Linked by Kroc on Thu 30th Aug 2007 13:03 UTC
Editorial I hear often that when something new appears that "competition is good". The primary reasons competition is seen as good, are: it drives down prices; it gives consumers more choice; it pushes technology forward, quicker. Competition is not good because: competition is why consumers have to choose between HD-DVD and BluRay; competition is why DRM exists; and more. In this article, each of the supposed benefits of competition will be looked at in more detail.
Permalink for comment 266964
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You missed it
by sbergman27 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 13:29 UTC
Member since:


Car manufacturers compete for better price points and deals. The cost of electronics is generally driven down.

However price != TCO.
The constant battle for lower prices has pushed quality and reliability to absolute lows.


To put a car analogy so close to a "lowered quality" argument tells me you didn't live through the late 70's and early 80's in the U.S. U.S. car manufacturers, without real competition from the rest of the world, were producing complete junk at low prices. New competition from the Japanese introduced Americans to higher quality automobiles, at higher prices, and we loved them. The US manufacturers were forced to increase both the *quality* and *price* of their products, while improving the quality/price ratio, in order to keep their customers.

It was pretty much a textbook case of competition working exactly as it should.

Edited 2007-08-30 13:31

Reply Score: 8