united we stand
Adam L. Beberg
Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
On 10 Apr 2002, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> I'm not saying this reactive-mode is the /only/ viable business model;
> without gross-risk takers we wouldn't have either Yahoo or Google, but
> I wonder if stellar inventors are the exception, not the rule. I
> don't know how many times I have seen truly brilliant collections of
> highly engaged professionals go belly up; yes, some do because of bad
> management or external forces, but others just go because no one buys
> their stuff. Even those who initially made a go of it eventually
> cashed in their technology-driven methods for mundane market-drives.
Because all the tech companies in the dot-com pool follow the same pattern.
Give me a few billion and i can lose millions a quarter too. Geekie
companies have always been a black hole for money. Look at amazon "they gave
us 6 billion and we made 6 dollars, suckers!"
> Bucky had an elaborate 'science' of time-lags between inventions and
> when one might actually make a living supporting them.
17 years after the patent is granted, to the day. As soon as people dont
have to pay you for it, they will use it. Until they they will just roll
their own. Some people continue to roll their own even when they dont have
to leading to not-invented-here'itis.
> For whatever twisted motivations in his sad consumer hinterland, he _is_
> a community player, doing something for them, and they in turn, do
> something for him. Geez that's an annoying thought.
1. Make a list of 100 things people are willing to pay 20$ for.
2. Pick min 10 things and merge them together into one thing.
3. Charge $20 for it.
4. Watch some 14yr old open sourcer, making you useless.
5. Go broke, take job at McDonalds.
5. Goto step 1.
1. Find one thing a billionare is willing to pay a million dollors for.
2. Do it.
3. Retire rich.
Yup, real annoying that he's the smart one isnt it ;) Go buy some music from
the RIAA, that might cheer you up.
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg