Re: [Sheflug] Linux versus the Other Stuff Debate

[Will Newton <nospam [at] misconception.org.uk>]

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Skepticism is justified, but the dot.coms are hardly different from
> any other "growth industry."  High return, high risk, that's all.
> There's always a lot of confusion over business models in a new
> industry.

Are there any other industries where you can (could) go to a bank with a
business plan that says "we have basically 0 revenue for the foreseeable
future" and ask for a big heap of cash?

> Selling software is hard, even if you're Microsoft.  If you abandon
> patent and copyright monopolies, it's not surprising you're left with
> a tough time coming up with a traditional business plan.

The thing that annoys me is that there are solid companies out there. e.g.
Gameplay. Yes, you may scoff, but that used to be a very solid company. It
was profitable and got caught up in the dotcom fallout.

> Someday someone will figure it out, we'll all wonder why we didn't
> think up something so obvious and get rich, and the market will
> settle down.  In the meantime, it's gambling.

A lot of dotcoms were just bloody stupid ideas. e.g. selling pet supplies
through a website. You think you can make a profit selling cat litter by
post? Low value, low margin, high transport cost items that rely heavily
on repeat sales and you have a customer base of zero. Insanity.

> Haw!  Another urban legend.  At least on either side of the Pacific.
> Dunno how the "old boy" network and the ENArque web works on that side
> of the Atlantic.

I know two companies for sure that have been financed through
friend/family connections.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.