I agree with every sentence you wrote. Hindery was wrong about many things, but the distribution emphasis may be the one area where he was right. Of course, that's why he's reviled. ATHM could develop their distribution for Att and be the intermediary for all comers like ELNK, AOL, etc. No viable competitor would bother to enter or compete except Road Runner. Instead they have taken this questionable "content" direction.
No one has yet defined "content". What is it? A Portal with fancy enhancements to existing apps? Consider what @Home does to Navigator. It's a junked up piece of garbage. You have to root out the native version and install your own. However, am I right about this? The public loves to consume junk and so ATHM's current strategy is one of a junk food preparer and distributor. As you said AOL proved junk works. It makes you feel goooood. Redo with passion is what the aficionado does, but most want to ring bells and blow whistles.
I prefer the porthole to portal and have to go with Hindery on this, but I don't know if that is the best junk strategy. I could care little about the viewport. I want the data, but mine isn't a visio-centric model and in the long run the multimedia aspect like VOD is where the action will be. How to get there is all the question. Building up the distribution model to be ISP agnostic gives you a certain control, but in doing this with too much emphasis like Hindery, and perhaps, Att wanted, you give up the development necessary to become a facilitator of multimedia rather than only a provider. By development I mean fumble bumbling along with a whole new way to bottle and present.
So I have to disagree with us. We have the better argument as far as intermediate term stock evaluation is concerned, but the long term is best served by junk. You have to have a clown and collection of hacks managing the company to land junk. Their decisions are completely random and so they find the optimal path. Success comes by not knowing. When you don't know it is the case that you are open to change and can adapt to whatever hokey fad develops. When you know you prevent yourself from accepting new outlandish ideas. That's why I like the stock again. Because it is awful.
As for Att's culprit status I have always had my doubts about their true motives. One of the posters here, gpowell, who knows his stuff recently reminded us the importance of subscriber growth. No one could argue about that since it is axiomatic, but it is hostage to the local distribution density. Att is going through hell trying to get some model up and at the same time is putting an incredible effort into the SLC test. ATHM absolutely hinges on the success of Att's success there. The product must work well. That won't happen unless the density comes down. Without a lower density the added value of @Home evaporates. Multimdeia wouldn't be possible and the distribution issue collapses taking subs growth with it. Consequently, I am trying to stay off Att's case. |
