Nick,
> > Perhaps those whose feathers are ruffled by Daniel's assertion that
> >most
> >i-mode sites are not profitable
> > can provide a few examples of sites that are.
> What exactly would this show? It is all just anecdotal. (And what would
> its absence show? I can certainly name two Japanese sites off the top of
> my head (I developed them) that turn a healthy profit for their owners -
> but I am sure as hell not going to share what is confidential information
> with a third party. So my silence will be taken, presumably, as further
> validation of the Skusa thesis.
It would provide a solid basis for discussion and analysis. There is a
lot to be said for and much to be learned from case studies. Otherwise we
end up with both sides claiming that the lack or evidence damns the other
position and proves theirs -- a lot of chatter and vitriol.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but in general when people are making
money, they talk about it. It's human nature. If a significant number of
sites were making money we would be hearing about it. No news is bad news,
as it were.
Likewise most of the business models I've seen for wireless sites,
including some that got a lot of press play, are just plain silly. That is
not to say it is impossible to make money with a wireless site. In fact, I
would love to hear about how companies are doing so.
> It isn't that I disagree terribly with the major claim - that many i-mode
> sites, including the majority of a wild ones ( a lot of which are "just
> for fun"), are not profitable. But who ever thought that they were? It
> certainly isn't a secret, still less a dirty one.
Wow. The poor guy can't win for loosing. Some people slam him because
the article was unfairly negative and unsubstantiated, and others slam him
because it just said what everybody already knows.
Tim
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Sep 7 13:08:17 2001