Just as someone can seldom have the best of both worlds, one can seldom have the worst of both, either. Brush aside, for a moment, the proposal that all the opinions expressed about WINR on the Internet are not opinions at all, but "lies". Once we are over that tiny and weak-minded obstacle, we find a greater one, in a confusing dichotomy of opinion expressed recently on a more active board:
On the one hand, it is proposed that WINR "no longer has state-of-the-art processing technology, if they ever did", because, obviously, the money for R & D must be all but non-existent.
On the other hand, the market for processing e-commerce transactions must have become so miniscule that it would be a serious stretch to even imagine WINR earning 2% of $3-million per month, for a measly $720,000/year before expenses.
So if there's no market, why are these imaginary competitors working feverishly to surpass WINR in this worthless software niche, without so much as offering to buy the WINR software for a decent price to use as a starting point-thus avoiding the very-expensive initial R & D needed just to catch up?
Or if, on the other hand, such a market exists that would spur these aspiring Bill Gate's to rush ahead of WINR, why-assuming he solves the company's short-term problems and gets financing-should Herr Vogt be necessarily excluded from a chance to grab even a niche in that thriving market. Enough of a niche to build a growing business on?
If it's one or the other, logic tells us it can't be both. And the best possible answer would also serve to explain why Herr Vogt keeps showing up for work enough to write us reports and plan meetings with us... |
