Home > Speaker's Corner

You want Casino?

sarek_home
20 Dec 04, 13:33

The point being multiple sources acknowledge social problems associate with casino and yet SIS said: "If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now."

The fact that SIS does not know casinos can go bankrupt and there are social problems with casino show that his pot is much darker. The fact is that SIS knows little of the casino issue.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Actually I don't know wat is your point. In the end u post a few questions from the parliament and so ? These questions r being looked into isn't it ? U can ask any reasonable question u want but tat doesn't signified anything. It just meant tat the gov is studying deep into the issue and see the possible problems tat may arises. Maybe other than cutting and pasting, it may be better for u to address the things u want to say yourself.
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 14:31

Creative produced the first actual working soundcard (Sound Blaster card), and have emerged as the standard. Because of this, most cards and software applications are marked as Sound Blaster compatible.
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 14:40

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why don't u ask other people and see if they do have tis impression or not ? Does tis line have any significant impact to the thread or having a casino in singapore ? I guess I am right about u as well. All your points appeared to have been curbed and the only thing u can do now is resort to attack me.
When u 1st said that casino cannot go bankrupt, I knew u are wrong already. So pls admit ur mistake, if u ever,instead of saying the other party is attacking u personally.
sarek_home
20 Dec 04, 14:40

Please take note that SIS is the moron who said "They don't need an edge to be successful."

You should read:

Dec 17, 2004
Casinos: Economic costs as big as any benefits

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=post_display&post_id=2496196

Originally posted by vito_corleone:
breadtalk and other bakeries are the SAME KIND OF BUSINESS you moron. osim and otto are also in the SAME kind of business. and yes you DO NEED AN EDGE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. having an edge over their opponents is what made companies like creative stand out. and yes, for all of you who go on bitching about declining morals and stuff, go read today's straits times article about how GAMBLING HAS MADE MACAU THRIVE WITHOUT HURTING THE MORALITY OF THE MACAU PEOPLE, i cant believe a regime propaganda machine just said something that is actually true for once.
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 14:42

Originally posted by vito_corleone to stupidissmart
you obviously have no entrepreneurship in you.. haven't you heard the phrase NO PAIN NO GAIN, NO RISK NO PROFIT? if all the world's businessmen and leaders were like you, boy this would be a VERY VERY POOR and BORING WORLD.
I am interested to know if there are entrepreneurship in u too?
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 15:12

Originally posted by Tian Mo:
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lyn/soundcardhistory.ppt

I do a quick search and guess wat stupidissmart... the earliest sound card for PC is actually Adlib in 1987 before soundblaster in 1988 in slide 25 of the above powerpoint. So therefore... sarek_home also fail to check up on his facts before commenting
if u read the doc carefully, the earliest sound card for PC isn't Adlib.

hint: read the prev slide.
stupidissmart
20 Dec 04, 15:28

The point being multiple sources acknowledge social problems associate with casino and yet SIS said: "If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now."
Frankly, the point of argument again is on me and the multiple sources from wat u claim r just questions in doubt, not matter of fact. Everyone had questions of doubt, but tat doesn't means it is right or wrong. And again, the point which I had said before cannot be proved wrong either. Who can say the effect of casino has not been seened from the turf clubs or floating casinoes ?

The fact that SIS does not know casinos can go bankrupt and there are social problems with casino show that his pot is much darker. The fact is that SIS knows little of the casino issue.
The fact is again, tat u do not know wat is the first sound card as well and your pot is worse, since u r so confident with your wrong analysis while for my case, it is a mere personal opinion. The truth is, the number of casinoes going bankrupt is faw and few in between

Creative produced the first actual working soundcard (Sound Blaster card), and have emerged as the standard. Because of this, most cards and software applications are marked as Sound Blaster compatible.
The question is who invented the sound card. No one is asking which sound card is more popular or successful but who is the inventor for it. Clearly shown in the slides it is anyone but creative.

Please take note that SIS is the moron who said "They don't need an edge to be successful."
I thought I had explained before the edge, which u had been using is on whether the land of singapore is giving extra favourable business opportunity to business such as breadtalk, osim or creative. Clearly it has not. But too bad for u, u just wanna see the things u wanna see and u clearly ignore the previous reply to it. U can pretend to be ignorant if u want to.

if u read the doc carefully, the earliest sound card for PC isn't Adlib
It is anyone but creative. Tta is the important part.
greengoblin
20 Dec 04, 15:31

Design by Williams/Watts/Baker for Olivetti Computers, Italy PC1 –XT clone – 1987
PC1 - 8088 4.77Mhz, color, mouse, Sound Card – similar to Commodore SFX - FM 8 channels
DOS 3.2
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 15:33

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The question is who invented the sound card. No one is asking which sound card is more popular or successful but who is the inventor for it. Clearly shown in the slides it is anyone but creative
I am not replying to a question. But u, sarak_home & tian mo are indeed incorrect regarding the sound card thing.
SnowFlag
20 Dec 04, 15:34

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
It is anyone but creative. Tta is the important part.
i am taking to tian mo, not u.
sarek_home
20 Dec 04, 15:55

Here is where you read it wrong with the "context" you set. The guy who said: "and yes you DO NEED AN EDGE TO BE SUCCESSFUL." know how to read. You don't.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I thought I had explained before the edge, which u had been using is on whether the land of singapore is giving extra favourable business opportunity to business such as breadtalk, osim or creative. Clearly it has not. But too bad for u, u just wanna see the things u wanna see and u clearly ignore the previous reply to it. U can pretend to be ignorant if u want to.
sarek_home
20 Dec 04, 16:03

What do you means as "questions in doubt"? What is the doubt about? Why there is doublt?

The questions are raised because of the fact that there are social problems assoicated with casino. The doubt is on why we are going for casino even when the fact that casino leads to socal problems.

The fact is Bahama bans its people from the casino. It is not a question. It is a policy.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Frankly, the point of argument again is on me and the multiple sources from wat u claim r just questions in doubt, not matter of fact. Everyone had questions of doubt, but tat doesn't means it is right or wrong. And again, the point which I had said before cannot be proved wrong either. Who can say the effect of casino has not been seened from the turf clubs or floating casinoes ?
sarek_home
20 Dec 04, 16:12

I wonder what do you means as my "wrong analysis"?

The fact that someone has to do a search to find out this historical footnote make my inaccurate understanding of sound card history understandable.

The fact that you were eager to make claim that the beeping sound were from some sound card show how speculative you are.

Where do you get this truth of "the number of casinoes going bankrupt is faw and few in between"? Why don't you read this one:

http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=post_display&post_id=2496196

"If the ICR is extremely successful, there may be a positive spillover
into nearby hotels, restaurants, pubs or entertainment venues. But
this would be the rare and lucky case. Statistically, 30 to 40 per
cent of gaming facilities fail, with a large proportion surviving, but
not very well."

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The fact is again, tat u do not know wat is the first sound card as well and your pot is worse, since u r so confident with your wrong analysis while for my case, it is a mere personal opinion. The truth is, the number of casinoes going bankrupt is faw and few in between
stupidissmart
20 Dec 04, 18:05

I am not replying to a question. But u, sarak_home & tian mo are indeed incorrect regarding the sound card thing.
Strictly speaking, I am correct in saying tat creative is not the one tat invented the sound card.

Here is where you read it wrong with the "context" you set. The guy who said: "and yes you DO NEED AN EDGE TO BE SUCCESSFUL." know how to read. You don't.
The question is: What is S'pore edge in this casino dollar competition? Can you tell

Tis is the question u had given in the previous reply. Wat does tis question ask ? The next reply is telling u tat no edge is given by singapore to companies like breadtalk and osim as well. It is telling tat singapore don't give an edge to almost any business tat need to be set up . However u just conveniently forget your previous reply. Why don't u ask other people if the "edge", when it is used in answering your dumb question really mean.

The questions are raised because of the fact that there are social problems assoicated with casino. The doubt is on why we are going for casino even when the fact that casino leads to socal problems.
The questions raised is to urge gov to do a study on the problem of casino and come out with a win win situation. The other posts tell people of the series of action to alleviate the problem. The last one says how successful the casinoes r. And so ?

Some keep saying tat there will be serious social problems because of the opening of the casino, yet u fail to realise tat singapore already had casino in the form of floating casinoes many years ago. If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now

How is your posts going to be against my views in any way ? Wat is the things tat u felt in your brillant posts tat had proven my points to be wrong ? Did anyone says tat singapore had no form of gambling or casinoes ? Did anyone says tat we don't have any gambling problem in our country now ? Tat is all u can do. NOthing to add but just attack on me.

The fact that someone has to do a search to find out this historical footnote make my inaccurate understanding of sound card history understandable.
The fact tat someone like u who need to do a research on casino to make my slightly inaccurate understanding of casinoes understandable. If u ask the common men on the streets to name a casino tat had bankrupt, no one can says any. The least thing tat I did was to challenge another about a fact tat he got it all wrong himself.

The fact that you were eager to make claim that the beeping sound were from some sound card show how speculative you are.
Shows wat ? I don't know how u link beeping sound to my speculative. Instead it shows how easy for u to jump to lousy conclusion tat had no meaning.

http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=post_display&post_id=2496196

"If the ICR is extremely successful, there may be a positive spillover
into nearby hotels, restaurants, pubs or entertainment venues. But
this would be the rare and lucky case. Statistically, 30 to 40 per
cent of gaming facilities fail, with a large proportion surviving, but
not very well."
I hope I am not the only one wrong, but your link doesn't work at all. Personally, I don't believe tat 30-40 percent of all casinoes go bankrupt. The only reason why a casino will fail is because of over competition or too small a size, which singapore will not see for the current moment.
shade343
20 Dec 04, 18:33

Originally posted by goh meng seng:
It is strange indeed. Nobody in his right mind would want their children to be gamblers but there are people who would support Casino!

Never mind about that. For those who want a casino here, have you done your research thoroughly? Don't just write off "social cost" so easily; PAP knows they could not argue against the apparent high "social cost", thus, they just say it is not about social cost vs economic gains. That's cool and neat but simply put it, they are just sweeping the dirt below the carpet!

Of course, with a twist, they say it is about OUR MATURITY as a society! Cool. Nobody wants to be seen as "immature" and not agreeing to have a Casino would be seen as "IMMATURE"! Hahaha. That's strange. If you know the odds of losing in a casino, any MATURE human being will not be visiting the casino! Then, the most important question to ask is, why have a casino in the very first place to hoodwink those "IMMATURE" ones?

I would suggest for those who thinks Casino could bring in all the monies, do some research first. Try to do a search on googles with "NGISC", short form for "National Gambling Impact Studies Commission". This is a study commissioned by the world's most liberal govt on earth, USA. See for yourselves what's in it for us if we go ahead with a casino.

And strategically speaking, we will all become suckers in the end of the day. I will touch on this later.

Goh Meng Seng

IMMATURE people are not supposed to be singaporeans. They are the tourist who come here for entertainment But Dr Ng minister of manpower said on the news last night that "legislation can change the mindsets of people" This shows that we are too immature and need the government's help in changing our thinking that casino is bad for us.
Guile
20 Dec 04, 18:54

http://www.facts.com.sg/

Sign a petition if you are against casino.
sarek_home
21 Dec 04, 14:12

As I said, you read it wrong. The question is asking you what edge does the tourism economic entity called S'pore have. The focus is on what it possesses. It is like asking what edge Creatvie has. Because you read it wrong, you came up with this funny answer of "singapore don't give an edge to ..."

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The question is: What is S'pore edge in this casino dollar competition? Can you tell

Tis is the question u had given in the previous reply. Wat does tis question ask ? The next reply is telling u tat no edge is given by singapore to companies like breadtalk and osim as well. It is telling tat singapore don't give an edge to almost any business tat need to be set up . However u just conveniently forget your previous reply. Why don't u ask other people if the "edge", when it is used in answering your dumb question really mean.
sarek_home
21 Dec 04, 14:35

What you did was spreading speculation that casinos will not lose money.

I am just providing facts to show how wrong you are.

The fact that Friday's ST shows that "Statistically, 30 to 40 per
cent of gaming facilities fail, with a large proportion surviving, but
not very well." in the article "Casinos: Economic costs as big as any benefits" shows how big is your "slightly inaccurate understanding".

Is SIS up to the challenge to show us some reports to support his claim that "The truth is, the number of casinoes going bankrupt is faw and few in between"?

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The fact tat someone like u who need to do a research on casino to make my slightly inaccurate understanding of casinoes understandable. If u ask the common men on the streets to name a casino tat had bankrupt, no one can says any. The least thing tat I did was to challenge another about a fact tat he got it all wrong himself.
sarek_home
21 Dec 04, 14:42

Is SIS telling us he believes floating casino results in moderate social problems in S'pore? If not, what was he saying?

Should we be surprise if he does not know of any social problems caused by floating casino? After, all he did not know casino can go bankrupt.

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Some keep saying tat there will be serious social problems because of the opening of the casino, yet u fail to realise tat singapore already had casino in the form of floating casinoes many years ago. If there were serious social problem tat come with casinoes, then we should have already seen it into effect now
stupidissmart
21 Dec 04, 23:20

As I said, you read it wrong. The question is asking you what edge does the tourism economic entity called S'pore have. The focus is on what it possesses. It is like asking what edge Creatvie has. Because you read it wrong, you came up with this funny answer of "singapore don't give an edge to ..."
Ley me get tat straight, u r asking wat edge does singapore tourism have ? So indirectly u r telling us tat we should give up on tourism ? Then tat make your question even worse. I thought I have mentioned for the upteen times tat we can't give up on tourism. There r a large employment force for tourism in our economy, there r a large income from tis sector and therefore we can't let them crash down. We should find a way to make our tourism better, and one of the way is through a casino

Is SIS telling us he believes floating casino results in moderate social problems in S'pore? If not, what was he saying?

Should we be surprise if he does not know of any social problems caused by floating casino? After, all he did not know casino can go bankrupt.
I do not know how good your english is but nevertheless, I will give a more detail explanation.

As said before, singapore already had floating casinoes and turf club long ago. In short, technically we already had a casino. There were problems tat come with such opening of gambling facilities. Social problems do surface. However we had face it and deal with it in such a way tat singapore remains to be a safe and secure place. Tat is why singapore is listed as one of the safest place to live in the world. If another casino is set to be opened, the impact on our society will not be as exagerrated as some of the people believed. Tis is because there really isn't a radical change to the gambling scene in singapore. Malaysia had a casino, and the distance of singapore to it is similar to the citizens of their own state travelling to their casino for gambling. Singapore already have floating casinoes, which was designated to set sail almost everyday. Do u expect to see major changes to our society just because we add another gambling venues when we already have so many ? Do u think singapore will fail to curb the problem of gambling when it was shown tat they had peformed well in the past despite having so many gambling venues ?
reyes
22 Dec 04, 02:04

we should start legalise selling of banned drugs too. coz singapore can be a hub for legal trading in SEA. attracting various country addicts to singapore to spent their money here. we can have more buget hotel to cater to their needs thus. govt can thus collect more taxes. more employment opptunity

does the govt has the moral issue on mind? govt has already decided. that why they ask for tender.
since which govt project ask for tender and scrap it? it more like choosing the better one of all proposal
greengoblin
27 Dec 04, 22:48

From ObviousMan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Topic Deleted for non adherence to Casino Posting rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All suggestions have been recorded and reviewed, but in the interest of maintaining a user-friendly website, we have not included all the detailed feedback here. Instead, we have summarized the key points and arguments. We also ensure that your views and ideas are given due consideration.

We have consulted widely and gathered views and feedback from a wide spectrum of Singaporeans on the Integrated Resort project through various channels including emails, letters and dialogue sessions. We have received more than 1200 letters, emails and faxes since March 2004. A few independent polls and surveys have also been conducted.

In September 2004, the Feedback Unit commissioned a telephone cum face-to-face survey with 903 Singaporeans on the Prime Minister's National Day Rally Speech 2004 to find out the public's reactions to PM Lee's maiden rally speech on 22 August 2004, which included sentiments towards the casino issue. Close to half of the respondents agreed that operating a casino would contribute to Singapore's economic and tourism development. Opinion was divided over whether the benefits of setting up a casino outweigh the social costs.

Seven dialogue sessions were also organized by the Feedback Unit between August to October 2004 to seek views from various groups, such as religious groups, family advocacy groups, grassroots leaders, youths, older adults, businessmen and industry professionals, as well as gamblers and their families.

Summary of Views
Common reasons cited in support of the Integrated Resort with casino included significant economic benefits arising from the growth in tourism, job creation and increase in tax revenues. Participants were aware of the intensifying regional competition for the tourism dollar and felt that an Integrated Resort with a casino would increase our market share. Some of the participants felt that Singapore was "too late" in allowing a casino. In addition, some participants felt that having a casino would divert local gamblers back to Singapore, enabling us to better control problem gambling. Another view expressed was that Singapore was ready for a casino now and it was an opportunity for Singapore to mature.

Conversely, participants that were not in favour were concerned about the social impact of a casino, (i.e. may lead to an increase in divorce rates, break-up of families, crime, etc.), the erosion of our work ethic and the impact on our international reputation as a trusted financial centre. Other strong objections were based on moral and religious grounds. Another issue raised was that of restricting locals into the casino. Some of the participants felt that locals and tourists should be treated equally, and that patrons should not be assessed on their income level, nationality or other criteria. Other participants were concerned about the lack of resources in the social welfare system to deal with the effects of problem gambling.

In summary, some of the common arguments posed were as follows:

For Casino
a) Will create significant economic benefits and jobs.
b) Will boost the tourism industry / attract more tourists.
c) Will provide a wider range of entertainment options.
d) Will divert local gamblers back to our own shores.
e) Singaporeans are socially responsible and mature enough.
f) Singapore society is maturing
g) Adults should exercise personal responsibility

Against Casino
a) Will potentially result in an increase in social ills, such as higher incidence of problem gambling, increase in crime, etc. Social safeguards will not work as there will always be loopholes.
b) Against Singapore's pro-family policy.
c) Has a cannibalising effect on other industries.
d) Erodes our moral and religious values.
e) Tarnishes Singapore's good reputation and image.

From: http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/mis/mis16.asp
goh meng seng
28 Dec 04, 19:06

ACtually, the reasons against Casino are more than what the feedback unit has gathered.

My point of reasoning is as follow:

1) By game theory, the casion operators of course want more casinos set up all over the world. If they managed to set up one in Singapore, they will go to other neighbouring countries and start lobby for new casinos to be set up in their countries! The monies are good and every govt will base their argument that in order to stop outflow of gambling monies to Singapore, they will set up their own casinos in their countries! Imagine if Indonesia is to set up one casino right in their famous Bali resort! Which one will have more attraction? Singapore or Bali? Thailand has many exotic places to set up casino too! Malaysia also! Singapore will become the sucker eventually, helping the casino operators to punch through this region. China is considering the Casino option after Macau has one of the American casino operator set up shop there, using the same reasoning.

2) If one of the main reasons is to stop gambling monies to flow out of Singapore, then it must be the case that we must allow Singaporeans to gamble! IN fact, if the scenerio mentioned above really happen, then even if Singapore first decide to disallow locals to gamble in the casino, eventually such venture will not be economically viable. This is what happened to the various casinos in Korea which are meant for foreign tourists only. IN the end, Singapore govt, having a stake in this casino, will have no choice but to open up the casino to Singaporeans. Especially so when there are billions of dollars of investment involved.

3) Casino studies by NGISC commissioned by the US govt have indicated the many social ills of casino effecting those community with high percentage of local patronage. Casino is regressive in nature, meaning it affects the poor more than the rich.

4) Casino is found to be more addictive than other forms of gambling. This is an indisputable fact. This is mainly due to the high frequency of engagement when you gamble in a casino, unlike those convenient gambling like Toto or 4D, or even horse racing.

5) Accoding to NGISC and other research done, there is no doubt that casino gambling will result in more bankrupts and pathological gamblers. Up to 5% of the adult population would be affected, with a multiplier effect or 3 or 4.

6) Casino Gambling is a non-productive activity which is time consuming. It will not only effect social costs but also economic cost on the economy. More productive time and efforts could be channeled to create jobs and wealth rather than gambling away.

7) Singapore will always lose out in terms of tourist attractions. Casino is not going to change that equation. One Disneyland in HK will create more jobs than 1 casino in Singapore. And this Disneyland will definitely attract more tourists than a casino in Singapore. Macau and HK would most probably link up their tourism strategy to provide a Mega tourist attraction that Singapore could never compete. Thus, it is unwise to risk social well being for a loosing game.

Goh Meng Seng
vito_corleone
28 Dec 04, 22:23

stop being so naive gms, ask any adult and he or she would probably tell u they'd rather visit a casino. speaking of disneyland like u said, with so many disneylands..who the heck would come all the way to s'pore when they have a disneyland thats bigger, better elsewhere and closer to home? u speak as if letting companies use us as a springboard is a bad thing, in that case, why is singapore going all out to try to attract companies to use us as a launching pad into the region?
stupidissmart
30 Dec 04, 17:37

By game theory, the casion operators of course want more casinos set up all over the world. If they managed to set up one in Singapore, they will go to other neighbouring countries and start lobby for new casinos to be set up in their countries! The monies are good and every govt will base their argument that in order to stop outflow of gambling monies to Singapore, they will set up their own casinos in their countries! Imagine if Indonesia is to set up one casino right in their famous Bali resort! Which one will have more attraction? Singapore or Bali? Thailand has many exotic places to set up casino too! Malaysia also! Singapore will become the sucker eventually, helping the casino operators to punch through this region. China is considering the Casino option after Macau has one of the American casino operator set up shop there, using the same reasoning.
Do u think things will change if we do not set up a casino ? Do u think indonesia or thailand will care if singapore set up a casino when genting already had one ? If casinoes owners can make other places like indonesia set up casinoes, it will definitely make singapore less attactive to tourists. So in the end we still need a casino to fight back the business. Might as well have it earlier so we can have a chance to earn a name

If one of the main reasons is to stop gambling monies to flow out of Singapore, then it must be the case that we must allow Singaporeans to gamble! IN fact, if the scenerio mentioned above really happen, then even if Singapore first decide to disallow locals to gamble in the casino, eventually such venture will not be economically viable. This is what happened to the various casinos in Korea which are meant for foreign tourists only. IN the end, Singapore govt, having a stake in this casino, will have no choice but to open up the casino to Singaporeans. Especially so when there are billions of dollars of investment involved.
If u ask me, I never support the casino to close its doors to locals.

Casino studies by NGISC commissioned by the US govt have indicated the many social ills of casino effecting those community with high percentage of local patronage. Casino is regressive in nature, meaning it affects the poor more than the rich.
The study is on a region tat had no gambling facilities. Singapore is not such a country and they had casinoes in the form of nearby region, turf club, online casinoes and floating casinoes

Casino is found to be more addictive than other forms of gambling. This is an indisputable fact. This is mainly due to the high frequency of engagement when you gamble in a casino, unlike those convenient gambling like Toto or 4D, or even horse racing.
But tis is similar to floating casinoes and genting which is very near.

Casino Gambling is a non-productive activity which is time consuming. It will not only effect social costs but also economic cost on the economy. More productive time and efforts could be channeled to create jobs and wealth rather than gambling away.
People will want to find ways to de stress, and casino is one of the ways. If u talk about channeling productive time and efforts we might as well ban video games, arcade and cinemas

Singapore will always lose out in terms of tourist attractions. Casino is not going to change that equation. One Disneyland in HK will create more jobs than 1 casino in Singapore. And this Disneyland will definitely attract more tourists than a casino in Singapore. Macau and HK would most probably link up their tourism strategy to provide a Mega tourist attraction that Singapore could never compete. Thus, it is unwise to risk social well being for a loosing game
So in the end u suggest we gave up on tourism ? Tourism accounts for more than 5% of our GDP and many of our employment. IF we think of quiting, might as well quit manufacturing, port business, semi conductor and air line since competition is intensified as well. Then we do nothing and die lah. Instead of thinking of quiting, why not think of how to win back the market ?