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
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
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.
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:
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).
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).
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.
Fixed that for you.
Will you back up your this is all nonsense statement please ?
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.
You didn't actually fix it.
Fixed that for you.
Will you back up your this is all nonsense statement please ?
You didn't actually fix it.
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
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
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.)
I despise the sarcasm smiley. I think it's insulting. I would rather give a friendly wink.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.