No, I wasn't talking about collusion there. Companies end up competing solely on price all the time.
Can you give an example as to where this has been bad for the consumer?
Quote:
Google uses its search revenue to allow it to dump all sorts of free products onto the market. A clear example of a company leveraging its controlling position in one market to take over others.
While its true Google is expanding into many markets, the only market Google dominates is search. Google does nothing to restrict fair competition in any particular market including search.
Quote:
Maybe you just aren't old enough to realize how much the quality of basic (and even not so basic) consumer goods has declined since most of the manufacturing was off-shored and price became the primary mechanism of competition?
I think this is the heart of your point.
Quote:
Here's another example of a different sort. Toyota recently attempted to cover up safety issues with their product line because they believed revealing them would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually these problems became widely known anyway and did hurt Toyota's business, but in the meantime, because of actions based on competitive pressures, consumers were put at risk.
As if US based companies don't do these same things. But Toyota's problems had no effect on the competitiveness of the car industry. They only hurt Toyota.
Quote:
The overall point is very simply that since competition is goalless -- it's simply a struggle between two or more entities, not to reach some particular endpoint, but just to dominate -- it is illogical to conclude that the result is always positive for others. For example, competition has produced a lion that is a very efficient killing machine. This was great for the lion and its descendants, but not so much if you're a wildebeest.
Competition is not goalless. The point of competition is to provide increasingly better products at a price that is market sustainable. The system isn't 100% perfect but it does work.
Their are many examples where large successful companies attempt to stay with their old business models and never change. When a new, smaller, more nimble company comes along and changes everything. Which forces the old companies to adapt, improve, or die. This happens far more often than any example you've given.
That wasn't directed at you specifically. More of a general question.
I know, and it was answered that way. Proving dumping charges within an antitrust law framework is extremely difficult, but as an antitrust concept it certainly does exist.
Competition is not goalless. The point of competition is to provide increasingly better products at a price that is market sustainable. The system isn't 100% perfect but it does work.
There is no end-point, no goal to competition, per se.
What you describe above is one way in which a company may decide to compete, but it's not the only option available. It is not the essence of competition. For example, they may compete, as you seem to have already acknowledged is possible, on price alone, with no attempt to make a better product, or even maintain the current quality of the product.
Competition is simply the struggle to succeed, and just as living organisms have "adopted" many forms and strategies in the competition of natural selection, companies may adopt any combination of possibly innumerable strategies and forms in their competition with other companies. The goal of each company is whatever they make it, but there is no goal inherent in the concept of competition itself. And, just as each organism does not develop toward some predetermined form, but is shaped by forces often outside it's control, so may the form of a market develop in unpredictable ways, which may or may not be beneficial to consumers.
I'm referring to the consumer electronics business, not the software business. Of course software companies and service companies have higher profit margins.
Look at Dell vs Apple, the only reasonable comparison in your list: 3.8% vs 26.9%.
Bzzt! I expected you'd take the bait. Dell alone does not provide a reasonable comparison. Dell isn't with HP in the consumer space. Dell doesn't make software. Dell doesn't make smart phones. Dell doesn't make MP3 players. If Dell ever does any of these things, it doesn't do them very well, very much, or very long. Dell is heavy in the enterprise market.
Google has a ginormous profit margin compared to Apple or just about any other company. Yet how often do people make aspersions about Google being the epitome of perfection? People do this about Apple not because of its above average profit margins but because of Apple's design aesthetics and customer rapport.
[snip]Dell doesn't make smart phones. Dell doesn't make MP3 players. [snip]
They actually did make MP3 players and will be releasing smartphones. They had a "DJ" line of MP3 players way back when. Don't know how well they sold.
They also have a whole lineup of Android smartphones they're about to release. They look pretty slick from the previews, but I'll reserve my judgement for when I either get to play with them or see some video reviews.
While its true Google is expanding into many markets, the only market Google dominates is search. Google does nothing to restrict fair competition in any particular market including search.
AND, arguably, online advertising. Google has such an overwhelming share that no one else is close. That's how they pay for the search (and it's also intertwined so heavily with search that the paid advertisers often overwhelm everybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
It's not about clinging. It's about being able to use (or view in Flash's case) the resource that's got the largest infrastructure until something new takes over. Like it or not, fossil fuels, like Flash, is still being used by the vast majority of the world. Until some new fuel takes the place of fossil fuels, we're stuck using it.
Only one problem with that. We're talking about the mobile space - and Flash has essentially NO infrastructure in the mobile space. Today, html is the handsdown winner for mobiles.
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
It most certainly is not. Note that while those commercials were running, I worked at IBM in Toronto working on the PowerPC compilers gearing up for the G5 launch. The commercials were blatant lies.
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
So it wasn't a lie. Using official U.S. government definitions may not be your preference, but calling it a lie is just plain absurd. But, then, no one expects rationality from you, anyway, so I guess it's OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though..
If they did a good job, what is your complaint? That's what they're meant to do.
Furthermore, your assessment is wrong. Those ads consistently won awards for creativity by ad magazines. Other than a few loud-mouthd Apple haters, the ads were very well accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw
Google admitted to collecting data about people's online activities from unsecured Wi-Fi networks over the past four years.
Everyone should check out some of the facts on this site:
Only one problem with that. We're talking about the mobile space - and Flash has essentially NO infrastructure in the mobile space. Today, html is the handsdown winner for mobiles.
"Infrastructure" might not be the right word to have used to get my point across, I agree. How's about presence? You can't argue that Flash does have a very large prescence on internet itself. And of course it doesn't have that big of a prescence on mobile devices because it's only now that phones have become powerful enough to run the full version of Flash.
Quote:
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
That's why it's called a public beta. You can't deny that it actually works now (read: the browser will display Flash content from sites that allow it). But like all software, there's tweaking that needs to be done to optimize it. Essentially, everyone who has it is beta testing it in real-world situation for Adobe. It's a great way for them to get feedback to allow them to do that optimization.
As for insignificant, we'll have to see. The most you and I can do is peer into our crystal balls and predict what might happen. I predict that as Android moves forward, OSs 2.2 and forward will have Flash support and as Android increases it worldwide presence, more and more devices will have Flash support.
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
I guess it depends on where you sit on the issue, if you hate flash, it could spit hundred dollar bills, and the 'reports' would still be not very optimistic to you.
Given where flash was say 6 months ago regarding the mobile space, it looks pretty promising from my perspective. But then again I don't -hate- any of the technology.
Since it's a plug in, people have to choose to install Flash and use it. Are most people going to choose to have ad banners running on their phone? I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
I predict that as Android moves forward, OSs 2.2 and forward will have Flash support and as Android increases it worldwide presence, more and more devices will have Flash support.
Since it's a plug in, people have to choose to install Flash and use it. Are most people going to choose to have ad banners running on their phone? I doubt it.
no, but I'm guessing they'll want to see all of the other flash content. And maybe be thankful for click4flash or whatever similar that could be available, since just wait til all that html5 delightful goodness comes into vogue and all the annoying ads figure out they can annoy you and you can't shut it off with disabling 90% of your browser.
I don't think the general public is that enamored with Flash.
Actually HTML ads already exist on mobile websites. Because of the size of the screen web banners don't work exactly the same way they do on full desktop websites. But yes in one way other another ads will be with us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
no, but I'm guessing they'll want to see all of the other flash content. And maybe be thankful for click4flash or whatever similar that could be available, since just wait til all that html5 delightful goodness comes into vogue and all the annoying ads figure out they can annoy you and you can't shut it off with disabling 90% of your browser.
Google is like big brother as well, Retaining information on individuals searches.
Its Unfortunate that Google has taken this path as people will eventually learn that this can be harmful or used in ways it was not intended to be. Even though Google claims that it will only release the info if they receive a supena.
If they did a good job, what is your complaint? That's what they're meant to do.
I'm not complaining, just noticing that not saying truth can do good for your business, even if it annoys number of people. Google is definitely not the first trying to gain some point with questionable statements. Apple was doing that for years, sot hey should not complain if they eventually find themselves on receiving end.
Quote:
Furthermore, your assessment is wrong. Those ads consistently won awards for creativity by ad magazines. Other than a few loud-mouthd Apple haters, the ads were very well accepted.
That they were well accepted and awarded for creativity does not mean message they were spreading were truth.
I'm also sure that lot of people will well accept Google's remarks regarding Apple, irrelevant how truthful remarks are, and is Google at all morally entitled to make them.
Google is like big brother as well, Retaining information on individuals searches.
Its Unfortunate that Google has taken this path as people will eventually learn that this can be harmful or used in ways it was not intended to be. Even though Google claims that it will only release the info if they receive a supena.
The amount of traffic Google handles that is pr0n related must be amazing. If their servers and page/image caches survive an alien attack, said aliens will have a brilliant catalogue of online human sexuality.
I don't think the general public is that enamored with Flash.
Actually HTML ads already exist on mobile websites. Because of the size of the screen web banners don't work exactly the same way they do on full desktop websites. But yes in one way other another ads will be with us.
enamoured enough for it to be the most widely used and ubiquitous plugin ever. Still is.
I don't the public cares, -that- much about the nuts and bolts of the issue, unlike the minority such as us here. But it seems they do care that they keep running into missing plugin icons all the time, and that, just ain't going away anytime soon, no matter how hard the few wish to will away the millions of flash files out there. I know for a fact that interactive shops are churning more and more flash daily at the same rate now as always, and there isn't any slowdown, despite some strategic uses of say the html5 video tag. I still make my decisions not to use flash on projects just as I always have. It's always been my belief that the over use and abuse doesn't help the platform at all.
enamoured enough for it to be the most widely used and ubiquitous plugin ever. Still is.
That's on the PC. Mobile devices are a whole new game.
Quote:
I don't the public cares, -that- much about the nuts and bolts of the issue, unlike the minority such as us here. But it seems they do care that they keep running into missing plugin icons all the time, and that, just ain't going away anytime soon, no matter how hard the few wish to will away the millions of flash files out there.
Except reality doesn't bear this out. Smartphones sales are growing exponentially every quarter. Next year smartphones are projected to outsell personal computers. This trend will continue with or without Flash.
There is no public our cry for Flash on the phone. The most visited sites have all created mobile versions that stream media without Flash. Flash needs the smartphone more than the smartphone needs Flash.
Quote:
I know for a fact that interactive shops are churning more and more flash daily at the same rate now as always, and there isn't any slowdown, despite some strategic uses of say the html5 video tag. I still make my decisions not to use flash on projects just as I always have. It's always been my belief that the over use and abuse doesn't help the platform at all.
Again you have to separate the desktop from the mobile device. Flash development does continue the same for the desktop. HTML5 compliance on desktop browsers is no where near as organized as it is on the mobile device. The reason for that is because webkit runs 90% of the smart phone web browsers. Running a recent build of webkit means they are immediately HTML5 compliant.
Comments
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19639..._thinking.html
Google censored search results in China for FOUR years before getting out of China.
http://news.cnet.com/Google-to-censo...3-6030784.html
Google IS STILL CENSORING search results in several countries (other than China).
France
Germany
UK
Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/google-censorship/
GOOGLE If you?re going to take a stance, don?t pussyfoot around it.
I didn't say they were. You seemed to be questioning the existence of the concept, so I was simply clarifying that it does exist.
No, I wasn't talking about collusion there. Companies end up competing solely on price all the time.
Can you give an example as to where this has been bad for the consumer?
Google uses its search revenue to allow it to dump all sorts of free products onto the market. A clear example of a company leveraging its controlling position in one market to take over others.
While its true Google is expanding into many markets, the only market Google dominates is search. Google does nothing to restrict fair competition in any particular market including search.
Maybe you just aren't old enough to realize how much the quality of basic (and even not so basic) consumer goods has declined since most of the manufacturing was off-shored and price became the primary mechanism of competition?
I think this is the heart of your point.
Here's another example of a different sort. Toyota recently attempted to cover up safety issues with their product line because they believed revealing them would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually these problems became widely known anyway and did hurt Toyota's business, but in the meantime, because of actions based on competitive pressures, consumers were put at risk.
As if US based companies don't do these same things. But Toyota's problems had no effect on the competitiveness of the car industry. They only hurt Toyota.
The overall point is very simply that since competition is goalless -- it's simply a struggle between two or more entities, not to reach some particular endpoint, but just to dominate -- it is illogical to conclude that the result is always positive for others. For example, competition has produced a lion that is a very efficient killing machine. This was great for the lion and its descendants, but not so much if you're a wildebeest.
Competition is not goalless. The point of competition is to provide increasingly better products at a price that is market sustainable. The system isn't 100% perfect but it does work.
Their are many examples where large successful companies attempt to stay with their old business models and never change. When a new, smaller, more nimble company comes along and changes everything. Which forces the old companies to adapt, improve, or die. This happens far more often than any example you've given.
That wasn't directed at you specifically. More of a general question.
I know, and it was answered that way. Proving dumping charges within an antitrust law framework is extremely difficult, but as an antitrust concept it certainly does exist.
Competition is not goalless. The point of competition is to provide increasingly better products at a price that is market sustainable. The system isn't 100% perfect but it does work.
There is no end-point, no goal to competition, per se.
What you describe above is one way in which a company may decide to compete, but it's not the only option available. It is not the essence of competition. For example, they may compete, as you seem to have already acknowledged is possible, on price alone, with no attempt to make a better product, or even maintain the current quality of the product.
Competition is simply the struggle to succeed, and just as living organisms have "adopted" many forms and strategies in the competition of natural selection, companies may adopt any combination of possibly innumerable strategies and forms in their competition with other companies. The goal of each company is whatever they make it, but there is no goal inherent in the concept of competition itself. And, just as each organism does not develop toward some predetermined form, but is shaped by forces often outside it's control, so may the form of a market develop in unpredictable ways, which may or may not be beneficial to consumers.
I'm referring to the consumer electronics business, not the software business. Of course software companies and service companies have higher profit margins.
Look at Dell vs Apple, the only reasonable comparison in your list: 3.8% vs 26.9%.
Bzzt! I expected you'd take the bait. Dell alone does not provide a reasonable comparison. Dell isn't with HP in the consumer space. Dell doesn't make software. Dell doesn't make smart phones. Dell doesn't make MP3 players. If Dell ever does any of these things, it doesn't do them very well, very much, or very long. Dell is heavy in the enterprise market.
Google has a ginormous profit margin compared to Apple or just about any other company. Yet how often do people make aspersions about Google being the epitome of perfection? People do this about Apple not because of its above average profit margins but because of Apple's design aesthetics and customer rapport.
[snip]Dell doesn't make smart phones. Dell doesn't make MP3 players. [snip]
They actually did make MP3 players and will be releasing smartphones. They had a "DJ" line of MP3 players way back when. Don't know how well they sold.
They also have a whole lineup of Android smartphones they're about to release. They look pretty slick from the previews, but I'll reserve my judgement for when I either get to play with them or see some video reviews.
They actually did make MP3 players and will be releasing smartphones.
I know their history well enough:
N.B. "If Dell ever does any of these things, it doesn't do them very well, very much, or very long."
While its true Google is expanding into many markets, the only market Google dominates is search. Google does nothing to restrict fair competition in any particular market including search.
AND, arguably, online advertising. Google has such an overwhelming share that no one else is close. That's how they pay for the search (and it's also intertwined so heavily with search that the paid advertisers often overwhelm everybody else.
It's not about clinging. It's about being able to use (or view in Flash's case) the resource that's got the largest infrastructure until something new takes over. Like it or not, fossil fuels, like Flash, is still being used by the vast majority of the world. Until some new fuel takes the place of fossil fuels, we're stuck using it.
Only one problem with that. We're talking about the mobile space - and Flash has essentially NO infrastructure in the mobile space. Today, html is the handsdown winner for mobiles.
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
It most certainly is not. Note that while those commercials were running, I worked at IBM in Toronto working on the PowerPC compilers gearing up for the G5 launch. The commercials were blatant lies.
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
So it wasn't a lie. Using official U.S. government definitions may not be your preference, but calling it a lie is just plain absurd. But, then, no one expects rationality from you, anyway, so I guess it's OK.
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though..
If they did a good job, what is your complaint? That's what they're meant to do.
Furthermore, your assessment is wrong. Those ads consistently won awards for creativity by ad magazines. Other than a few loud-mouthd Apple haters, the ads were very well accepted.
Google admitted to collecting data about people's online activities from unsecured Wi-Fi networks over the past four years.
Everyone should check out some of the facts on this site:
http://www.google-watch.org/
Only one problem with that. We're talking about the mobile space - and Flash has essentially NO infrastructure in the mobile space. Today, html is the handsdown winner for mobiles.
"Infrastructure" might not be the right word to have used to get my point across, I agree. How's about presence? You can't argue that Flash does have a very large prescence on internet itself. And of course it doesn't have that big of a prescence on mobile devices because it's only now that phones have become powerful enough to run the full version of Flash.
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
That's why it's called a public beta. You can't deny that it actually works now (read: the browser will display Flash content from sites that allow it). But like all software, there's tweaking that needs to be done to optimize it. Essentially, everyone who has it is beta testing it in real-world situation for Adobe. It's a great way for them to get feedback to allow them to do that optimization.
As for insignificant, we'll have to see. The most you and I can do is peer into our crystal balls and predict what might happen. I predict that as Android moves forward, OSs 2.2 and forward will have Flash support and as Android increases it worldwide presence, more and more devices will have Flash support.
Even if Flash 10.1 turns out to be any good (and reports so far are not very optimistic), it will have only an insignificant percentage of mobile devices.
I guess it depends on where you sit on the issue, if you hate flash, it could spit hundred dollar bills, and the 'reports' would still be not very optimistic to you.
Given where flash was say 6 months ago regarding the mobile space, it looks pretty promising from my perspective. But then again I don't -hate- any of the technology.
I predict that as Android moves forward, OSs 2.2 and forward will have Flash support and as Android increases it worldwide presence, more and more devices will have Flash support.
Since it's a plug in, people have to choose to install Flash and use it. Are most people going to choose to have ad banners running on their phone? I doubt it.
no, but I'm guessing they'll want to see all of the other flash content. And maybe be thankful for click4flash or whatever similar that could be available, since just wait til all that html5 delightful goodness comes into vogue and all the annoying ads figure out they can annoy you and you can't shut it off with disabling 90% of your browser.
LOL
Actually HTML ads already exist on mobile websites. Because of the size of the screen web banners don't work exactly the same way they do on full desktop websites. But yes in one way other another ads will be with us.
no, but I'm guessing they'll want to see all of the other flash content. And maybe be thankful for click4flash or whatever similar that could be available, since just wait til all that html5 delightful goodness comes into vogue and all the annoying ads figure out they can annoy you and you can't shut it off with disabling 90% of your browser.
LOL
Its Unfortunate that Google has taken this path as people will eventually learn that this can be harmful or used in ways it was not intended to be. Even though Google claims that it will only release the info if they receive a supena.
If they did a good job, what is your complaint? That's what they're meant to do.
I'm not complaining, just noticing that not saying truth can do good for your business, even if it annoys number of people. Google is definitely not the first trying to gain some point with questionable statements. Apple was doing that for years, sot hey should not complain if they eventually find themselves on receiving end.
Furthermore, your assessment is wrong. Those ads consistently won awards for creativity by ad magazines. Other than a few loud-mouthd Apple haters, the ads were very well accepted.
That they were well accepted and awarded for creativity does not mean message they were spreading were truth.
I'm also sure that lot of people will well accept Google's remarks regarding Apple, irrelevant how truthful remarks are, and is Google at all morally entitled to make them.
Where are you going to go when the MS 'desktop' decline sets in?
"Chrome continues surge as IE drops below 60% market share - 3 May 2010
Remember when Internet Explorer's market share was well over 90 percent? Now it's less than 60 percent. Meanwhile, Chrome saw the*?
arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/... - Options"
Other sites quote IE below 50%
With Win-Mob stagnating, it's no surprise that the markets are starting to consider MS as very ordinary.
APPLE market cap $220B
MS market cap $235B
I almost (no I don't) feel sorry for MS. hehe
Depending what time of the year it is, I might go for a vacation
I am using Firefox since it's introduction, by the way. Couldn't care less for IE.
What is your point?
Google is like big brother as well, Retaining information on individuals searches.
Its Unfortunate that Google has taken this path as people will eventually learn that this can be harmful or used in ways it was not intended to be. Even though Google claims that it will only release the info if they receive a supena.
The amount of traffic Google handles that is pr0n related must be amazing. If their servers and page/image caches survive an alien attack, said aliens will have a brilliant catalogue of online human sexuality.
I don't think the general public is that enamored with Flash.
Actually HTML ads already exist on mobile websites. Because of the size of the screen web banners don't work exactly the same way they do on full desktop websites. But yes in one way other another ads will be with us.
enamoured enough for it to be the most widely used and ubiquitous plugin ever. Still is.
I don't the public cares, -that- much about the nuts and bolts of the issue, unlike the minority such as us here. But it seems they do care that they keep running into missing plugin icons all the time, and that, just ain't going away anytime soon, no matter how hard the few wish to will away the millions of flash files out there. I know for a fact that interactive shops are churning more and more flash daily at the same rate now as always, and there isn't any slowdown, despite some strategic uses of say the html5 video tag. I still make my decisions not to use flash on projects just as I always have. It's always been my belief that the over use and abuse doesn't help the platform at all.
enamoured enough for it to be the most widely used and ubiquitous plugin ever. Still is.
That's on the PC. Mobile devices are a whole new game.
I don't the public cares, -that- much about the nuts and bolts of the issue, unlike the minority such as us here. But it seems they do care that they keep running into missing plugin icons all the time, and that, just ain't going away anytime soon, no matter how hard the few wish to will away the millions of flash files out there.
Except reality doesn't bear this out. Smartphones sales are growing exponentially every quarter. Next year smartphones are projected to outsell personal computers. This trend will continue with or without Flash.
There is no public our cry for Flash on the phone. The most visited sites have all created mobile versions that stream media without Flash. Flash needs the smartphone more than the smartphone needs Flash.
I know for a fact that interactive shops are churning more and more flash daily at the same rate now as always, and there isn't any slowdown, despite some strategic uses of say the html5 video tag. I still make my decisions not to use flash on projects just as I always have. It's always been my belief that the over use and abuse doesn't help the platform at all.
Again you have to separate the desktop from the mobile device. Flash development does continue the same for the desktop. HTML5 compliance on desktop browsers is no where near as organized as it is on the mobile device. The reason for that is because webkit runs 90% of the smart phone web browsers. Running a recent build of webkit means they are immediately HTML5 compliant.