I beg your pardon?

Are you completely unable to frame our discussion? Please cut the bullshit.

Are you implying that there are no pioneering costs to being among early adopters of unproven sotware technology? Are you implying that adopting unproven software technology is likely to be profitable? Are you implying that it's going to be difficult for new players to enter dot net development and that, by extension, it won't be a crowded space?

Or have these notions completely escaped you?


**--** Steve


>>"...As somebody who possesses an MBA, "
>>
>>Can you convert Black's economic [model] summations to algebra :-)?
>
>Given time, I probably could... but who cares....
>
>Having said that, here is what he said...
>
><<
>the "rising stars" box is typically characterized by low barriers to entry, crowded with competitors, pioneering costs, technology risk and, as a result, below average profitability.
><<
>
>My response:
>
>
>Low Barriers to Entry:
>
>I don't know if I would characterize getting into the tools market on the scale of .NET as easy. Finding development talent, getting the necessary funding to support what will be healthy burn rate, etc... I think these represent significant barriers to entry.
>
>Pioneering Costs:
>
>This is nothing more than R and D. MS has a 5.5 Billion Dollar R and D budget. Nothing more on the matter needs to be said...
>
>Technology Risk:
>
>The platform is windows - which is owned my MS. I think this mitigates much of the risk. MS, having recognized past mistakes is less likely to make *as many* in the future. OTOH, maybe they will make more. Assuming the risk is great, MS is probably in the best shape to bear the risk.
>
>Below Average Profitability:
>
>If average profitiablity is 30 cents on the dollar, MS might make 25 cents instead. Below average profitability is not red!
>
>Seems to me that .NET is a pretty well situated "rising start".
>
>Steve will need to "refactor" < g > his argument...