Thomas Lunde wrote:
> I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make.
Have no fear, I don't bite. :-) (Not even those who make wrong points, har
har)
> One of
> the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above. The implication is that
> there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
> there is truth in that statement. However, what may be good in moderation
> may not be good in excess
I think that was my point: It takes both, cooperation and competition.
However, Eva seemed to advocate the _absence_ of competition.
> and I would opine that improvements are in the
> excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast
> misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other
> negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
> needed to keep up with the constant innovation. Y2K may be one example of
> the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of
> the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never
> corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant
> drive to build a new and better computer or software program.
Let's compare Wintel PCs with Apple Macintosh. The former historically is
a quasi-monopoly/cartel (weak competition), the latter was a small "David
against Goliath" company, very innovative, with strong competiton from
the PC cartel. Now, WHERE do we find
> a lack of durability as a design feature,
> vast misuse of resources
> and host of other
> negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
> needed to keep up with the constant innovation,
and
> Y2K
???
You've guessed it: In the former, not in the latter.
I and many others have been using the same Mac for 7+ years, while a PC
is usually outdated (or defective) after 1-3 years. I never visited a
Mac course (superfluous), while PC users have to learn a new system
virtually every year (DOS 3,5,6, Win3.0, Win3.11fWg, Win95, WinNT, Win98,..).
Ask any company manager how much they spend for PC upgrades every year,
to pay for new options they never need and for bug-fixes of bugs that _they_
had to beta-test in the first place. The hardware/software update "arms race"
in the Wintel world is NOT due to competition, but due to a lack of
(corporate) alternatives to the Wintel cartel.
Sure, the salesmen of software, hardware, courses, books etc. are fond of
the PC system! It creates helluva lot of jobs for them (and the PR industry
-- Gates has 500 PR professionals and spent $200 million for the Win95 PR
campaign alone), so how can you oppose such a cartel ? Hey, you're killing
jobs. <G>
--Chris
