Chaz too,
I didn't immediately respond to your post about Geoff Moore and the book because I wanted to give it some more thought. Now I'm ready. :)
Moore is either not interested or doesn't have the time to deal with a central point of (non)knowledge on his part in telecom.
I agree, but I think that's his right. Just as I'm making the decision not to spend a lot of time looking at UNPH, he's apparently making the decision not to spend a lot of time looking at QCOM. So you won't find me saying that it's wrong, bad, sad or anything. It's simply his choice.
That's where the comparison with my lack of interest in UNPH ends. I'm not offering an opinion about UNPH. However, Moore is offering a public opinion on his list-serv about QCOM. That opinion, relative to the models in his book, is based on his inferred perception of media coverage while at the same time he admits not having a handle on the facts. That is the sad part.
In fairness, he said all the right caveats,...
Yes and no. (My opinion.) He used the right caveat by admitting that he didn't have the facts.
But he also maintains the position that QCOM has no way of becoming a gorilla. His stance is that the telecom industry won't allow a gorilla to rule the turf having seen what the Wintel machine did to the PC industry. Extending that logic just a little bit more, should we conclude that there will never be another new gorilla supplying enabling software to a hardware industry because everyone knows what Wintel did "to" the PC industry? (A rhetorical and sarcastic question.)
... his answer is very discouraging to me and perhaps others who find the TGG a useful analytical tool.
Here is where I side entirely with LindyBill. For me, Moore's thinking about QCOM doesn't invalidate the book in the slightest. Ironically, the validity of his book makes me see even more clearly the error of his ways regarding the Q.
One of the co-authors disagreed with him about including Netscape in the hypothetical Internet Gorilla Game. I have to think the act of writing the book helped that person (I can't remember whether it was Johnson or Kippola.) crystallize his disagreement with Moore. To the extent that the book helps each of us form crystal-clear opinions, the book is time and again validated.
Lastly, on page 309 the authors write: "We should note that, when we have to eat crow, we will no doubt attempt to slather it with a sauce of explanation and self-justification. ... On the other hand, should we get to serve crow, we will of course dress up as if it were a Thanksgiving feast. In short, we will act shamelessly in either case, and we can only trust that you, the discriminating reader, will penetrate all our machinations and skewer us good and proper."
Not only have we skewered him good and proper but we've roasted him too. In the end, we all deserve our just desserts. He's gotten his by virtue of this thread and I think we'll get ours by virtue of our undersanding of the Q.
--Mike Buckley |
