[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] Open Source Apps
> The arguments come back to a frequently prooven failing of capitalist
Uh oh . . . .
> Simply stated, competitor exclusion becomes easier to pursue than product
> excellence when there are few ethical consequences to mediate the greed
No. I think the bigger problem is that those with more knowledge of the
product THINK that the better product should win the market.
That is (almost) NEVER true.
Even Coke says Coke does not taste as good as Pepsi (remember the whole "New
Coke" campaign?). "Competitor exclusion" - like working out exclusive deals
is only followed by successful marketing. Further, those that are really good
at marketing rarely have time, energy, will or knowledge to create a quality
product (with all the features).
Back to the Coke example:
When is the last time you bought a "New Coke?" That's right, they aren't sold
anymore. What happened? Coke spent the time to create a better product (which
by taste tests did better than Pepsi AND Classic Coke) BUT the consumers
wanted "the Real Thing" aka "Coca-Cola CLASSIC." As a result, Coke lost
market share, and they discontinued pushing "New Coke" so they could remain
the #1 cola company.
The point: The inferior product with the great marketing campaign always wins.
Moreover, contrary to what Aaron implies, the consumers ARE happy, Coke is
happy, and the venders that gave Coke exclusives (McDonald's, stadiums etc.)
are happy as well.
"Coke is it!"
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
P.S. The concept works with OSes (or any other product or service) as well.
P.S.S. Aaron, your position often seems anti-capitalism. Will you share the
"label" your economic viewpoint? Post some URLs so I/we can learn more.
So far, I don't see more than 2 viewpoints:
1. People with money - trying to protect it and the ability to get more.
2. People without money espousing "morals" and "ethical" reasons to take the
money from those with money and redistributing it.