12 ms·

I agree with you, and at the same time I'm a little saddened by this reality. Yes Job was responsible for some really nice gadgets that changed people's lives,

by jmzbond 12y ago

I agree with you, and at the same time I'm a little saddened by this reality. Yes Job was responsible for some really nice gadgets that changed people's lives, but at some point the benefits are outweighed by the opportunity cost of competition that would have possibly led to even better gadgets. To be clear, I don't think we often get to that "point" today, but it is a risk worth asking ourselves as a public.

taiki 12y ago
By the time Apple showed up to any particular gadget segment, that gadget segment had existed for years, and sometimes decades before. iPad? Tablets had been kicking around since the 80's. iPhone? iPod? Smart phones and MP3 players had been around since the late 90's. Mac? Apple II? I think you get my point.
- jmzbond 12y ago
  But you're making the point I am. Competition is a GOOD thing. Apple showed up in gadget segments and made them better because they weren't terrorized by existing players to keep out. Again I'm not saying that's the point we were at, but I am saying that just because someone/ some company was great, that's no excuse to allow them to try and stop competition.