Harvey wrote:
> "Emlyn" <emlyn@one.net.au> wrote,
> > > "Emlyn" <emlyn@one.net.au> wrote,
> > > > Harvey wrote:
> > > > The way to win in the market should be to build a better product,
> > > >not sabotage a competitor's product. [....]
> > >
> > > >"Should" in the market? Hmm... [....]
> > >
> > > Yes, "should" in the market! [....]
> >
> >OK, so you are talking about ideals over pragmatism/reality. Fair
> >enough. [....]
>
> I didn't intend to be, but I think you are right. I *was* arguing
> for an ideal of competition that my never really exist in the free
> market. It may be that the ideal concept of a free market will never
> really exist. Maybe legal battles, exclusionary deals, sabotage,
> dirty tricks and industrial espionage will always be the norm. I
> would never choose such a pessimistic attitude for my business model.
> But more important than my desire would be choosing an accurate
> reflection of reality and building a business model to compete in the
> real world.
>
> What do other entrepreneurs think? Is fair competition a nice, but
> improbable ideal? Should a business model include cut-throat
> quasi-legal activities just to stay competitive?
>
> I will have to consider this position in much more detail.
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
>
In turn, I think I've sounded more pessimistic than I should regarding such
ideals. Those kinds of realities are what I think are one of the major flaws
of a market; it's a natural selection process with high stakes, which could
be good for the group, but is pretty rough at ground zero. What are the
alternatives? Dunno.
Ideals are good things to have; if framed as guiding principles, they turn
into vision, which is essential. Pragmatism without principles is just
animal, not especially a fun thing to be involved with, and probably doomed
in the long run because it has no direction. Principles without pragmatism;
that's failure.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT