Kontra, I'd hate to take up any more of your time pontificating about concepts and ideas to which I'm blind. I think we're a long way from the original point of this thread, so I'll respectfully agree to disagree and move on.
Regards Steve 2008/9/23 Kontra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in > > the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the > underlying > > value of the business. > > > > You're making gigantic assumptions here. It's perfectly OK to establish a > company SIMPLY to sell it at the earliest profitable opportunity to another > company. You can't walk a mile in the Valley without stumbling upon a > business just so constructed. > > Now, does that immediately make them an MLM proposition? Who are you to > tell > founders and/or shareholders of a company how they should get to their > payoff day? > > If the company was constructed to sell, then that's what it's going to > focus > on. That's Business 101. I have no idea what the founders and the > subsequent > shareholders of YouTube, Skype, MySpace, Bebo, etc actually wanted, but I'm > fairly certain they are satisfied with what they have achieved. > > Google, eBay, News Corp, AOL didn't quite get their money's worth and > couldn't make lemonade? How is that the fault of the acquired companies, as > they got satisfaction? > > > > the fundamentals of the business... > > > > ...is what others are willing to pay for it, not for uninvolved parties to > pontificate on. > > As I previously said, what success means to one company may not necessarily > mean the same to an acquirer that may have entirely different metrics, > concerns, business models, etc. > > Google, for example, doesn't focus on making money from services, and the > vast majority of its revenue comes from advertising. So acquiring the > world's biggest social network in FaceBook may mean, business wise, > something different to Google than FB or some other company. Google may > have > entirely different capabilities of monetizing that network than FB. You may > think FB's business fundamentals are not there, because you're narrowly > stuck in FB-as-an-independent-company model, whereas Google may have far > different ambitions with FB. > > You're seemingly blind to network effects, which is at the heart of many > successful online businesses. > > -- > Kontra > http://counternotions.com > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > -- ---------------------------------------------- Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA Principal Consultant Meld Consulting M: +61 417 061 292 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
