Competition is also a bad thing in software development. Enlightened and agile software development says to break down the barriers. That is, you don't have analysts and designers vs programmers, with the analysts disappearing after paper documents are thrown over the wall to the programmers.
No agile says there should be a continuation of process that people should take responsibility for the whole project, thus feel motivated. In this case, contrary to what I said before, this is a case where competition is a very demotivating force. The competition is playing the blame game and that is very unhealthy.
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!
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.
Apple has ONLY one goal: Make as much money as possible. They will do anything to get there.
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.
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 C is now old and outdated and should be taken out and shot.
""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.
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.
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.
Whether money is a just reward or not ain't really got nothing to do with Apple's motivations.
And they have only one: to maximize total profits. Everything and anything else is just a means to that end. This is true of every publicly traded company in the world.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, "Competition is always good" -- look how the competition to Netscape from Internet Explorer benefited the Industry, the consumer...
Oh... you must mean fair, legal, non-monopolistic competition...
If true, isn't the converse also true: "Unfair, illegal, monopolistic competition is always bad"...
This, "competition", is really a loaded topic. Don't governments sometimes grant monopolies and usurp competition for the good of the consumers and general public?
Consider things like utility companies, police, armies, fire departments, road building, prisons, unions, health care...
Would the consumer be better served, if he had to "shop around" the competition for a service when his home is on fire?
As with most "rules", it must be evaluated/applied with common sense!
.
Oh, I don't know... those old examples (utilities, police, fire departments, etc.) prove the point. Lack of competition and complete reliance on union controlled services have stifled innovation. What may have been developed if there were no monopolies on "public services"? I'm confident if these protected "industries and services" were opened to the marketplace, businesses would have answered each and every one of these with better, cheaper solutions from top to bottom, no question.
Example: If there were no police departments and no police officers, cities would simply contract out patrolling duties. If there were no fire departments, oh, I don't know, perhaps the use of superior fire retardant materials would be more widespread, perhaps buildkings without effective fire fighting facilities would not be insurable and wouldn't be allowed to be built by the communities they try to build in. If there were no public freeways, only private ones, perhaps we'd have toll roads and they'd be well maintained, instead of the pothole galleries they usually are.
Hopefully Flash 10.1 support for iOS is not too far off.
(since the rest of the ENTIRE world is working with Adobe to make it work, and work well on their devices... Apple would be foolish to ignore this out of spite)
oh it's coming. And there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when it happens.
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!
Quote:
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.
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.
Whether money is a just reward or not ain't really got nothing to do with Apple's motivations.
And they have only one: to maximize total profits. Everything and anything else is just a means to that end. This is true of every publicly traded company in the world.
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. But they are proof that against many odds, a company can be champions of good design.
Thus your comments are nonsense.
Yes, Apple is more than just profits and to some elements in the raw capitalist community, that is a dangerous concept. There is more to life than just money - you can't take that with you.
I agreed that competition was a necessary (although, not in a strict sense, since it's possible to have good come from a situation without competition) condition of a good outcome.
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
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 apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
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 apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
Not at all. The whole point is that competition is not a force that drives change in any direction, positive or negative. It's merely descriptive of the state that normally exists. Is natural selection good or bad? It's neither. It's just what happens. It has no goal. Likewise, competition has no goal (although, competitors may, unlike species) and has nothing to do with the good or bad outcome, which is determined solely through the actions and goals of the competitors. Competition isn't a thing, it has no power in and of itself, and worshiping it is worshiping a false god.
This news must come as a crushing disappointment for you. You appear to be holding out on one last hope that Flash based iPhone apps won't have the same worthless 99% adoption rate that Flash in the desktop space has suffered.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think Flash apps will have any significant success in the App Store. They won't, and talented developers won't be using it to develop apps.
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.
Not necessarily. The competition in commodity computing is intense and drives margins down. By offering a more boutique approach to computing, Apple has carved out the more lucrative high-end of the market for itself, providing its shareholders highest-in-the-industry margins.
Sure, every CEO feels what they're doing is some sort of mission, whether it's providing what they feel is some sort of "best" experience or focusing on lower-priced goods to deliver the benefits of computing to the average person.
But none of those missions would be able to sustain themselves if not driven by profit.
Comments
No agile says there should be a continuation of process that people should take responsibility for the whole project, thus feel motivated. In this case, contrary to what I said before, this is a case where competition is a very demotivating force. The competition is playing the blame game and that is very unhealthy.
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!
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.
Apple has ONLY one goal: Make as much money as possible. They will do anything to get there.
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.
What mystery app?
First I've heard about that rumor!
iPad CoBOL? AlGol? Neat Linear Programming (and feed blending)? APL (need reverse italics)? CICS?
.
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.
""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.
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.
Get ready for all the apps written by retards!
OMG You are right on the ball
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.
Whether money is a just reward or not ain't really got nothing to do with Apple's motivations.
And they have only one: to maximize total profits. Everything and anything else is just a means to that end. This is true of every publicly traded company in the world.
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?
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.
Is Jobs still on a $1 salary?
Well, that and 5.5 million shares.
Seems the $1 thang is a trend:
http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPay...llarsalaryclub
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.
You can't stand the truth!
Yes, "Competition is always good" -- look how the competition to Netscape from Internet Explorer benefited the Industry, the consumer...
Oh... you must mean fair, legal, non-monopolistic competition...
If true, isn't the converse also true: "Unfair, illegal, monopolistic competition is always bad"...
This, "competition", is really a loaded topic. Don't governments sometimes grant monopolies and usurp competition for the good of the consumers and general public?
Consider things like utility companies, police, armies, fire departments, road building, prisons, unions, health care...
Would the consumer be better served, if he had to "shop around" the competition for a service when his home is on fire?
As with most "rules", it must be evaluated/applied with common sense!
.
Oh, I don't know... those old examples (utilities, police, fire departments, etc.) prove the point. Lack of competition and complete reliance on union controlled services have stifled innovation. What may have been developed if there were no monopolies on "public services"? I'm confident if these protected "industries and services" were opened to the marketplace, businesses would have answered each and every one of these with better, cheaper solutions from top to bottom, no question.
Example: If there were no police departments and no police officers, cities would simply contract out patrolling duties. If there were no fire departments, oh, I don't know, perhaps the use of superior fire retardant materials would be more widespread, perhaps buildkings without effective fire fighting facilities would not be insurable and wouldn't be allowed to be built by the communities they try to build in. If there were no public freeways, only private ones, perhaps we'd have toll roads and they'd be well maintained, instead of the pothole galleries they usually are.
Hopefully Flash 10.1 support for iOS is not too far off.
(since the rest of the ENTIRE world is working with Adobe to make it work, and work well on their devices... Apple would be foolish to ignore this out of spite)
oh it's coming. And there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when it happens.
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!
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.
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.
Whether money is a just reward or not ain't really got nothing to do with Apple's motivations.
And they have only one: to maximize total profits. Everything and anything else is just a means to that end. This is true of every publicly traded company in the world.
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. But they are proof that against many odds, a company can be champions of good design.
Thus your comments are nonsense.
Yes, Apple is more than just profits and to some elements in the raw capitalist community, that is a dangerous concept. There is more to life than just money - you can't take that with you.
I agreed that competition was a necessary (although, not in a strict sense, since it's possible to have good come from a situation without competition) condition of a good outcome.
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
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 apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Competition is petty, cooperation is noble.
Those who think we can survive on competition for much longer are living in a fool's paradise.
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 apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.
Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.
At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Competition is petty, cooperation is noble.
Those who think we can survive on competition for much longer are living in a fool's paradise.
Atlas shrugged.
I would say this rather undermines your objection to the statement "competition is good". If competition is nearly a necessary precondition of a good outcome then the absence of competition nearly precludes a good outcome. The addition of competition therefore moves us from a situation where a good outcome is nearly impossible to a situation where it is possible. The good outcome does not need to actually materialise for this change to be a good change, and therefore it is reasonable to characterise competition as good.
Not at all. The whole point is that competition is not a force that drives change in any direction, positive or negative. It's merely descriptive of the state that normally exists. Is natural selection good or bad? It's neither. It's just what happens. It has no goal. Likewise, competition has no goal (although, competitors may, unlike species) and has nothing to do with the good or bad outcome, which is determined solely through the actions and goals of the competitors. Competition isn't a thing, it has no power in and of itself, and worshiping it is worshiping a false god.
This news must come as a crushing disappointment for you. You appear to be holding out on one last hope that Flash based iPhone apps won't have the same worthless 99% adoption rate that Flash in the desktop space has suffered.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think Flash apps will have any significant success in the App Store. They won't, and talented developers won't be using it to develop apps.
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.
Not necessarily. The competition in commodity computing is intense and drives margins down. By offering a more boutique approach to computing, Apple has carved out the more lucrative high-end of the market for itself, providing its shareholders highest-in-the-industry margins.
Sure, every CEO feels what they're doing is some sort of mission, whether it's providing what they feel is some sort of "best" experience or focusing on lower-priced goods to deliver the benefits of computing to the average person.
But none of those missions would be able to sustain themselves if not driven by profit.