And/or the customer gets crapped on, when the small mom and pop gets taken over by the large company who outsources support and, as someone already put it, becomes "faceless"
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:22 AM, David E. Smith <d...@mvn.net> wrote: > Robert West wrote: > > Why should [big companies] invest > > their cash in building a market when we can do it for them and once it's > > about ripe, they can just walk in and pick it? We need to do what we can > to > > protect our little piece of the pie somehow. > > A small entrepreneur sees an opportunity, builds something that lots of > people want, makes some money from it, then a larger company buys it and > makes said entrepreneur filthy rich (or at least better-off than he > was). The customers win (they get the benefit of the new network > regardless of who built it), the guy that just cashed out wins, the > bigger company that buys the network wins (they presumably see profit > potential or else they wouldn't buy). I thought this sort of > sweat-equity-for-cash tradeoff was basically the American dream. > > I don't see this being a bad thing for anyone involved. > > David Smith > MVN.net > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
