Originally Posted by ijoyner
Well, the ultimate goal of competition is to kill the competition right. So there is no competition. So the pro-competition people just vanished in a puff of their own logic!
Originally Posted by Orlando
But that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve. If one party does succeed in killing their opponent we simply need new competitors to keep the struggle going. As soon as competition stops so does progress.
that ultimate goal forces you to adapt and improve.
Emphasis mine. Competition can be beneficial-- but not necessarily so!
Instead of improving, competition can cause a competitor to:
-- reduce quality of his products to compete on costs
----- Palm Pre, Kin
-- denigrate the competition
----- Antennagate, Mobile Flash
----- Biased reporting, blogging, trolling with vested innterest
-- seek advantage elsewhere
---- legal, political harassment
--------- IP suits and countersuits
--------- Internet Neutrality
--------- Adobe FCC complaint
---- monopolization of resources
-------- longterm buys of components
-------- reservation of production facilities
For example, I give you this scenario:
In recent years Apple has paid in advance for large quantities of components (RAM, etc.) to guarantee a supply, a scheduled availability, a fixed price. Often this causes component shortages and/or component price increases.
This can be good for Apple, its product availability, its profits and its shareholders.
This can prevent competitors from releasing products of like quality, or even entering a market segment.
Has Apple's [successful] competition for resources improved Apple's products?
Has it reduced costs to the customer?
Has it improved consumer choice?
Has it resulted in delivering a superior product to the consumer?
What effect has it had on competitor's products?
... Interesting questions...