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 267083
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's in the implementation stupid!
by TemporalBeing on Thu 30th Aug 2007 18:08 UTC
Member since:

The article has a number of good points; however, competition is still good, but it has to do with how we implement competition that is not.

For example, competition between two technologies is not necessarily good - the better technology may not win out. Collaborative development - sharing of information, etc. - can be utilized to develop higher technology that can then be competed on the business level.

How is that? Don't compete on the technical; compete on what is provided. Don't compete between two standards, but work together to create a single standard that can be utilized to form competing products. Example: Panasonic DVD Player vs. Toshiba DVD Player vs. brand-X DVD Player.

In other words, for technology to compete both have to first play on a level playing field (ex: implement the SQL language standard for a database) and then compete the value add of the product (ex: reliability and scalability of the database implementation).

It should not be about locking away information from people (e.g. DRM), but about who has the better material (e.g. Beethoven vs. Metallica vs. Aaron Copeland vs. Kenny Rogers). Relying on repeat buying of the same material by the same people is not a stable business - those people are going to die eventually.

Reply Score: 1