Subject: Re: small worlds and better than ransom
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:38:19 -0400

On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 10:27 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > In essence, IBM could have basically sponsored a professional
>  > competition (i.e., paid competitors) in the form of pre-purchases.
> 
> I really don't think so.  If the competitors were going to be on an
> even footing, they'd have to be big.  That's expensive, and not
> "continuously adjustable".  Worse, a lot of what Eclipse is about is
> the open architecture.  IBM would simply have sponsored a Blu-Ray
> vs. HDD battle, to everyone's detriment.  Nobody in their right mind
> does that.

>From my limited experience I have to say that too strong competition can
result in questionable results.

I have seen this in my previous job, and it was the thing I didn't like.
People were more concerned at checking what the adversary was doing and
catching up with any stupid feature even if it didn't make sense at all,
than actually thinking on how to improve substantially their product.

It's not like they were not able to do great things, they were just not
anymore thinking out of the box because they got caught into this vortex
of intense competition.

If you want to get creative results, you do not enforce competition
artificially. Competition is useful to drive down costs but does not
help creativity at all, it hurts it to some degree. And creativity is
what you need to make the initial success of a software product IMO.

Simo.