View Single Post
Banstick Emeritus
(11-27-2016, 06:28 PM)
bishoptl's Avatar

Originally Posted by c0de

Eh...Yes. And tomorrow the sun rises. But what would happen if there was no healthy competition at all? A sales differential? Sure. But what are the implications for the industry in general?

Originally Posted by c0de

Yes, that is what I'm arguing. What would happen today? Sometimes it seems people miss these days as it seems they even see a benefit in such a situation.

Originally Posted by c0de

A situation where one company doesn't dominate the market, for example.

I'm going to start linking this into posters' tags whenever this old canard pops up. Every time, I swear...

Oh boy, people are mixing up sales parity with competition again. Reposting for educational purposes:

Originally Posted by Y2Kev

Originally Posted by cyberheater

Why would you want that. Surely sales parity is better for the consumer?

No, it's not. I don't understand where this is coming from.

Competitive platforms are good for the consumer. Sales parity is completely irrelevant to the consumer. In fact, if one platform lags behind the other, it is because the consumer has decided that one platform is not actually good for them. That is how it works. The dog wags the tail.

This "competition is good" thing has grown completely into a monster. Competition is the means by which a lessor is weeded out. If a platform is weaker, it should lose. That is competition. This whole "parity is good for the consumer"/"two platforms selling well is good for the consumer" sentiment is bizarre.

What you are espousing is not capitalism or competition but instead crony capitalism in which market competitors are propped up for the sake of having market competitors.

Originally Posted by Y2Kev

Originally Posted by UNCMark

Perhaps you missed the cola wars, the fast food wars, the beer wars.

I didn't. Perhaps YOU did. None of those competitors were on "even footing" when it came to sales. They still aren't. Unless you think coke at 48b in sales is on even footing with PepsiCo at 16b.

Sales parity is IRRELEVANT to the consumer. Sales differential is the RESULT of competition.

Competition results in a winner and a loser. It's not best for the consumer to have everyone on even footing "just because that's best for the consumer." You won't find evidence of this in history; you are depicting controlled markets and zombie corporations.

Here's how it should work: two systems took different paths to the market. That is true. The market will validate them both independently. Someone might lose and it's going to suck for some Internet group.

People are confusing the outcome of competition with the benefits of competition, which is where this silliness over sales comes in.