5 ms·

Very sloppy reasoning, bordering on the fallacy of false dichotomy. <"Fragmentation," as I suggest above, is simply a derogatory term for "choice," something n

Very sloppy reasoning, bordering on the fallacy of false dichotomy. <"Fragmentation," as I suggest above, is simply a derogatory term for "choice," something not only valued but expected in most product categories. > Errr, no Katherine. Fragmentation is not a synonym for choice - in fact it's very nearly an antonym. Choice means that I can substitute one product for another - I have a choice!. Fragmentation, at least in the sense that Jobs and Strohmeyer both clearly meant, is about interoperability. That is, if I buy a Product 2 to work with Product 1 that I already own, will Product 2 continue to work if I replace Product 1 for a new Product 3. The likelihood of this question having a negative response is a measure of the fragmentation of the market. Obviously, if changing from Product 1 to Product 3 means that I lose the ability to use Product 2, that is a cost barrier that is going to make me less likely to change, ie have less choice.

dejb 16y ago
> Fragmentation is not a synonym for choice - in fact it's very nearly an antonym. Err, not exactly. The word 'choice' doesn't inherently imply that each option must never contain any constraints (even though it is generally desirable to minimise them). In fact if all the options are identical in result it's not really a choice. So why do we have all these different product options in so many categories? Why doesn't someone just work out what 'the best' one is, so we can all save the hassle of having those other options? One reason is that people's requirements actually are different. The benefit of choice is that individuals get to decide on which constraints and characteristics suit them best. The longer term benefit is in the competition between different approaches and organisations it fosters. Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate) (from wikipedia). To me this sounds a bit like the 'inter' part implies separate entities or 'fragments'. I'm not even sure if the word really applies to a monolithic platform like iOS.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Recently Microsoft have suggested that European governments can fulfil their "interoperability" requirements by the simple expedient of everyone buying Microsoft products. Seems like Apple's taking a similar tack. So much easier than using open (there's that word again) standards.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    Which open standards are you referring to?
- demallien 16y ago
  Whilst your thesis is trivially true (there must be differences in products, otherwise we effectively have no choice), in a practical sense it leaves a lot to desire. To have choice, the vast majority of functionality must be fungible between two different, competing products. If I have a Ford, and want to buy a new car, the new car can be used on the same roads, my driving experience can be transferred, I'll have access to the same fuel in the same service stations, I can park the car in the same places, etc. The two products are highly fungible, and where they are not, it's because they are being specifically targeted at a need that I have. I do not have to give up using roads, or the service station network just because I need a bigger car to hold my kids - the big cars are still designed to fit on the same roads. To use a computer example, I use Fedora at work, because our CPU manufacturer provides their tools (port of binutils etc) only for Fedora, and it's a major pain in the neck for me to deal with having to repackage them for my desktop of choice when the tools or my OS is updated. I would prefer to use Ubuntu, but I can't, because the two products are not sufficiently fungible, ie the market is fragmented, and I don't have a choice.

dejb 16y ago

> Fragmentation is not a synonym for choice - in fact it's very nearly an antonym. Err, not exactly. The word 'choice' doesn't inherently imply that each option must never contain any constraints (even though it is generally desirable to minimise them). In fact if all the options are identical in result it's not really a choice. So why do we have all these different product options in so many categories? Why doesn't someone just work out what 'the best' one is, so we can all save the hassle of having those other options? One reason is that people's requirements actually are different. The benefit of choice is that individuals get to decide on which constraints and characteristics suit them best. The longer term benefit is in the competition between different approaches and organisations it fosters. Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate) (from wikipedia). To me this sounds a bit like the 'inter' part implies separate entities or 'fragments'. I'm not even sure if the word really applies to a monolithic platform like iOS.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Recently Microsoft have suggested that European governments can fulfil their "interoperability" requirements by the simple expedient of everyone buying Microsoft products. Seems like Apple's taking a similar tack. So much easier than using open (there's that word again) standards.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Which open standards are you referring to?
demallien 16y ago
Whilst your thesis is trivially true (there must be differences in products, otherwise we effectively have no choice), in a practical sense it leaves a lot to desire. To have choice, the vast majority of functionality must be fungible between two different, competing products. If I have a Ford, and want to buy a new car, the new car can be used on the same roads, my driving experience can be transferred, I'll have access to the same fuel in the same service stations, I can park the car in the same places, etc. The two products are highly fungible, and where they are not, it's because they are being specifically targeted at a need that I have. I do not have to give up using roads, or the service station network just because I need a bigger car to hold my kids - the big cars are still designed to fit on the same roads. To use a computer example, I use Fedora at work, because our CPU manufacturer provides their tools (port of binutils etc) only for Fedora, and it's a major pain in the neck for me to deal with having to repackage them for my desktop of choice when the tools or my OS is updated. I would prefer to use Ubuntu, but I can't, because the two products are not sufficiently fungible, ie the market is fragmented, and I don't have a choice.