Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XP] if not capital-efficient, then what?

Expand Messages
  • Kelly Anderson
    ... I agree with you 100% IF it didn t simultaneously prevent them from being first to market. The fact that they were focused on business rather than
    Message 1 of 46 , Jun 27, 2007
      On 6/27/07, Manuel Klimek <klimek@...> wrote:
      > Kelly,
      >
      > I agree with everything you say. But perhaps I draw different conclusions:
      > You brought up companies who are great successes in spite of being
      > technically - um- let's say not totally optimal. Some of them were
      > first in the market /in spite of/ being not technically excellent. I believe
      > that some of them would have been even greater successes had they
      > been better on a technical level.

      I agree with you 100% IF it didn't simultaneously prevent them from
      being first to market. The fact that they were focused on business
      rather than technology was what helped. I see technically excellent
      companies fail all around me because they take the eye off the
      business ball. Anyone hear of Cogito?

      > I don't think that technical excellence makes you go slower, I think
      > it makes you go faster. It's all about the law of the cost of the error.

      If you know how to do it right (XP style, for example) then yes, you
      can probably go faster. If you are focused on business to the point
      that you aren't focused on learning XP, you are probably more likely
      to succeed IF you are also the main business person. If you know both,
      then congratulations, you're a super genius, and you deserve your
      millions. Scratch that, billions. :-)

      > BTW, from my point of view google, skype, ebay and youtube are
      > technically excellent. I never had a single problem with gmail and
      > it filters my spam better than any open source solution I could
      > come up with. I haven't found a better search engine than google yet.
      > I never heard one of my (non-nerd) friends complain about
      > ebay, and they use it a lot. Even my mother knows how to use ebay.

      I agree that these work. But they aren't necessarily excellent with
      the possible exception of the Google search engine, which CLEARLY is
      excellent, at least in performance, accuracy and scalability. The
      things users care about. If the code is clean, well designed and
      readable, that I couldn't tell you. Does it matter to you when you
      search with Google? It doesn't to me.

      > Skype was a revelation on how to do high quality audio over
      > low bandwidth lines, it's easy to use.

      And it doesn't work worth a crap stability wise. Skype is my primary
      home phone right now, and it sucks. I have to reboot the computer
      often, and incoming calls infrequently work. Once you're talking, it
      seems to be fine. Connecting doesn't work well at all though. That's a
      case where more quality would help a lot!

      -Kelly
    • Kelly Anderson
      ... I agree with you 100% IF it didn t simultaneously prevent them from being first to market. The fact that they were focused on business rather than
      Message 46 of 46 , Jun 27, 2007
        On 6/27/07, Manuel Klimek <klimek@...> wrote:
        > Kelly,
        >
        > I agree with everything you say. But perhaps I draw different conclusions:
        > You brought up companies who are great successes in spite of being
        > technically - um- let's say not totally optimal. Some of them were
        > first in the market /in spite of/ being not technically excellent. I believe
        > that some of them would have been even greater successes had they
        > been better on a technical level.

        I agree with you 100% IF it didn't simultaneously prevent them from
        being first to market. The fact that they were focused on business
        rather than technology was what helped. I see technically excellent
        companies fail all around me because they take the eye off the
        business ball. Anyone hear of Cogito?

        > I don't think that technical excellence makes you go slower, I think
        > it makes you go faster. It's all about the law of the cost of the error.

        If you know how to do it right (XP style, for example) then yes, you
        can probably go faster. If you are focused on business to the point
        that you aren't focused on learning XP, you are probably more likely
        to succeed IF you are also the main business person. If you know both,
        then congratulations, you're a super genius, and you deserve your
        millions. Scratch that, billions. :-)

        > BTW, from my point of view google, skype, ebay and youtube are
        > technically excellent. I never had a single problem with gmail and
        > it filters my spam better than any open source solution I could
        > come up with. I haven't found a better search engine than google yet.
        > I never heard one of my (non-nerd) friends complain about
        > ebay, and they use it a lot. Even my mother knows how to use ebay.

        I agree that these work. But they aren't necessarily excellent with
        the possible exception of the Google search engine, which CLEARLY is
        excellent, at least in performance, accuracy and scalability. The
        things users care about. If the code is clean, well designed and
        readable, that I couldn't tell you. Does it matter to you when you
        search with Google? It doesn't to me.

        > Skype was a revelation on how to do high quality audio over
        > low bandwidth lines, it's easy to use.

        And it doesn't work worth a crap stability wise. Skype is my primary
        home phone right now, and it sucks. I have to reboot the computer
        often, and incoming calls infrequently work. Once you're talking, it
        seems to be fine. Connecting doesn't work well at all though. That's a
        case where more quality would help a lot!

        -Kelly
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.