Quote:
Originally Posted by balok
In a way, they are forcing people to buy and use it. I'll explain why. Let's say I buy a Sony Reader. A couple years later, the reader klonks out. I look at the various products available, and I conclude that the Bookeen device is a better choice. I would like to get that one, but I can't because I have tons of BBeB books I still want to read. So I buy another Sony Reader. With what may be inferior product, Sony keeps us captive because of their proprietary format. I think that's anti-competitive.
|
I'm sorry, but this is simply a common sense way to do business. I could re-write the above paragraph and say:
Let's say I buy a Canon camera. A couple years later, the camera klonks out. I look at the various products available, and I conclude that the Nikon camera is a better choice. I would like to get that one, but I can't because I have tons of Canon lenses that I still want to use. So I buy another Canon camera. With what may be inferior product, Canon keeps us captive because of their proprietary lens fittings. I think that's anti-competitive.
Or:
Let's say I buy a Microsoft XBox. A couple years later, the console klonks out. I look at the various products available, and I conclude that the Sony Playstation is a better choice. I would like to get that one, but I can't because I have tons of XBox games I still want to play. So I buy another XBox. With what may be inferior product, Microsoft keeps us captive because of their proprietary format. I think that's anti-competitive.
See what I mean? Virtually any manufacturer which sells a base product, and then relies on the customer buying "add ons" for it operates the same way. It's not anti-competitive, but good business sense.