Re: Big corporations are at your mercy, really
|
Mar 31st, 2009, 12:55 AM
#9 (permalink)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JScott
Again, Fanocks, you have some great ACADEMIC ideas, but until you get out there and actually try some of these things you are suggesting, you won't realize that it's not as easy as saying, "First do this, then do that, and then wait for the huge multi-national firms to start handing you cash."
It's generally unclear from your posts whether you actually plan to do any of these things you suggest, so if you're really considering this idea, let me give some advice based on my knowledge of the industry and the players. First, I suggest you do some research into the technology (your statements above indicate that you don't really understand the technology), as building a half-decent product in this space will likely cost you millions in hardware, software and UI design. Second, do some research into the history of this market; it's been around for about 40 years, with most technology companies failing miserably because they too thought the service providers were weak.
A few examples:
Tivo -- backed by some of the biggest VCs in silicon valley -- has spent billions of dollars trying to capitalize on this business model, but has been near bankruptcy several times because they are at the mercy of the service providers (DirecTV, who dropped them, and Comcast, who is ripping them apart).
Bill Gates has spent 10 years and billions of dollars trying to own this space (with help from companies such as Alcatel, Cisco, IBM, Motorola, etc), but has failed at almost every turn because the service providers worldwide have chosen not to allow Microsoft to cater to their customers. Pretty much every telecom company in the world has had their broadcast television business threatened by MS, and most of them have just laughed and said, "I'm more powerful than you when it comes to my customers." (and they're right)
Larry Ellison tried to enter this marketplace back in the late 90's (by buying a company called Liberate Technologies), which quickly got squashed by Comcast when they tried to do exactly what you suggested (and like you suggested, Liberate had much better marketing and technology than Comcast at the time).
Every example I could come up with (and there are dozens) all lead to the same conclusion: the major service providers control the market, and if you try to gain access to their customers without their cooperation, you will lose. That's why none of the big companies I've mentioned above are even trying to take a competitive approach anymore.
Btw, most of these examples are in the US, where the telecoms are heavily regulated. In other parts of the world, large national/private owners control much of the broadcast infrastructure, making it even tougher to enter the marketplace without their cooperation.
I guess my point here is that if you can successful penetrate this market in any major country and with any major service provider, you don't really have to rely on the service provider your taking over to pay you off -- there will be multi-billion dollar companies from around the world lined up at your door to take your company off your hands for a very large sum of money.
Let us know how it goes!
|
Doom and gloom

. I don't quite have the same take on it. And that it should cost millions in development, I don't agree with that at all. You change small features on already existing technology. You refine it. Then you find customers for it. Then you get financing for it. Of course it will cost you, but a proven concept do attract finance.
Even if I, in this particular case, is an academic/newbie still, there is still many cases found in the real world where companies do this. It is not really a "pie-in-the-sky" concept.
I don't think you read my latest response very closely. I don't at all want to control the tech space. I am not a power player and probably never will be. I don't have an inclination to be a telecom power player. I want to sell out. Why should the big guys crush me in the first place when they could equally well buy me out with ease

? Are the big guys really that free of intelligence or are they so bored that they want to crush every ant that comes in their way just for the sheer fun of it? I don't believe so. It does not make sense burying a technology, or a new take on the matter, when you could equally well buy that small corporation and get a new competitive edge over the competition. I have seen Microsoft buy many small time companies just because of their new tecnology or whatever. Why didn't they just crush those small buggers

?
Big corporations becomes a big threat when you do not agree to sell out. If you agree to sell out and if you are such a serious problem to them, then it does not make sense to crush and burn, maybe steal. But if they can't steal it (because of legal protection and by common sense caution) and you still are open to sell "at the right price", then why shouldn't they pay you money for a job well done?
You mentioned that big corporations don't take a competitive approach anymore. Are you serious

? If they are not competitive then why do they still buy up companies to gain market shares? Why are they then still in the game to compete against other companies smaller than them? Of course they need to compete. Just because big corporations are big does not in any case reserve a place as winners forever. Someone as well read as you would know that history is full of big corporations going bust from right to left because of some small annoying companies with very low over heads and almost costless infrastructures (that is how small buggers compete as you may know, there is no other way). Please elaborate further here, I don't understand your argumentation. Fools seldom understand and you said you knew more so educate me

.