"Logic" tells you that despite Apple's best efforts not everyone wants an iPhone. "Logic" would also tell you that satisfied existing iPhone owners become purchasers of updated iPhones. Bringing out an iPhone 5 is Apple's way of generating revenue from those customers (and hopefully drawing in new customers). Resting on your laurels kills your revenue stream - even if there was zero competition in the market.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The "Competition is Good for Us" Meme that needs to Die
- Thread starter vrDrew
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Logic" tells you that despite Apple's best efforts not everyone wants an iPhone. "Logic" would also tell you that satisfied existing iPhone owners become purchasers of updated iPhones. Bringing out an iPhone 5 is Apple's way of generating revenue from those customers (and hopefully drawing in new customers). Resting on your laurels kills your revenue stream - even if there was zero competition in the market.
Imagine the opposite situation. Imagine there was no competition. Does anyone seriously think Apple would innovate as quickly as it does and come out with new products and iterations with the same frequency, or would they slack off a little (or a lot)?
For 100 years, American Bell Telephone Company held a monopoly on the American phone industry. Over that period, there was hardly any innovation.
In the early '80s, an antitrust lawsuit forced Bell to break up into several different entities and opened the system to competition from outsiders.
Does anybody believe that the introduction of more competition didn't contribute to the tremendous innovations that phone communications have seen since the '80s? Phones have changed more since then than during the entire century prior to the '80s.
I think you are confusing the concept of "competition" with that of profit-making free enterprise. Free enterprise, and the profit-making motive, is what drives companies to develop new, and better products. "Competition", in and of itself, does not. Two bums brawling in the gutter is an example of pure "competition" - and I challenge you to explain how that makes anyone better off.
Think of a somewhat different example: Measurement systems. Today the world generally uses one of two different systems - the "standard" measures of inches, miles, feet, pounds, etc. And the SI, or Metric system of kilograms, centimeters and kilowatts. You could say that the Metric system "competes" with Standard measurements. And you could make the argument that consumers, companies, and governments are better off because they have the "choice" of deciding which one to use.
But in reality, having that "choice" is an economic dead weight, delivering few, if any, benefits to to society as a whole. Companies that design, distribute and sell their products internationally have to - at the very least - come up with two different sets of specifications, advertising campaigns, etc. In the most extreme cases, products that use one type of fasteners over another, literally cannot be sold in certain markets. This results in a tremendous amount of duplication of effort. And it certainly ends up increasing costs to consumers.
Does the "competition" between the Standard measurement system and Metric result in ANY net benefit to anyone? (You can argue that you prefer one or the other, that is a matter of personal preference and cultural familiarity.) In fact, if you "prefer" the Standard system - you'd actually be a lot better off if Metric were to just disappear. Costs of products would decline, and you wouldn't find yourself wondering if a 26 degree day in London means you need to wear a parka or a t-shirt. (And, by the way, this "competition" has already been decided - virtually all engineered products today are designed using metric units. Sorry.)
I haven't touched on the subject of "Network Effects" - or the concept that the value of a product increase as a geomtric function of the number of network nodes it can access. In the case of Tablets: How many websites are either optimized for a particular screen size and resolution and/or the number of Apps that are available for it. Too many "competing" tablet formats means that EVERYONE loses - manufacturers, developers, AND consumers.
No: "Competition" from Samsung, or Asus, or Dell, or HP doesn't make the iPad any better. And "competition" from the iPad hasn't improved the prospects for any of those companies. And I defy anyone to actually cite a concrete example that proves otherwise.
I suppose the example I gave just above, of how breaking up the original AT&T resulted in the great flowering of innovation in telecommunications we have experienced over the past 3 decades, doesn't count?
No it is you who are clueless. Go re-read the original post and then do some research. You will see why I stand by the OP.
Apple is an innovator, others are copiers. If others would innovate rather than copy and bring something new to the table the "competition is good" thing would work in these situations, but it fails because no one else is innovating.
No, some of us not only have taken a few classes in economics, but also know a little bit more about the history of this industry. To do so, you really go back to the 80s.
I find it almost hysterical that the OP brought up the BetaMax vs. VCR battle, which I remember well. I also remember reading numerous articles published in the late 80s, comparing that battle to the Windows vs. Mac battle, only Apple was BetaMax.
When Apple first came out with their graphic based operating system, with "point and click" functionality, they were so firmly convinced of the superiority of their product, that no other company could ever possibly hope to compete, and pretty much laughed at the first version of Windows. As Windows improved, and people started buying them instead, that's when the lawsuits started. Apple took it all the way to the Supreme Court, who refused to even hear their case, and the battle was pretty much over.
You can argue that Microsoft copied Apple's technology, but the truth is that Microsoft was hired to help develop it.
Throughout the 90s, Apple just hobbled along, so badly crippled, I'm surprised they even survived. They did, but just barely, propped up mostly by the graphics arts industry and a few die-hards in academia. But Apple was in serious financial trouble. Their stock had tanked and bankruptcy was already consided by most as a "done deal", when Microsoft came along in 1997 and injected $150 million into Apple to develop business software for the Mac, which, until then, was all but non-existent.
That was the turning point that saved Apple. No, $150M wasn't enough to even begin to pull Apple out of financial ruin, but Microsoft's interest went a long way in helping to restore consumer confidence, in what had been regarded for almost a decade as a "dying company."
As far as Apple's tablet technology being THAT innovative? Yeah, yeah, yeah, like we all haven't had Palm Pilots for years and years.
Oh, and please do not confuse the 1997 $150M injection, with the 2005 settlement. They are 2 entirely separate issues.
Last edited:
u have to be kidding OP
if apple had it their way they would spoon feed us innovation and extend their product line out a few more years.
i may be new here but i know when i see a clouded mind.
u ever hear of Ford and the Model T? yes that's the sick sick world you live in. no innovation but what they give u and that's your only option.
You know android does things better than i0s dont u?
like notification and voice integration?
u think apple doesn't research the competition - u surely are living on another planet. planet fanboy.
SO ask yourself this - is it what is best for you or what is best for apple?
then come see me
if apple had it their way they would spoon feed us innovation and extend their product line out a few more years.
i may be new here but i know when i see a clouded mind.
u ever hear of Ford and the Model T? yes that's the sick sick world you live in. no innovation but what they give u and that's your only option.
You know android does things better than i0s dont u?
like notification and voice integration?
u think apple doesn't research the competition - u surely are living on another planet. planet fanboy.
SO ask yourself this - is it what is best for you or what is best for apple?
then come see me
Come on, they are all copiers, that's the business model. You think Apple invented the Tablet? Samsung's GRiDPad was released in 1989, the Newton's development didn't begin until 1991. It's the same old argument Microsoft copied Apple's OS GUI, but who did Apple copy it from? I'll give Apple credit for making incredible hardware and software, but they didn't just invent the tablet out of thin air. Apple's strength is in its marketing and its hardware, making things that feel svelte and futuristic, that conjure up feelings of want in the average consumer, they are pure genius at this type of marketing.
Honestly a company sitting on $65.8 billion war chest, having the best most visionary CEO, industrial designers, UI designers, software engineers, hardware/audio engineers doesn't need advice from anyone. Apple just keeps topping themselves innovation-wise and profits, EVERY.SINGLE.QUARTER. 
Spot on. Now just sit back and wait for people to tell you that 150 million was a settlement for a lawsuit.
People here either don't know or dismiss the fact that when Bill Gates made his appearance at MacWorld, it saved the company. Apple was sinking and the the stock was tanking. Microsoft's 150 million didn't save squat, Apple was bleeding a billion a year.
What it did was instill investor confidence in Apple.
And straight from Steve's mouth at Macworld, while people were hissing and booing, We have to let go of a few notions here. We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft needs to lose.
Of course it does. Look at the mad scramble Android partners are in right now to compete with the ipad. We are getting better and better Android devices because of how nice the ipad is, in fact we probably would not have had any Android devices as Apple should get the credit for kickstarting the Tablet era that Microsoft lost. Whether this has specifically improved the companies prospects I don't know, I'm not a beancounter at any of those companies, but it only takes a tiny modicum of common sense to see that they wouldn't invest in tablets if they didn't project that their prospects would be good at making profit.
But hey, lets get rid of competition and just leave one tech company out there making tech products. Especially Apple, I can see next year when they add the 8 track recorder onto the ipad3 people are just going to go nuts for it, and guess what no one else makes it.
Good point.
Most people aren't aware that measurement systems are actually companies, with competing interests.
Wrong! The GRiDPad 1910 was manufactured by Samsung for the GRiD Systems Corporation
What's your point? It was commercially available in 1989 and manufactured by Samsung, who originally intended to release it as the Penmaster but ended up manufacturing it for another company, what's wrong? Did you really just spend all that energy and enthusiasm to attempt to prove me wrong? Lol.
i never said that apple wasn't an innovator though methinks you give them too much credit as the innovator of the 'tablet' - sure apple took a fresh approach to the user UI, but there were pioneers to the tablet way before the ipad hit the market. [i suggest that it's *you* who needs to do some research. i might be new to this forum, but i've been in IT for nearly 30 years and have seen a lot of technology in the field and off, not sitting in front of a keyboard reading second-hand information.]
and to say that the others are copycats is a gross oversimplification. the form factor might be similar in some models (there's a good reason why many tablets are in that size range and it's not because of apple), but the underlying OS and architecture is not.
read some of the posts that the others have posted...competiton is important. it's you who are dellusional thinking that it is a detriment. but hey, keep believing it if it makes you happy.
[edit] i fixed my math error, i thought i was younger than i really was.
and to say that the others are copycats is a gross oversimplification. the form factor might be similar in some models (there's a good reason why many tablets are in that size range and it's not because of apple), but the underlying OS and architecture is not.
read some of the posts that the others have posted...competiton is important. it's you who are dellusional thinking that it is a detriment. but hey, keep believing it if it makes you happy.
[edit] i fixed my math error, i thought i was younger than i really was.
Last edited:
Apple IP addresses pepper my blog every time I review an Apple device. The last one was my Android based Archos 43 vs iPod Touch post. One point the Archos won over the Touch was for home network access to locally stored media content. Didn't surprise me that within 3 months they updated the Touch to include Home Sharing (although it requires iTunes be running). Given how they are the only company left that doesn't provide memory expansion in its media players, and force you to buy more expensive versions if you want more media storage space, do you REALLY think they would have gone to Home Sharing if it weren't for competition pressure. For what it is worth Archos posted record sales that quarter when their gen-8 android players came out. Competition also forced them to allow alternative apps for additional codec support, as that was another main point they lost.
Obviously competition is good, it's forcing Apple's competitors to up their game. Maybe by 2015 they'll have a tablet that's as good as the original iPad.
Hilarious example, by the way. And clearly AT&T held back development of a "Who Let the Dogs Out" ringtone because they were too busy inventing lasers and transistors.
The AT&T breakup wasn't about lack of innovation, it was about AT&T being too good at what they did. And while it led to cheaper long distance it made local calls much more expensive.
The suggestion that the pre-breakup AT&T limited innovation is laughable. Oh, and that cell phone you're using? Thank Bell for that.
Oh, and Apple's patent applications have only increased over the years. Just because they don't turn each one into a fully-realized device doesn't mean they're waiting to see what the competition is doing. They know that constant development leads to sparks of greatness and innovation. There are undoubtedly numerous devices and innovations that never came to light but probably led them to devices and features that we see now and will see in the future.
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't do much technology trend following? Lol you must be joking. Considering you agree with the op you seem to be the one who doesn't follow the technology trend.
Well, these are some interesting points, but they are pretty one-sided. After all, we have a historic example of a zero competition system, it was called Soviet Union. Not much innovation came from there. They wouldn't even been able to build their own tanks in WW2 without the help of Ford.
Yes, they brought the first man to space, but why? Because of competition with the USA.
You can argue around it as much as you want, but in a system without competition there is no need for the monopolist to invest in innovation.
Look at Microsoft not improving their Windows XP for about 7 years - when they saw Apple & Linux gaining more and more market share they released Vista and finally a worthy successor, Windows 7, much quicker.
Yes, they brought the first man to space, but why? Because of competition with the USA.
You can argue around it as much as you want, but in a system without competition there is no need for the monopolist to invest in innovation.
Look at Microsoft not improving their Windows XP for about 7 years - when they saw Apple & Linux gaining more and more market share they released Vista and finally a worthy successor, Windows 7, much quicker.
I have no idea what a meme is, i am assuming it is a repeated phrase.
I refuse to use made up words such as Playdate and Staycation. I will never use LoL (except in this one instance).
All other tablets will not sell in numbers, Apple got there first and stole the show, whoever buys a tablet now that is not An iPad will just be looked at strangely by others who will assume Cartmans mum controls their purse strings.
I refuse to use made up words such as Playdate and Staycation. I will never use LoL (except in this one instance).
All other tablets will not sell in numbers, Apple got there first and stole the show, whoever buys a tablet now that is not An iPad will just be looked at strangely by others who will assume Cartmans mum controls their purse strings.
You are so right because they did not add multitasking after 3 years because of the Competition. Nor did they allow custom wallpapers. Apple responds to android and other market things. They add features that have people jumping up and down for joy. Apple has to respond by adding a comparable feature.
The thinkgs I can guarantee you the next iOS will have to combat the Android menace will be a better notification System, over the air updates, Cloud syncing with music, and notification customizable tones.
They have some stiff competition from the SGSII which is causing people to flock away from the iphone in groves.