Every new device that comes along from HP; Asus; Samsung; RIM; etc. that essentially copies the iPad is met with a barrage of comments expressing the thought: "Competition is Good!" This might be an economic truism but there is little, if any, evidence that it actually has any merit. At least as far as Tablet computing devices are concerned. Lets examine the facts: 1) Competition Lowers Prices. Perfect competition between producers of identical products (loaves of bread, bushels of wheat) probably does work that way. But not in computing devices. Apple is what economists call a "Price Setter." It has sufficient market power that can set prices for its devices. Prior to the iPad's introduction, Tablet PCs running Windows cost $1000 or so. Did "competition" force Apple to price the iPad at $500? Of course not. Apple recognized that the real "competition" for the iPad was consumers spending that $500 on something else - a new TV, a camcorder, etc. 2) Competition advances technology. In 2010 Apple introduced a 9.7" touchscreen computer. In the year following, dozens of manufacturers essentially copied this format, with varying degrees of success. How did this "advance" technology? Answer: It didn't, and it won't. It doesn't matter if 99% of the tablets introduced in the next year somehow manage to run Flash - it still isn't going to "force" Apple to do the same. Apple is the market LEADER. Other manufacturer are FOLLOWERS. 3) Competition is Good for Software Development: No, it isn't. Its a nightmare. Developers are forced to choose which of half a dozen different platforms they are going to develop for. Look at the explosion of software titles that arose once the PC industry "standardized" on the Wintel format. 4) Competition is Good for Consumers: No it isn't. Too much "choice" simply confuses and alienates consumers. That's why "losing" formats like residential DC electricity, Betamax video recorders, and HD-DVD had to disappear. 5) Competition fosters Innovation: No, it doesn't. Once the "economic profits" of the PC industry settled on Microsoft and Intel, how much "innovation" was there among PC makers? Answer: Not much. The PC still has the same basic configuration it did almost twenty years ago: A metal chassis holding various circuit boards and disk drives. Excessive competition removes profits the industry. Without profits - there is insufficient investment in future technology. Stagnation results. By way of contrast, Apple has used the "economic profits" it generated from its succesful iPod and iPhone businesses to develop the iPad. Conclusion: Profits foster innovation - Excess competition stifles it. Another manufacturer introducing their "copy" of the iPad isn't going to do anything to make iPads cheaper. It isn't going to make the next iPad any better. It is only going to fragment and REDUCE the amount of software available. Its only going to make things more complicated for online content suppliers. The only way "competition" is going to be good is if a rival manufacturer actually produces a truly INNOVATIVE device. Something that actually changes the way we think about and use computer technology. That would be something to cheer. Another "copycat" device is simply worthy of our scorn.