keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
>
>First--note that the word "failure" used in conjunction with imode in
>the summary of the Strand report quoted is in speech marks, which
>indicates there is an irony to be observed, or question to be raised.
>
>What follows from Mr. Fasol is an interesting "argument".
Then you have misunderstood what you have quoted. As far as I can see,
Fasol has stated no more than fact. Other than a general point that the
internet in general is going through a shakeout, you certainly have not
presented any evidence to the contrary.
>
>
>"This is an astonishing email: it's the first and only time sofar I=20
>have heard anybody call imode a "failure". Considering that imode is at
>the heart of a new multi-billion dollar industry with more than=20
>1000 companies participating as well as providing many new jobs,=20
>it's astonishing to call this new industry a failure, and I am not
>sure you'll find many people agreeing with your judgment."
>
>Multi-billion dollar industry. More than 1000 companies. Many new jobs.
>
>Ummmmm.... sounds a bit like the Internet, doesn't it Gerhard? I
>personally wouldn't say the web was a "failure",
EXCELLENT! - so even given that we accept your analogy, you agree with
Fasol on the important point....
>but by late 1999/early
>2000 it was certainly ready for a shakeout. Thousands of companies have
>subsequently gone bust. Thousands of folks have lost their jobs. And for
>companies such as EMC, Oracle and so on which had told investors the
>internet represented "a new multi-billion dollar industry" the truth was
>out there just waiting to make itself felt. Just look at those share
>prices and revenue streams now.=20
>
>I have still not seen any good hard evidence on this list or anywhere
>else about the majority of imode businesses and whether they earn
>revenues/make profits and/or are still in VC or corporate-funded capital
>investment mode.
Possibly true. But I don't see anything that you have quoted of Fasol's
that asserts the contrary. So why the spleen?
>
>Imode is of course a huge success, as is Yahoo or AOL Time Warner. Does
>that mean *every* imode or Net-based business is or will be a success?
Now you are being silly... Straw man, anyone?
>This is surely confusing the branded service offering from the ecosystem
>supporting it.
Straw man defeated!
>Gerhard then continues to gnash his gums:
I am all in favour of the odd ad-hominem myself - but only from people who
have made valid points. I neither know, nor care terribly, who Fasol is or
what he does, but you sure as hell ain;t entitled to such remarks on the
basis of your email to date.
>
>"One such point of misunderstanding is the assumption that the imode
>industry consists of content-providers only. That is just plain wrong.
>For example, some major content providers in Japan are video chain
>stores,
>or the railway companies. A railway company with millions customer=20
>does not need an official site on DoCoMo's menu, and they don't need=20
>to make a stand-alone profit from their imode site."
>
>I can only assume that I have missed something.
Weeeeell it could have been better expressed, but the meaning is clear
enough. The point that lots of content and value for the consumer (and
jobs and so on) come from "wild" sites shines through.
>You first state that the
>imode industry does not only consist of content providers. You then
>define video stores and railway companies as content providers. Then say
>one of these "content providers" doesn't need an official imode menu
>option and don't need to make a standalone profit. Then continue as if
>an argument were actually being made about walled gardens. Umm. Just
>what is the argument being made if you don't mind me asking?
This is VERY laboured. Do you have some personal gripe with Fasol that we
should know about?
>
>To really clear up some misunderstandings perhaps you should try and get
>beyond your own knee-jerk reactions to other people's comments and
>input.
mmmm - with a post like yours, certainly no-one is going to accuse YOU of
being a knee....
>
>
>Sorry to be so personal.
Then why BE personal?
> This is not really intended as a flame, so much
>as a call for more clarity.
Nonsense! - At least have the courage of your venom, old chap....
>After all, I can think of few people better
>qualified to explain how to do imode right than you, Mr. Fasol, after
>your successes of the last 2 years.
>
>On the other hand your parochial attitude may harm Eurotechnology's
>future prospects. Showing a clear understanding of both the Japanese and
>European markets would demonstrate a very clear value proposition.
>Claiming there is only one way to skin a cat on the other hand, is
>canonical, patronizing, and in my humble opinion, just plain wrong.
Humility as well! - my - you have it all, don't you... A personal question
Governer, this being the season of goodwill and all - did you write your
email while drunk? It rather reads as though you did.
nick
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 27 20:59:10 2001