or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ijoyner

Chapter III of On the Origin of Species is entitled "Struggle for Existence". Darwin says 'I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including the dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important), not only the life of the individual, but the success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a...
Because it degenerates to competition for power with again winner takes all. It's not truly cooperative. All systems have their problems.
That was still a high-risk path. High risk can either pay handsomely as it has done for Apple, or end in disaster. There was no guarantee that Apple's path would work, but they diligently stuck to it and made few mistakes. In this their goals are many. While maximizing profits is one, it is simplistic and wrong to say it is their only goal. That is a side effect of chasing other things, better technology, etc, not vice versa. Great technology rarely or never comes out of...
No, competition is not a necessity for good outcomes - rather cooperation is the key. Competition is just a dubious motivation technique. Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers. Cain and Abel were the archetypes of the first competition and the result there was hardly enviable. If humanity can learn and...
No, you are just talking rot. ----------------------- OK, I'll edit this post and add more. If Apple were only about maximizing total profits, they would have given up on Mac and OS X and just converted to becoming another Windows all-so-ran. They might have continued to make better hardware for a while. But no, they have stuck to their principles and continued to develop what they saw as better products. Of course to survive, they have to make more money than they lose....
No, nothing forces you to adapt and improve. It is just naivety to think the best product wins, or that companies with better products will win in the end. Progress is not dependent on competition - it is dependent on a good work ethic. The dirty tricks that often accompany competition are unethical.
That could be a good aspect. If there were only one company producing such products, they would only need one set of developers. This competition keeps more people in work, which means the natural wealth of society is better shared.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but on the other hand, lately computing has become about building products and applications, particularly business products. It has become less about computing, that is exploring new ways of thinking and developing new languages and environments in which to express that thinking. I'd like to see a trend in the industry that makes computing about computing again. Apple's new approach should be a step in this direction.
ALGOL... the first and best systems programming language. Beats C hands down, and is still used for Burroughs systems programming on Unisys equipment (the machines which don't need assembler or structured assemblers such as C). C is now old and outdated and should be taken out and shot.
Is Jobs still on a $1 salary? You can't characterize any company that way. In Apple's case, they genuinely are interested in good design of both hardware and software. So your comment is silly. Making lots of money is a just reward for good products, not the other way around.
New Posts  All Forums: