movie to start. The usage pattern really didn't seem to match a game like bridge.

I was convinced (and still am) that Bridge Master might be a good fit for cell phones. Short discrete problems seemed like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we couldn't get the GUI to look decent. Showing the "right" way to play hands was especially problematic.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Nov 8 2005, 12:59 AM, said:

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

Its called an analogy.
People use them for the purpose of illustration.

[pclayton]

I was wondering when the Left would insert itself into this argument.

Pure and simple, BBO is a business enterprise of Fred, Sheri and Uday and whomever else has invested capital. It doesn't owe 'anybody' 'anything'. It has no obligations to the bridge community, much less to social causes and being 'responsible'. It does not receive funding from government sources and any revenue it may or may not get from sponsoring organizations is 100% earned. If you don't like the content, you are free to turn it off (not sign on).

People like free bridge. BBO provides great content in exchange for the opportunity to advertise its wares and make a buck. It’s a fair exchange all around.

Who knows what Fred's incentive is for providing vugraph? Personally, I would hope he does it for the sole reason of generating interest in BBO and to ultimately make BBO a more profitable enterprise.

BBO doesn't have to justify its rules regarding the content that its commentators provide. I commentate occasionally and I think it’s a huge privilege. If a yellow asked me not to mention OKB or Swan, I would gladly comply (although that didn't happen during the BB sessions I did). If I didn't comply (for whatever my reason) I would not complain about free speech if I were asked not to commentate anymore and have the privilege (there’s that word again) to commentate.

Free speech doesn't apply. BBO is strictly a private enterprise. While I suppose the 'internet' and the pathways it runs over (not only public utilities but also "airspace" in the case of wireless) are all 'public' entities, BBO is a private enterprise. It is membership based, and as some of us have seen, membership is a 'right', not a 'privilege.

Uday and Fred are being accommodating to those who complain about censorship. Personally, I'd tell them all to stick it.

[luke warm]

42, on Nov 7 2005, 11:54 AM, said:

I feel that my bridgehome is BBO, thanks to you who made it to such a place!!♥♥♥
Caren

you're welcome

[DrTodd13]

The Internet is actually an almost entirely private institution. Your ISP should be able to dictate whatever terms they like for you to use their service. BBO is an entirely private
organization and as such should be able to set all of its own rules. Membership on BBO is a privilege granted by Fred, not a "right." You never have a "right" to use or take anything belonging to someone else. Personally, I think the vast majority of people have deluded themselves into believing that they believe this to be true. It is true but people don't understand the ramifications of this believe and they aren't willing to change their positions so that their personal philosophy is consistent. If you really believe in freedom and property then you have to believe that people have a right to do things that you don't like so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Fred would be within his rights if he banned the French or women from BBO. He would be an ass if he did such a thing but he still has the right to do it. The rest of us have a right to express our agreement/disagreement by either continuing to use BBO or not.

I've made a pretty long journey from defacto Democrat, to Republican, to Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist driven by belief that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against anyone. Many people will say they believe that but one consequence of this belief is that all taxes are immoral because they ultimately derive from using guns to force people to pay if they refuse. <rant temporarily off my chest>

My point is that some of us believe in private property so of course we'll say Fred can do whatever he wants. Others believe ultimately that individuals have no rights and that "the good of society" is the ultimate goal and those people will use force to prevent a minority from offending a majority.

[luke warm]

i philosophically fall on the side of private property rights... in general i believe that a free market will, eventually, arrive at the right answer

on the monopoly question, imo the whole concept has a bad image... monopolies in and of themselves aren't inherently evil... i'm speaking of free market monopolies, gov't monopolies are almost wholly evil.. anyway that's my story and i'm sticking to it

[pclayton]

Well lets not mix the economic with the political here.

Maybe the gnome can check in on this, but I don't how BBO could ever be considered a monopoly, as a monopoly not only has limited (or none) competition, but there are also barriers to competition (not the case - an aspiring programmer could set up his own site) or that demand will remain constant, even if prices are raised or lowered (also not the case - its free (duh)).

[luke warm]

that's true phil, but just because it's free now doesn't mean it will be forever... as far as philosophy goes, there isn't any difference between the economic and political imo... it would be hard for me to construct a scenario where i favor one pholosophy in the economic case and the other philosophy in the political case

the point is, even if bbo doesn't remain free, the market will decide whether and for how long any monopoly exists

[Echognome]

As I was asked, just to clarify some of the economic points.

*To be considered a monopoly, the usual consideration is about a 50% market share and no other large firm (e.g. not duopoly).

*Monopolies (and duopolies, oligopolies) are typical in markets where there are entry barriers.

*I believe online bridge to have some barriers to entry, but not anywhere near say the barriers to entry for operating systems or building airplanes. There are definitely some network effects and we wouldn't expect a competitor to be able to displace BBO overnight.

*Monopolies are not a bad thing just because they are a monopoly. These network effects tell us this exact statement in BBO's case. BBO is partly a great program because lots of people play here. BBO is popular because it's a great program. The two feed off each other.

*I don't think the social responsibility issue was meant for a company the size of BBO. I think it was mainly meant for companies like the giant pharmaceuticals, microsoft, walmart, etc. Although, I do believe that it's a legitimate concern for those companies. (the last statement being my opinion, not a fact)


Now aside from the economic concerns (or should I say ECHO-nomic concerns), my personal view from this thread is that the censorship issue has been overblown. No one is required to advertise for their rival and if I am a company and am going to have someone represent me (even a volunteer!), then I can choose the way in which I want to be represented. If the volunteer doesn't like it, they don't have to volunteer! Second, it doesn't sound to me like the volunteers were actually censored in any way. They were requested, but not ordered to keep from mentioning swan.

I'm not quite sure where the political issues come into this thread, but I am firmly on the left and don't see what the problem is here.

Just my tuppence.