Squilliam said:
Nintendo gave the customers what they want, but they ignored the wishes of many of the developers and publishers. The developers responded by ignoring the Wii. Of course Sony/Microsoft failed to listen to the consumers as much as they needed to, and they were ignored when someone else did it better. The clear winner in the next generation will be the console maker to give the market what they want. If theres a clear winner in the next generation then its because they deserve to win and the others deserve to lose.
There are also several examples of how they work well with others. For example they control Direct 3d, but instead of dictating the direction of the industry they work with developers and hardware makers. If you listen to some of the presentations they have a fair and cooperative mindset and they listen to what the developers and hardware makers want. They can be too cooperative sometimes, as seen with the Intel GPU/Vista ready debacle. Nintendo in this market hasn't dropped the price, thats an example of a monopolistic practice which all parties would succumb to, not just Microsoft
The market is always strongest when there is one clear leader. The industry itself has a natural monopolistic nature, because the one console that wins isn't always the one which is the best, but the one which wins the war on the ground and gathers the most momentum. This isn't a market where different telephone makers can co-exist, the three console players are three closed networks. Its like having 3 different telephone companies, but they cannot call each other. So in that market one telephone company will win a majority of consumers.
|
|
The concept of a company "deserving to win" because of sales is false perception and total unfounded on truth. This has never been the case since consumer perception and action doesn't always dictate the quality and value of a product and company intent for the consumer.
Doesn't matter because it still doesn't excuse Microsoft history and present actions. As a company Microsoft has done both good and bad things. But it doesn't change the fact that their business mentality has been pro-monopolist/anti-competitive as proven numerous times in a court of law.
Natural monopoly agree with as with what happened to Nintendo with the NES having 95% of marketshare, but with Microsoft it has been proven that this isn't the case with them.
We alll know you love Microsoft and the 360 here, and you are entitled to a preference with respect. But let's not sugar coat their past history and common current trends for the sake of all industries and the consumers.
