Author: Graham Laight
Date: 06:44:24 11/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
This was a good post by Fernando. However, it the analysis was correct, one would expect to find a fairly even distribution of sales. I suspect that if you analysed sales, you would probably find that Genius and CM were the best sellers. The reason for thinking this is that the most important thing in marketing is to be the first. More specifically, the first name into the prospect's mind. If you are too late to be first, you have to invent a new category in which you can be first (e.g. chess playing program, strong chess playing program, beginner's chess playing program, fully featured chess playing program etc). Reference: The 22 Immutable Laws Of Marketing by Al Ries and Jack Trout On November 02, 1998 at 18:43:08, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi: >The long thread about microsoft becoming a chess monopoly and/or Chessbase being >the Microsoft of chess programming busines has some flaws in the economic side >of the analysis I would like to fix to expel from your hearts the panic you >have :-). >To become a monopoly is not enought the financial potential to become one; it is >neccesary nobody else has the potential to do the same. in fact monopoly, more >than an issue of market share, is an issue of critical mass of financial >resources. You become monopoly when the market AND the product are such that a >next phase of development requires huge amounts of capital that in the long run >are available for only one or two great players. This market mut be very great >AND the product should requiere a huge expoenditure of money to get aditional >progress. Examples are computer, airplanes, cars industries... When this factor >concur, sooner or later the first David Crockets of the industry vanish as much >thet cannot get enough money to do so. Take a look at the automobile industry in >the beginning of this century and you will see how many little factories existed >producing sometimes incredibles cars, a lot better that the A Fords that got the >lyon share very soon, but they had not the money to produce in mass quantities >and/or invest in the heavy machinery required to multiply the output, to begin >with. So they were crushed. >But in this industry the requisites are very different. Professional Chess >programming is not a great market that requires a huge investment in >distribution channels to be reached and coped. And a chess program is not a >product that requires much more that the wit of the producer. In other words, >anybody with enough skill and interest has the chance to become a player here, >to be known as a player, although this fact does not means that every player >will get enough money from it. >The danger for this field is not that Chessbase or any other will close the >avenues to any other creative guy, because they cannot do so, but, on the >contrary, the danger is too much players for the market such as is it. So the >problem of the future -or present- is the opposite: not an uncoming monopoly, >but too much players or, in other words, lack of monopoly if you wish. We can >see this issue in the follwoing way: If no big companies are available to take >care of this tiny market employing, let us say, a dozen or so first class >programmers, these last should survive on personal ground and initiative and >many of them wont make it. Instead of a dozen productive programmer working for >two or three companies, we will have 12 magnific independent guys out of >business. Which is the best outcome? >Fernando
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.