I compare the article with what I learned from the book “Understanding Michael Porter”, and I wonder if the article talks about the same thing: > “Porter's agg

I compare the article with what I learned from the book “Understanding Michael Porter”, and I wonder if the article talks about the same thing: > “Porter's aggressive modeling around "competition" has misguided organizations into becoming obsessed with destroying the competition.” My understanding from Porter’s model is that competitiveness is defined by Product Value - Cost… a very simple concept that doesn’t involve “destroying the competition”. A cheap computer manufacturer doesn’t compete with Apple, because the definition of product value depends on the audience. Now I wonder who got it wrong, me, the book, or the article.