Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Editorial This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.
Thread beginning with comment 267386
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I agree
by SReilly on Fri 31st Aug 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I agree"
Member since:

See the PC processor market history for example.

I'm afraid that the PC processor market is a prime example of what happens when there is competition involved. If it where not for AMD, Intel would have no reason to push they're x86 design forward.

Take the Itanic (Itanium) mess. It's a prime example of a company which thought that the world would follow it's lead no matter what it did. AMD brought out the x86-64bit extensions which proved so popular that Intel had to follow suit.

If Intel where the sold manufacturer of x86 processors, all 64 bit PCs today would be running Itanium.

There is no monopoly in the x86 processor market and there hasn't been in a while.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I agree
by sbergman27 on Fri 31st Aug 2007 14:52 in reply to "RE[3]: I agree"
sbergman27 Member since:

Indeed. Chipzilla is big. But Mothra cleaned their clocks on the Itanic thing.

Sometimes... things work like they are supposed to. I attribute it to an accounting error in heaven or some such. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: I agree
by ddc_ on Fri 31st Aug 2007 19:03 in reply to "RE[3]: I agree"
ddc_ Member since:

I believe You're too much afraid to look a bit further into PC hardware history. The first PCs' processors were Intel's monopoly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: I agree
by oelewapperke on Sat 1st Sep 2007 20:41 in reply to "RE[5]: I agree"
oelewapperke Member since:

Obviously someone is going to come in first. It's just a truth of the world. A law of God if you will. It's just logical.

If someone invents something really new, it's just gonna take a few years till everybody "gets" it (and realizes there's money in it, nobody, not even ibm, saw good money in computers ("I think there's a world market for maybe 5 computers" comment from IBM's CEO comes to mind), until several years after the intel chips hit the market.

And yes computers only became somewhat useful right after microsoft got involved. Whatever else microsoft is, they were at the birth of the personal computer, and they competed, and won, and got a lot out of it. They made all the innovations. MS-DOS : a simple version of unix to run on "normal" hardware. Visual basic : ever notice how just about all experiments in electronics STILL use either visual basic or matlab ? There must be some good in it (and yes, a lot of bad, but please let God strike down anyone trying to regulat programming languages). Graphical windows, working, with a useful application (word processor and DTP, which was a pain in the ass before windows came along, either expensive as hell, or scissors and paper, take your pick)).

They courted the small developer, as an innovative practice, and it worked (they created, or at least enabled shareware). It worked VERY well. Everybody's trying to repeat this brilliant tactic ever since.

I'm not saying they're perfect. They're not. At all. But they deserve some success for a few very good ideas.

Reply Parent Score: 1