Competition is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.
Finally! An intelligent comment on the subject. Thank you!
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.
I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.
""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."
As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.
This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.
Might be complete nonsense, but I wonder if this could have anything to do with the new mystery app in iLife 11 - some form of simple development tool for the average user to create an app which is then ported to iOS ready format - apple could hardly create a tool to let users do this and then stop other tools (such as flash) from doing the same. Just a though, might be rubbish.
Well, that would be cool. I can see a lot of good in something like that.
To those concerned with a spate of junk apps, there have always been and always will be junk apps for any OS. It's the price way pay for having choices. And not everyone is intent on creating apps to get rich and famous. I can see very valuable, small market apps being created that will thrill small groups of folks in their respective fields of interest. Stuff that people who develop for a living will not create because they have no interest or expertise in those particular fields.
I would have preferred that they had, but, still, the marketplace is likely to be hostile to the crap Flash apps we are likely to see. This may actually be a case where competitive forces will convince developers that laziness and crappy development tools (i.e., Flash) don't lead to marketplace success. The sheer number of quality apps from Objective-C developers will likely cause this garbage to disappear into the obscurity of the App Store's bottom apps list: apps that are almost never downloaded and have overwhelmingly negative reviews. Based on what's out there on the web, there will be no quality Flash apps, and Flash development will be recognized as the complete waste of time that it is.
Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.
I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.
My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.
Phillip Shoemaker, director of applications technology at Apple and the man who runs the App Store, has a side business called Gray Noodle. Gray Noodle is responsible for quality iPhone apps like Animal Farts, a urination simulator called iWiz
it doesn't take 3rd party tools to make lousy apps. it doesn't even take 3rd party PEOPLE.
Looks like Apple is finally clamping down on his kind:
Apple's App Store Review Guidelines: 'We don't need anymore Fart apps'
I wouldn't worry that much about a bunch of crappy apps suddenly getting approved (there is more than enough lousy apps now). What this change really does is say that Apple doesn't care so much how you made your app, only what it looks like when it is done.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, it gives developers the freedom to use more tools to create their apps, but the apps still need to be in compliance at the end of the process.
""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."
As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.
This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.
Whoa! You're way over the top. What Schmidt is willing to do and and what he can do are 2 different things. The surest way to circumvent what you fear is for ios to continue to grow market share. Developers are not going to do favors for Schmidt or anyone else when there's money to be made on ios. And btw, I'm a Mac user since the Mac plus so I feel your angst.
My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.
Of course it analogous.
Quote:
[Freedom] is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.
Quote:
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "[freedom] is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is [freedom]!"
It is as true in one case as the other.
Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Well, well, well, surprised by the all the negative competition is good replies here.
Of course competition can be good or bad. But in a market where the field has relatively equal playing rules(and ground rules), I would submit it is good. I would also suggest that the competition between Android and Winphone7, iOS etc is a good thing? Is that fair?
I believe that is the general sentiment of the statement in this forum. But no arguement, out in the world, there are plenty of bad 'competition' examples.
But back to the topic. Many developers chimed in at the time, that the restrictive rules didn't quite make sense because there are all kinds of 'code packages' that can be purchased and used (being a non-developer, hope I'm conveying the sentiments correctly).
IMO its actually a good sign of a well run company that they can reverse course(and eat some crow) when they need to. Hmmm, just so it is not too often like- cough Microsoft, cough, Ballsmer, cough . I kid our Microsoft friends.
Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.
Simply replacing one word with another, resulting in a grammatical sentence, does not an analogy, or valid argument, make. Another thing that many, unfortunately, do not seem to understand.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.
Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.
I refer you to post #48, which will perhaps bring additional clarity to your thought on this subject.
So, all you are really saying, is that for a business, the owners or the shareholders, a lack of competition is good. That is sort of what he meant when he said "Unless you're a shareholder I guess". Obviously, for a business, or anyone involved in it, a lack of competition is good.
No sir (or ma'am), what I'm saying is that our (the consumer) conception of competition is different from a business owner who makes Product A and wants to steer people away from Product B. The immediate effect is a potential price war: I'm going to undercut Product B with a killer price. *That's* the primary reference point consumers make when purcashing products, so they'll almost always gravitate to the lower price when they see a higher one next to it. In that respect, a consumer says, "Competition is good because I got the lower price." We all (should) know lower prices don't mean better quality (and vice versa).
As a business owner, my motivation is getting you to buy Product A. If I'm successful enough to move inventory, then the competition suffers because more people come to my store, buy my services, and are loyal to me because I offer better prices. If my competitor actually has better quality overall but lower profit, well, too bad for him.
(Please excuse the lecturing tone; that's genuinely not my intention.)
Blackintosh[/B] is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.
No I'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to WHAT I said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way I dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever Steve Jobs shoves in your face.
No it's not a terrible thing to say; it's accurate.
Umm, yes it IS a terrible thing to say. Not eveyone wants to live in a walled garden. Some of us want to do what we wish and what is easily possible with our devices.
I can give examples if you want to discuss it further. Or you can tell me I'm a Google paid troll and tell me to flip off like most of the mature posters here do every day.
blackintosh is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackintosh
no i'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to what i said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way i dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever steve jobs shoves in your face.
Comments
Competition is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.
Finally! An intelligent comment on the subject. Thank you!
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.
I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.
As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.
This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.
Might be complete nonsense, but I wonder if this could have anything to do with the new mystery app in iLife 11 - some form of simple development tool for the average user to create an app which is then ported to iOS ready format - apple could hardly create a tool to let users do this and then stop other tools (such as flash) from doing the same. Just a though, might be rubbish.
Well, that would be cool. I can see a lot of good in something like that.
To those concerned with a spate of junk apps, there have always been and always will be junk apps for any OS. It's the price way pay for having choices. And not everyone is intent on creating apps to get rich and famous. I can see very valuable, small market apps being created that will thrill small groups of folks in their respective fields of interest. Stuff that people who develop for a living will not create because they have no interest or expertise in those particular fields.
Should've stuck to your guns Apple.
I would have preferred that they had, but, still, the marketplace is likely to be hostile to the crap Flash apps we are likely to see. This may actually be a case where competitive forces will convince developers that laziness and crappy development tools (i.e., Flash) don't lead to marketplace success. The sheer number of quality apps from Objective-C developers will likely cause this garbage to disappear into the obscurity of the App Store's bottom apps list: apps that are almost never downloaded and have overwhelmingly negative reviews. Based on what's out there on the web, there will be no quality Flash apps, and Flash development will be recognized as the complete waste of time that it is.
Of course it is a generally accepted rule that a lack of competition is bad. Are there exceptions? Sure. But, a lack of competition and therefore a lack of choice, will very rarely lead to a positive outcome for consumers. Could there be negative repercussions from competition? Sure. Name anything considered 'good' that can't have consequences that could be considered 'bad'. With your logic, no one should claim free societies, as a general rule are a good thing, since there can and are negative consequences that might occur. Seems like you are picking a fight where none exists, simply to be obtuse.
I think some people are just going to be bitter about this because they wasted so much energy explaining to us all why Apple was right to be so heavy handed, vague, inconsistent, controlling, etc, and now Apple has decided to loosen up and make some corrections and improvements. Those arguments look like so much hot air now.
My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.
Phillip Shoemaker, director of applications technology at Apple and the man who runs the App Store, has a side business called Gray Noodle. Gray Noodle is responsible for quality iPhone apps like Animal Farts, a urination simulator called iWiz
it doesn't take 3rd party tools to make lousy apps. it doesn't even take 3rd party PEOPLE.
Looks like Apple is finally clamping down on his kind:
Apple's App Store Review Guidelines: 'We don't need anymore Fart apps'
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...fart_apps.html
Or maybe it's just that, now that he's in charge, he wants that whole classy market to himself.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, it gives developers the freedom to use more tools to create their apps, but the apps still need to be in compliance at the end of the process.
""We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers," Jobs wrote."
As a long time Mac user I personally know what it is like to be at the mercy of a third party developer. Cases in point... Office, Quicken, Flash, Photoshop. The list is long and painful. This annoucement just enables third party technology to do exactly what Jobs was worried about. Flash is the poster boy. Imagine what the difference might be between the Android and iPhone versions of Flash. New version of iOS comes out with some innovative UI feature and all we get from Adobe is "we're investigating this feature for a future version of Flash". Meanwhile a new version of Flash is released for Android that sports all sorts of things the iPhone now "can't do." And if you think for one minute that an asshole like Eric Schmidt wouldn't be willing to pump all sorts of money into ensuring the Android version of Flash is always one generation ahead of the iOS version you can kiss my hind end. It continues to happen to this day on the OS X side of the hill. This all but ensures we will eventually see Flash on iOS and it will just as much of a dog as it is on OS X. You can take that to the bank.
This decision may or may not be related to political pressure but it porbably is because Apple has now lost control of iOS and must rely on the likes of Adobe to move the platform forward. This sucks, period.
Whoa! You're way over the top. What Schmidt is willing to do and and what he can do are 2 different things. The surest way to circumvent what you fear is for ios to continue to grow market share. Developers are not going to do favors for Schmidt or anyone else when there's money to be made on ios. And btw, I'm a Mac user since the Mac plus so I feel your angst.
My comments on competition are not specific to this announcement. They are, exactly as I have said, in response to the thoughtless repetition of the idea that, "competition is [always] good." Competition may be a necessary condition for positive outcomes (although, it is not strictly so), but it is by no means a sufficient condition. And, no, my "logic" in this instance does not in any way support an argument that free societies are not good things; there is absolutely no commonality in the two concepts that would lead to any sort of analogous argument.
Of course it analogous.
[Freedom] is neither good nor bad. Its results can be constructive, or destructive. It is only the actions of competitors that make the result of competition positive or negative, and there is no guarantee what the result will be.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "[freedom] is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is [freedom]!"
It is as true in one case as the other.
Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Well, well, well, surprised by the all the negative competition is good replies here.
Of course competition can be good or bad. But in a market where the field has relatively equal playing rules(and ground rules), I would submit it is good. I would also suggest that the competition between Android and Winphone7, iOS etc is a good thing? Is that fair?
I believe that is the general sentiment of the statement in this forum. But no arguement, out in the world, there are plenty of bad 'competition' examples.
But back to the topic. Many developers chimed in at the time, that the restrictive rules didn't quite make sense because there are all kinds of 'code packages' that can be purchased and used (being a non-developer, hope I'm conveying the sentiments correctly).
IMO its actually a good sign of a well run company that they can reverse course(and eat some crow) when they need to. Hmmm, just so it is not too often like- cough Microsoft, cough, Ballsmer, cough
Of course it analogous.
It is as true in one case as the other.
Anyway, as you alluded, this tangent is of no value to the discussion of this announcement. Interesting, I suppose.
Simply replacing one word with another, resulting in a grammatical sentence, does not an analogy, or valid argument, make. Another thing that many, unfortunately, do not seem to understand.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, there is no general rule. Sometimes it may even appear to be on the surface, but a deeper examination may reveal the negative. Sometimes it really is good.
What I object to is the thoughtless repetition of the sentiment that, "competition is [always] good," when, in fact, it's contrary to the facts, and a dangerous exercise in self-deception to proclaim, "All will be well, there is competition!"
Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.
Sorry but there is a general rule and that is competition is always good for the end user or consumer. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a system setup to protect the consumer against a company creating a monopoly.
I refer you to post #48, which will perhaps bring additional clarity to your thought on this subject.
So, all you are really saying, is that for a business, the owners or the shareholders, a lack of competition is good. That is sort of what he meant when he said "Unless you're a shareholder I guess". Obviously, for a business, or anyone involved in it, a lack of competition is good.
No sir (or ma'am), what I'm saying is that our (the consumer) conception of competition is different from a business owner who makes Product A and wants to steer people away from Product B. The immediate effect is a potential price war: I'm going to undercut Product B with a killer price. *That's* the primary reference point consumers make when purcashing products, so they'll almost always gravitate to the lower price when they see a higher one next to it. In that respect, a consumer says, "Competition is good because I got the lower price." We all (should) know lower prices don't mean better quality (and vice versa).
As a business owner, my motivation is getting you to buy Product A. If I'm successful enough to move inventory, then the competition suffers because more people come to my store, buy my services, and are loyal to me because I offer better prices. If my competitor actually has better quality overall but lower profit, well, too bad for him.
(Please excuse the lecturing tone; that's genuinely not my intention.)
No, competition can result in a race to the bottom, as has happened in the PC industry.
You mean the lack of Microsoft tax? Like the Apple tax?
Blackintosh[/B] is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.
No I'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to WHAT I said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way I dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever Steve Jobs shoves in your face.
No it's not a terrible thing to say; it's accurate.
Umm, yes it IS a terrible thing to say. Not eveyone wants to live in a walled garden. Some of us want to do what we wish and what is easily possible with our devices.
I can give examples if you want to discuss it further. Or you can tell me I'm a Google paid troll and tell me to flip off like most of the mature posters here do every day.
blackintosh is just here to troll, so no point in giving him any reinforcement.
no i'm not. I'm here to tell the truth. And yet again, instead of responding to what i said, you dismissed me as a troll. In much the same way i dismiss you as a fanboi who will suck down what ever steve jobs shoves in your face.
q.e.d.