Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

How benevolent of Apple. There has never been a case where there was no competition for Apple, and thus I find this hard to believe
 
How benevolent of Apple. There has never been a case where there was no competition for Apple, and thus I find this hard to believe

With computers, mp3 players and smartphones, yes, there was competitiion. With tablets, however, Apple is so dominant there is talk of there being an "iPad market" rather than a "tablet market." Yet iPad 2 was a significant improvement over iPad 1. Ok, it doesn't have retina display, has only 512MB RAM, the camera sucks, nor is there any 4G, and it's still stuck to iTunes. But Apple made significant reductions in thickness and weight while mantaining the same battery life, which probably took a lot more technological finnesse than adding all those "missing" features.

And while some might say that being lighter and thinner is not such a significant improvement, today, I was showing my iPad 2 to someone who was skeptical about whether it constituted significant improvement -- until he put down the iPad 2 and picked up an iPad 1, and staggered under its weight. Only a few seconds of holding the iPad 2, and he'd already gotten used to the way it felt in his hand, so going back to iPad 1 was a shock.

And perhaps Apple did feel the heat of its competitors chasing the iPad, and maybe without that pressure, they wouldn't have tried quite so hard to get the iPad 2 out as fast as they did. But the reason why Apple consistently turns out good products is because they focus this pressure on delivering excellent products, instead of chasing a market opportunity, which, as another poster pointed out, is what most other tablet makers are doing. So in my view, competition doesn't lead directly to innovation. There first needs to be a desire to pursue innovation, to pursue excellence, without which competition just turns into a muddled chaos of products trying to one-up each other with superficial quick cuts, without much thought to whether the products actually make sense, is easy to use, etc.
 
And perhaps Apple did feel the heat of its competitors chasing the iPad, and maybe without that pressure, they wouldn't have tried quite so hard to get the iPad 2 out as fast as they did. But the reason why Apple consistently turns out good products is because they focus this pressure on delivering excellent products, instead of chasing a market opportunity, which, as another poster pointed out, is what most other tablet makers are doing. So in my view, competition doesn't lead directly to innovation. There first needs to be a desire to pursue innovation, to pursue excellence, without which competition just turns into a muddled chaos of products trying to one-up each other with superficial quick cuts, without much thought to whether the products actually make sense, is easy to use, etc.

I quite agree. Referring back to the original topic, though, this means that competition still is good for us (as opposed to less competition or no competition). I really don't think that the companies who make such quick cuts are rewarded anyway, only careless consumers fall prey to that.
 
I quite agree. Referring back to the original topic, though, this means that competition still is good for us (as opposed to less competition or no competition). I really don't think that the companies who make such quick cuts are rewarded anyway, only careless consumers fall prey to that.

Well, I for one am glad that the OP brought up this topic, because now we have a better idea of exactly why and how competiton is good, rather than just blindly parroting "competition is good!" I always felt vaguely unsatisfied whenever I saw a post like that without being able to pinpoint why I felt that way, and now I know.

And I have to disagree with you a bit about companies that take quick cuts not being rewarded -- there can be market situations where NOONE is really innovating, but everyone is just trying to muddle through with ill-conceived products. And the consumer is left with a plethora of choices but nothing that really satisfies. I mean, obviously a monopoly where the one product is bad is a bad situation, but a competitive market with no good products is not much of an improvement, in my opinion. I have no idea whether or not companies are rewarded in that situation -- I think they would get by if the product is something people need, because you have to buy something so you just take your pick of bad choices, but the customer certainly suffers!
 
Last edited:
there has never been a case where there was no competition for Apple

Which is exactly why you can't conclude that this competition is the primary driver for Apple's efforts, since there's no counterfactual case except for hypothetical ones, well done.

Also the mistake (as explained by the OP and others) is that the 'competition' which spurs Apple is not follow-me garbage tablets; it's the 'something else' that consumers can spend $500 on. The cheers that the latest tablet is somehow spurring Apple on are what is being critiqued by the OP. Apple doesn't say 'oh look a piece of tablet junk that's half as good and twice as expensive as what we're making, better work harder today'. People resent Apple's success so they take their resentment and say 'yay competition' to shift credit for Apple's success onto other tech companies who are nobly forcing Apple to do better (through their lame efforts to hoover up the scraps of the tablet market).
 
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.

This is all nonsense! You should just be quiet and not babble on about gibberish!
 
Which is exactly why you can't conclude that this competition is the primary driver for Apple's efforts, since there's no counterfactual case except for hypothetical ones, well done.

Yes, but it also means you can't conclude that competition is NOT the primary driver for Apple's efforts. It is, however, safe to say that competing and preserving its profit against some firm that might make something really innovative is one of Apple's considerations, at least in the tiniest bit.

If that's what you mean by competition (follow-me garbage tablets), then the case is sealed and shut. The challenge now lies in separating the best from the rest, and the best way, in my opinion, is putting them to the test in the market (competition).
 
Yes, but it also means you can't conclude that competition is NOT the primary driver for Apple's efforts. It is, however, safe to say that competing and preserving its profit against some firm that might make something really innovative is one of Apple's considerations, at least in the tiniest bit.

You are right, we can't conclude things either way, so the OP is correct in dissuading people from making the positive assertion (this competition is making Apple products better), which they do endlessly.

As for the second point, yes, we can grant some non-zero level of influence to things other than the iPad which may attract people's money at the expense of Apple. This, as I am sure you agree, does not mean that every time there is another tablet we are obliged to say 'well at least this is going to force Apple to improve their notification system, woo-hoo, competition rules, thank you TabletCo for dumping trash in the market'.

If that's what you mean by competition (follow-me garbage tablets), then the case is sealed and shut. The challenge now lies in separating the best from the rest, and the best way, in my opinion, is putting them to the test in the market (competition).

Sure, that competition in the market will show consumers' preferences for existing products. It doesn't demonstrate that changes in further iPad iterations are invariably driven by the me-too tablets.
 
And perhaps Apple did feel the heat of its competitors chasing the iPad, and maybe without that pressure, they wouldn't have tried quite so hard to get the iPad 2 out as fast as they did.
Too bad apple doesn't feel that same heat with the iPhone.

Nothing says "what, me worry?" like a year and a half delay between iPhone refreshes.
 
"Competition" has little relationship to innovation at Apple. Apple tends to compete with their own previously-released products.


Fixed that for you. ;)

Will you back up your this is all nonsense statement please ?

You didn't actually fix it.
 
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.

That's your opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

The current practice in the USA is to compete.

Like it or not. It's the REAL Fact.

Some may prefer the boredom if we all used the same Apple stuff, drove the same cars, ate the same porridge and wore identical uniforms.

But I would NOT be amongst that group.

I have far too much imagination, education, enthusiasm, energy and love of life to be so narrow and restricted.

It's just that simple :)
 
That's your opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

The current practice in the USA is to compete.

Like it or not. It's the REAL Fact.

Some may prefer the boredom if we all used the same Apple stuff, drove the same cars, ate the same porridge and wore identical uniforms.

The OP isn't saying it would be good if everyone used the same products, just that competition doesn't automatically lead to innovation.
 
I have far too much imagination, education, enthusiasm, energy and love of life to be so narrow and restricted.

It's just that simple :)

too bad you don't have enough education to understand the OP or enough energy to read the thread because you completely missed the point, gg on those REAL facts
 
"Competition" has little relationship to innovation at Apple. Apple tends to compete with their own previously-released products.

Totally agree with that. Apple does their own thing, and whether one likes their products or not, from an economic standpoint they do that quite well. (Boy is that an understatement. Last statistics I saw Apple had 4% of the total cell phone market, but 50% of the total profits. Hey, I think Steve is on to something.)

You didn't actually fix it.

I despise the sarcasm smiley. I think it's insulting. I would rather give a friendly wink.
 
Some may prefer the boredom if we all used the same Apple stuff...

But I would NOT be amongst that group.

I have far too much imagination, education, enthusiasm, energy and love of life to be so narrow and restricted.

Probably a bit off topic, but the weird part is, I see the same group of people online who accuse Apple fans of being "mindless iSheeps controlled by Jobs" have no problem advocating Android everywhere. Worse, the same group of people often dream and insist how much it'll be better if there's one version of Android with absolutely no modification from the manufacturers for all devices.

And I don't think I have to remind people where Google makes money off: by advertising stuff to users based on data they collect from users. So somehow it's bad if Apple is the one controlling their own devices, but it's good if Google, quite possibly the creepiest corporation around in terms of the business model, is the one controlling all of the devices from all the manufacturers.

IMHO no, I don't think the "but Android is open!" argument works. I'm willing to bet the vast majority, if not all, of those Android purists, no matter what themes and widgets they run, have Google services on their phones and love to flaunt how nicely integrated Gmail and Google maps&navigation are on Android. Unless another company is ready to make a complete and competent fork of Android under a different name with separate online services, which won't happen, the open argument is pretty moot.

That's why I'm personally rather fond of Apple, RIM and HP(Palm) and rather negative toward Google and most of the Google licensees. At least RIM and HP offer something innovative and show some initiative to do their own innovations, and they are about selling their hardware on their own merit. Whereas Google, while offer a lot of innovation, is at its heart all about being everywhere to data mine us to do their business while slowly upping their control tighter over the "open" OS and the licensees are only too happy to take on the gravy train by making millions of iDevice-inspired designs with the free-to-cheap Google OS thrown in.

I apologize the lengthy rant, but I just can't pass on an opportunity to rant on this topic enough. If one really worries about people being herded by a corporation agenda, Apple isn't the right target, Google is, IMHO. However since Google identifies itself with your average non-hipster geeks, they are often automatically being exempted from the obvious vilification.
 
--
 

Attachments

  • android_eats_apple_960x800.png
    android_eats_apple_960x800.png
    528.1 KB · Views: 79
Some of the OP's points make sense, but others don't. He is right that you can't compare two items that are not exactly alike & expect things such as price to be influenced drastically.

However, I think competition is the root of certain new features. Apple is not blind to what the competition is doing & as much as it may pain the fanboys to hear, they are not idea leaders 100% of the time. Other companies implement ideas before Apple & in a better manner. Things like that can only improve technology.
 
You are right, we can't conclude things either way, so the OP is correct in dissuading people from making the positive assertion (this competition is making Apple products better), which they do endlessly.

As for the second point, yes, we can grant some non-zero level of influence to things other than the iPad which may attract people's money at the expense of Apple. This, as I am sure you agree, does not mean that every time there is another tablet we are obliged to say 'well at least this is going to force Apple to improve their notification system, woo-hoo, competition rules, thank you TabletCo for dumping trash in the market'.

Sure, that competition in the market will show consumers' preferences for existing products. It doesn't demonstrate that changes in further iPad iterations are invariably driven by the me-too tablets.

Okay then. I apologize; I might have missed the point because I haven't seen these parroting statements in the forums. I can agree with you. I guess my point was that we'll just have to be content with the actual situation (not the endless parroting) because I see no feasible alternative.
 
That's your opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

The current practice in the USA is to compete.

Like it or not. It's the REAL Fact.

Some may prefer the boredom if we all used the same Apple stuff, drove the same cars, ate the same porridge and wore identical uniforms.

But I would NOT be amongst that group.

I have far too much imagination, education, enthusiasm, energy and love of life to be so narrow and restricted.

It's just that simple :)

I don't think I've ever before heard anyone argue that those hallmarks of self-actualization are positively associated with consumerism!
 
I don't agree entirely. The reason Apple releases a new version of the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch every year is because of the competition. Apple would have kept products on the market a lot longer if there weren't so much competition.

However, the way the "Competition is Good for Us" meme used is plain wrong. I remember a time when a rumor came out that Apple had booked up the supply of touchscreens. Predictably, a lot of people crawled out of the woodwork to vilify Apple for being anticompetitive and that it was the "next Microsoft." A few lamented the fact that Apple was using underhanded tactics to beat the competition, removing its incentive to innovate.

I have a question. Do you seriously believe Steve Jobs is thinking, "We should play nice and help the competition so that we don't rest on our laurels."?

Also, it may not have been said on this forum but it is said that Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in the late 1990s to help Apple. I have even read a post which applauded Bill Gates for helping his competition, claiming that Gates wanted to give himself an incentive by helping Apple, his competitor. I find such comments laughable.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.