4 ms·

Why wouldn't it? In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Physical limits and other regulations even things out but

by Jare 14y ago

Why wouldn't it? In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Physical limits and other regulations even things out but, particularly in computer and digital products and services, physical limitations are less and less important.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Could you explain this claim?
- turtle4 14y ago
  He's saying in an absolute meritocracy, things are only awarded by merit. Given the choice between awarding a contract to company A or company B, once A has already shown to have more merit than B, all future work would logically go to A, and B would die out. Presuming that A doesn't do something to demonstrate they don't deserve merit any longer, why would you ever go with a proven inferior (B) option, or an option that is unproven altogether (C)? Hence, a trend toward a single dominating entity. In reality, I think things are more nuanced, of course. No one awards purely on merit, as you also have timing, capacity, and costs to balance. I'm not really aware of any market that you could consider a -true- meritocracy to the extent of the GP comment. And maybe I misread the comment altogether, but that is my understanding.
  - Jare 14y ago
    You read it correctly, thanks a lot of clarifying my terse comment. Naturally, no market is going to behave perfectly like this, but I think it's important to understand where the natural tendency points to, and what kind of elements will alleviate, smooth or otherwise disrupt the absolute winner-takes-all nature. If you are going to say deliver a new product, you need to understand that unless your product has something superior to the competition or you can subvert the meritocratic dynamics (say, through marketing & PR), it will likely die because there's no reason NOT to choose a competitor.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    A single dominating entity in a given niche. Why do you assume consumer preferences are homogeneous?

by Jare 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Could you explain this claim?

turtle4 14y ago
He's saying in an absolute meritocracy, things are only awarded by merit. Given the choice between awarding a contract to company A or company B, once A has already shown to have more merit than B, all future work would logically go to A, and B would die out. Presuming that A doesn't do something to demonstrate they don't deserve merit any longer, why would you ever go with a proven inferior (B) option, or an option that is unproven altogether (C)? Hence, a trend toward a single dominating entity. In reality, I think things are more nuanced, of course. No one awards purely on merit, as you also have timing, capacity, and costs to balance. I'm not really aware of any market that you could consider a -true- meritocracy to the extent of the GP comment. And maybe I misread the comment altogether, but that is my understanding.
- Jare 14y ago
  You read it correctly, thanks a lot of clarifying my terse comment. Naturally, no market is going to behave perfectly like this, but I think it's important to understand where the natural tendency points to, and what kind of elements will alleviate, smooth or otherwise disrupt the absolute winner-takes-all nature. If you are going to say deliver a new product, you need to understand that unless your product has something superior to the competition or you can subvert the meritocratic dynamics (say, through marketing & PR), it will likely die because there's no reason NOT to choose a competitor.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  A single dominating entity in a given niche. Why do you assume consumer preferences are homogeneous?