Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjim
I never cried about it. I wrote that's just how it is and I accept it.
Anyway, the examples you used were based on new technology phasing out older technology which is not really an apt analogy. The computer replacing the typewriter is not the same as someone giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free content so he can make a few thousand a month when before he started giving it away for free, he could have made tens of thousand a month with that same content that he has now devalued. The market didn't devalue it, the businessman did. If it's smart business these days to devalue your own product yourself, then I may need to go back to business school.
My point again in case you missed it. I accept the way it is, but to claim it's good business or smart business is pretty stupid. What these authors are actually describing is a SHRINKING economy. If the readers believe that there is more opportunity in a shrinking economy, then they need to brush up on their economics.
|
The computer and typewriter aren't good analogies, which is why I didn't use that analogy.
I used an analogy of AT&T getting as much as $1 per minute for long distance calls in the past, and today people being able to make long distance calls for free. But AT&T's market cap and yearly profits are much higher today than they were back then, because they were willing to CHANGE with the times.
That's as close to a perfect analogy as there is, you just don't want to accept it. Or you say you "accept it" but you think that it's bad.
So is it bad that long distance calls don't cost $1 per minute anymore? Is it bad that banks give out free checking accounts now instead of charging $10 per month for them?
You're standing so close to the tapestry that you can only see a few strands of thread. I'd like to invite you to step back and see the whole picture.
