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.
Thread beginning with comment 267095
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The flaw is in the subject
by tamlin on Thu 30th Aug 2007 18:33 UTC
Member since:

The flaw is that competition for a position when there is a known target (standard) is good for us. That's what makes the best memory manager "win" in Linux, or what makes OpenBSD such an outstanding OS for security.

But when fighting over what's to become standard, some parties, even companies, can resort to really, really dirty tactics (read about Microsoft and OO XML in Sweden an Norway just the last days) and to hell with user benefit.

Competition is good, at the right level! Fighting over standards leaves everyone hurt - users, as well as the parties fighting. Competing with implementation on an established standard (hell, just think SQL92) is good. If competition at this level didn't exist, MySQL would never had been in business (as their SQL92 comliance has historically been worse than abysmal).

Reply Score: 1