You can argue that all words are made up, but "meme" has been in common usage for decades.
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
You can argue that all words are made up, but "meme" has been in common usage for decades.
Stop? No, but probably slow. Apple has released 4 generations of iPhone (with a 5th due) in under 4 years because the mobile market is so competitive. If it weren't, the rate of innovation/release would likely slow.
I'm not saying competition doesn't help keep Apple on its toes, but I do agree with the OP's point that competition doesn't necessarily foster innovation. The quality of competition is more important than the quantity. Apple is currently leading the tablet market by such a wide margin because it decided to go ahead and innovate on its own. Everyone else is just reacting to and copying what Apple is doing.
Ok, so the competiton putting in dual-core processors into their tablet may have spurred Apple on to put in dual-core CPU into the iPad this year instead of next. Or they might have done it anyway, even without competition. Who knows.
What we do know is that Apple went ahead and made the iPad 2 thinner and lighter while keeping the same battery life, and this caught their competitors by surprise. They didn't do it because other companies were coming out with thinner and lighter tablets. Apple decided to do that on their own, because they thought that was an innovative next step they should take.
Also, Apple is known for not rising to the bait of matching the competition feature for feature, specs for specs. While the competition is making tablets with 1GB of RAM, iPad 2 still has only 512MB. Other companies are rushing to get 4G into their tablets and smartphones. Apple is waiting for the 4G network to mature.
Not that competition isn't unimportant or has no influence on Apple's products, but it's just one factor out of many that drive Apple's product development process, and I submit it's far from the most important one. Apple does things that no one thought of, or think "that's crazy!" I admit that when I first heard Apple was opening retail stores, my initial reaction was deep skepticism at the wisdom of such a move. Now see where that has gotten it. *That* is innovation. And competiton alone doesn't foster it.
And apple saw they have the worst notification system out of the bunch and guess what iOS 5 will have a better notification system
Again if there was no competition apple would have very little incentive to giving us big jumps in phone technology.
One can say it would be like their Mac lines.
Little faster here; a little more ram; a dash of hard drive space and boom that's it.
What do u think?
Again if there was no competition apple would have very little incentive to giving us big jumps in phone technology.
One can say it would be like their Mac lines.
Little faster here; a little more ram; a dash of hard drive space and boom that's it.
What do u think?
And this is why competition is good. And why the Samsung Galaxy tab 10.1 is good.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/12/samsung-2560x1600-tablet-lcd-paves-way-for-ipad-retina-display/
Am I gonna get the Tab? Hell no. Am I gonna get an iPad 3 with Retina display? Hell yes.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/12/samsung-2560x1600-tablet-lcd-paves-way-for-ipad-retina-display/
Am I gonna get the Tab? Hell no. Am I gonna get an iPad 3 with Retina display? Hell yes.
Wouldn't it be right to say that Apple copied Android in the tablet market? Archos did have Android tablets for sale long before the iPad was announced. Heck, TabletKiosk had Win 7 Tablets for sale, and even in product placement on TV shows before the iPad.
While I would welcome a better notification system, to me, that feels like an incremental upgrade, like the little more RAM and a little more hard drive space on the Mac lines that you mention.
The big jump was the original iPhone, then the first iPad. Both of which I feel were not competition-driven. After the first big jump, then yes, incremental upgrades are sometimes influenced by competition.
You bring up an interesting notion!
We are getting to that point that such small updates to phones will no doubt make people less inclined to upgrade.
It would only be forced by apple to limiting updated fimware to phones.
I'm not sure what we're discussing here and it seems to go for the OP as well.
Because to me, innovation is all it is about.
Using a field (i.e. tablet market) that in its current iteration is in its infancy to make that point misses the target completely. You'd have to look at the copmuter market in general and if you say competition has not been for the better there, well...
The "competition" is any thinker not belonging to company X. Take a look at academia, where "competition" usually gets very real, in terms of innovation.
If there were no competition, no one to criticize theories, no motivational theory/technology/mindset, we would not evolve. Consequently, the things we create would not evolve. Or is it that you believe that every new concept (or product as in your case) is completely new in absolute terms? If so, sorry to disappoint you.
Competition is *vital*.
You can throw around any economic theory (that I probably won't understand half of, fair enough) you want but I'm still not sure whether you, the OP, know what you mean by "competition" yourself in this case.
The only bad thing with competition right now is the e-landfill it creates, caused by the "new version now!" ADD-mindset of us customers (see iPad 3 discussions).
[EDIT: Bleh, so it was *me* missing the point after all, sorry...
]
Because to me, innovation is all it is about.
Using a field (i.e. tablet market) that in its current iteration is in its infancy to make that point misses the target completely. You'd have to look at the copmuter market in general and if you say competition has not been for the better there, well...
The "competition" is any thinker not belonging to company X. Take a look at academia, where "competition" usually gets very real, in terms of innovation.
If there were no competition, no one to criticize theories, no motivational theory/technology/mindset, we would not evolve. Consequently, the things we create would not evolve. Or is it that you believe that every new concept (or product as in your case) is completely new in absolute terms? If so, sorry to disappoint you.
Competition is *vital*.
You can throw around any economic theory (that I probably won't understand half of, fair enough) you want but I'm still not sure whether you, the OP, know what you mean by "competition" yourself in this case.
The only bad thing with competition right now is the e-landfill it creates, caused by the "new version now!" ADD-mindset of us customers (see iPad 3 discussions).
[EDIT: Bleh, so it was *me* missing the point after all, sorry...
]
Last edited:
Well written.
I'd like to add one point that many people don't realize.
Competition, especially too much of it lowers quality. That is a big problem.
Electronics, clothes, food etc, quality is diminishing across the board, Dell/HP computers all went for ***** in recent years, how thin can t-shirts get, how much smaller and how many more artificial ingredients can be but in a chocolate bar, housing, cars, shoes whatever quality for the masses is becoming a thing of the past.
We're told it's 100% the consumers fault - they want "cheap". I agree with that to a point and there's more demands put on the middle classes paycheck...
We're going in the direction now that only the rich will be able to buy the best electronics, quality clothes, food, homes and the middle class will edge toward the lower middle class ... bargain hunting for deals and settling for less.
It's called capitalism I think, and the backside of capitalism is a dark side, without fair play we're in trouble.
So, when it comes to competition be weary .... too much of it means you the consumer will be settling for less.
Thankfully Apple is one of the few company's who so far have held their head high and refused to make junk.
It shows nothing of the sort.
The fundamental problem many of the dissenting views have is that they fail to recognize that "competition" is an effect, not a cause of innovation in the tech. industry.
Question: Why did Dell, HP, Asus, Adam, RIM, etc. develop their tablet models? Answer: It is because they felt there were large profits to be made selling tablet computers. They didn't spend untold billions in engineering simply for the pure thrill of going up against Apple. They did it because they believed (with varying degrees of success) that they could persuade consumers to part with their money.
Business history is replete with examples of "competition" that didn't, ultimately, work very well. Ford, GM, and Chrysler "competed" with one another for decades for their share of the US auto industry. With the result that by the end of the 1960s, US-made automobiles were huge, unreliable, badly made, gas guzzling death traps. It took a combination of Government intervention (fuel economy standards, seat-belt regulations), economic events (the 1973 oil embargo), and the entrance of external actors (Japanese and German automakers) to finally prod them into - belatedly - producing better cars.
A second problem with the "competition is good" argument is that it tends to cherry pick examples. If "competition" is responsible for industry's successes (the Model T, the DC-3, Windows 3.1) - then it also needs to take the blame for it's unmitigated disasters: New Coke; Microsoft Bob; and the Edsel.
One of the most insightful thinkers and writers on the telecommunications industry, Horace Dediu, has written about the sorry state of the US mobile phone industry on his blog Asymco Dediu explains how the US mobile industry set itself up for failure due to a blizzard of incompatible formats, networks, and standards:
Note: I higly recommend Dediu's blog for anyone interested in an informed discussion of the mobile telephone and computing industry. His discussions of Android's effects on Google are especially interesting.
Heralding the announcement of each "copycat" tablet computer with the mantra "competition is good for us" does little, IMHO, to add to the discussion. It is a phrase that has become so overused as to become virtually meaningless. Before using it one ought - at the very least - to ask in what way ANOTHER user interface, video format, or operating system is going to contribute to the common good.
Internet Explorer 6.
That's all I can say.
Lack of competition (mainly through their dominant place in the marketplace) allowed it to remain popular for a decade now, stifling the web.
Competition is good. It means manufacturers keep pushing to be better.
That's all I can say.
Lack of competition (mainly through their dominant place in the marketplace) allowed it to remain popular for a decade now, stifling the web.
Competition is good. It means manufacturers keep pushing to be better.
Sure Samsung, HP, Asus didn't jump into the tablet market until the iPad became phenomenal runaway success. But why does it hurt consumers to get more choices? 90% are still choosing Apple, so I don't understand the waling and gnashing of teeth, rending of garments.
Have you read anything here beyond the thread title? Nobody's knocking competition, just the concept that competition will somehow drive Apple to innovate beyond its current goals. Apple's competing with itself. It needs to keep upping its game in a way that appeals to its customer base.
But Apple isn't looking over its shoulder to see what ASUS is doing.
Nobody SANE is arguing that Apple isn't competing against itself. Hopefully the rest of the industry can force Apple to compete with IT. But I'm not holding my breath on that.
I won't pretend I have a grasp of economic theory, but isn't the problem of the OP that it is discussing a market segment that did not even exist until little over a year ago?
So every competing concept has to be a roaring success to count? Why should that even be an argument? Mistakes are equally important in order to go forward. It's still a result. Sure, "deduction strategy to success" won't win any investors and kills off companies and jobs, but in the long term the industry should have learned something.
Again, my problem lies more in how cheap technology that wasn't a roaring success is abandoned or ends up in the landfill much too quickly (be it a failed half-hearted Samsung tablet or fad platforms intended to connect the third world instead becoming a disposable extra computer for others).
Or is this a strictly financial short term discussion? Then I appologize for having misunderstood.
So every competing concept has to be a roaring success to count? Why should that even be an argument? Mistakes are equally important in order to go forward. It's still a result. Sure, "deduction strategy to success" won't win any investors and kills off companies and jobs, but in the long term the industry should have learned something.
Again, my problem lies more in how cheap technology that wasn't a roaring success is abandoned or ends up in the landfill much too quickly (be it a failed half-hearted Samsung tablet or fad platforms intended to connect the third world instead becoming a disposable extra computer for others).
Or is this a strictly financial short term discussion? Then I appologize for having misunderstood.
Last edited:
It's a financial long term discussion. Apple is too big to stop innovating and rest on its laurels. It needs to keep profits up and the way to do that is to keep the public's attention by bringing out new products. That would happen if there were 2 tablets on the market or 200. Suggesting that the competition is somehow driving all that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the principles involved.
For every idea you see Apple likely has scores that never get to market, either due to cost, profitability or because the technology can't be implemented reliably. To suggest that competition is required to get Apple to enhance features also demonstrates a misunderstanding.
Apple is not about "one thing." They have a range of products that are meant to be complementary, not competitive. Each iteration of the iPad has to carefully consider getting cost-effective features into a small package that won't draw purchasers away from other Apple products.
Archos, Asus, HP, Motorola, Samsung and the others can afford to throw everything at a wall and see what sticks -- Apple can't. So a glance at he competition is necessary every now and then, but it's likely the least influential consideration in Apple's product development.
Last edited:
So to boil down your argument, you are saying is that competition is bad if it is Apple, but good for everything else?
care to expound on what you mean by the above?
it sounds like you saying [fourced, hurried innovation] this is a possible danger for Apple, but yet in the same email, you're saying that Apple [being the leader] is not really looking over their shoulder?
it sounds contradictory in a way.
So to boil down your argument, you are saying is that competition is bad if it is Apple, but good for everything else?
I don't know if you're directing that at me or the OP, but nobody here has said competition is bad. My argument is simply that it's not the driving factor for Apple. The title of this thread refers to all the people saying "it's great that there's competition because now Apple will (take your pick):
-Add 10MP cameras
-Add a "retina display"
-Add SD storage
-Enable Flash...."
The reality is that if and when any of those happen it will be when Apple's ready to do it - and it would likely occur with or without competitors.
Thanks for the heads up!
Though, on the whole very few companies enjoy the control over both hardware and software that Apple does. HP is currently the only "proper" exception - and therefore possibly a "better" competitor - I guess?
Anyhow, I'll go back to lurking mode now - less damage control that way.
I think I explained it, but it has less to do with Apple being the leader and more about Apple's long-term focus. It's not about "tablets are hot and we've gotta tap into the market" it's about the way we look at computers as functional items in our lives. So Apple has a strategy of how to deal with the transition from notebooks to tablets. Apple also has to consider how to keep notebooks relevant as tablets become more powerful. They don't want to sell a $499 tablet if it means the loss of a $1,000 notebook sale. Then they need to keep their iPhone base feeling like they're still "leading edge."
So it trivializes things to say "as soon as other tablets get X then Apple will have to follow suit." It's not a "keeping up with the Joneses" scenario.
From what I see, your entire argument rests on one premise: that Apple was, is, and will always continue to be the maker of the best tablets and phones around, which is not necessarily true.
Imagine the extreme opposite scenario, when Apple is the only firm. How sure are you that Apple will continue to innovate and improve its products as hard as it does now? Imagine a moderate case, when Apple and a few other firms compete mildly. Same question. If someone has a good idea, they should use it to contribute to the market, and if it really is good, then they will profit from it. Not all of these good ideas will come from Apple.
Competition increases choice, perhaps increasing it too much that consumers are confused. However, whose fault is this, really? This confusion is just a result of consumers becoming careless with their choices. I'd rather have careless consumers unhappy with their choices (which, eventually will correct and reward the best firm) than everyone not benefiting from ideas that come from outside Cupertino.
Imagine the extreme opposite scenario, when Apple is the only firm. How sure are you that Apple will continue to innovate and improve its products as hard as it does now? Imagine a moderate case, when Apple and a few other firms compete mildly. Same question. If someone has a good idea, they should use it to contribute to the market, and if it really is good, then they will profit from it. Not all of these good ideas will come from Apple.
Competition increases choice, perhaps increasing it too much that consumers are confused. However, whose fault is this, really? This confusion is just a result of consumers becoming careless with their choices. I'd rather have careless consumers unhappy with their choices (which, eventually will correct and reward the best firm) than everyone not benefiting from ideas that come from outside Cupertino.
Last edited: