> >>And the competition is good for all. > >Not really IMO. Feature bloat, megapixel wars, massive >complexity, ever higher prices, limited availability because >makers stretch their competitiveness across too many model >lines/SKUs, and shareholder profit/margin/dividend demands >amidst all of it constitutes an unsustainable economic model. > > >I think the great myth is that an absence of competition >breeds laziness - or at least what the proponents of >competition-driven marketplaces refer to as slow/long >development and product cycles. But marketplace competition >has never given us anything except consumer/retail-driven >economies. > >Intensely competitive marketplaces drive makers to bring >products to market before the products are truly ready. > >I'm thinking this is the wrong forum for this sort of post. >I'll stop. >
1. I can agree with you on most. But IMHO without competition we would get another Microsoft.
2. There are always beginners, intermediate, advances users and professionals. Nobody can please all. But let's keep separate last two categories, who most of the time know what they are doing and what they want. If you take a look there is a very small niche for each category – Nikon and Canon offer one or two bodies to choose from and maybe one crossover body. If we would not had Nikon and Canon competition - i doubt we would have a chance to see $1200 D7000 camera - it would be D5000 and D700 (or D5100 and D800, whatever). Look at Pentax, Minolta or even Leica…
Without competition we would only have “Windows Millennium” or “Vista” and would be happy. Back in Sovet Union i had to choose between Wedding suite and Semi-pro Kiev-17 camera (it's hard to explain, but i was saving a whole year in order to get one more or less decent item).