--- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan said:
>
> > Then of course the same people were the ones making "convincing sells"
> > to the VCs and getting funding for solving NP complete problems with a
> > Turing machine in 6 months.
>
> What kind of .com business plan is that?! It has *obvious* revenue
> streams when the product is complete - they really should've been using
> their first-mover advantage to corner the online tiramisu market.
>
Ha!
All of the ones I was involved in had this quality. They were comeing up with
on line services or sales models that (unbenonced to them) required a human
in the chain somehere doing the things that currently only humans can do.
Only they thought "it's on line", "can't you just write the code to do that?"
Then they had Lib-arts people who didn't have a clue that you couldn't
spending 6 months trying to write the code to do it, Even when they could
figure it out, the brute forece methods (even acounting for Dyxtras alg)
ended up taking so long that with one user the response time was in the hours
or minutes range, but with multiple users the response time became so long,
that you wouldn't get a response in your lifetime. (It haden't "hung" mind
you, it was still there, churning away, waiting for the day that some very
ditant ansestor of yours would get the respionmse and say "42?!" what do you
mean, 42?! what kind of answer is that? I'm not paying money for that!." )
Even with the systems that accepted work arounds the users just called up to
talk to a human becouse the interface was necisarily so complex it was trying
to get the user to make all the "human" decisions without the knowledge of
how the buisness was ran. These required too many employees for the venture
to ever be profitable.
So they started getting better at getting the customer to make the right
decisions, but this just allowed the intelegent customers to understand the
buisness model and take atvantage of it.
In the end the only thing that really worked was mail order catalogs without
the mail. And I'm talking about B2B here just as much as B2C.
Then of course there were all the "on-line" marketears who atualy
conglomerated into buisness that still exist.
The facinating thing is the "TV channel" or "Magazine" style website (not the
ones for actual tv channels or magazines), or othes who had noting but
advertising to sell. Didn't they know that Yahoo was owned by the same groups
who owned the advertisers?
sheesh!
Good money while it lasted though. Sometimes you had to wonder. I had this
one Joke BP for the "SexRevolver.com" (which is probably taken) we would run
from VC to VC swindeling them for more and more money. The content of the
site wouldn't matter, just the extream punk look of it. And that was the
actual BP you run from VC to VC. The site logo would be "Throwing Bad Money
For Good!". You know, "for good", like you won't get it back.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
