Steven, I don't think I'm alone in my perception that the discourse on this thread has dropped to a very immature level and is becoming pointless. There seem to be more ad hominem posts than those offering useful information. The "longs" complain that the "shorts" offer no facts; the "shorts" say that the "longs" are full of hype. Some of this comes to pass because there doesn't seem to be much new information on M/D at this time. Much has been stated and restated. In the mean time, people start taunting each other about how much money they'll lose, what fools (not Motley) they must be to invest in whatever and then start attacking each other personally. I really don't understand what it is supposed to prove. Earlier on there were some colorful characters posting, but they seemed to know they were clowning around. Tonight it seems that these negative behaviors are starting to be recognized for what they are and hopefully may stop.
That said, let's talk about M/D. A fact stated in your post is that M/D has an automated solution to the year 2000 problem. Without trying to be provocative, let me say that I don't understand what that means (being a skeptical engineer) in terms of business potential. I also have no idea whether or not other vendors are persuing similar approaches to the problem. What I'm getting at is that simply having a technology, even having the best technology, by no means guarantees that a business plan can be executed successfully. Examples of this abound--two off the top of my head are Apple's Macintosh operating system and Sony's Betamax VCR. Of course, this is my conjecture and I do not pretend it is "factual".
Some information I've gathered closer to fact is through some people I work with who have been studying the 2000 problem for the Air Force. In fact, we hosted a two day seminar on the problem for the US Air Force about a month ago. Their view is that the problem is overhyped in terms of its size and amount of resources required for the fix. That is not to say that there is no problem. Just that the scenarios of software meltdown, societal breakdown, crop failures and more movies based on old TV shows (like the one presented in Business Week) are overdone. I think it's important to remember that there is a lot of hype with this. I'm not saying that you are hyping anything. Jounalists like to get published and read--so they often overstate the significance of their stories. There is much money to be made by small time consultants who will "check" for 2000 compliance and so there is collective benefit for them if the problem is highlighted. One of the recommendations from the seminar was to not employ solutions that required the code to be sent to the vendor. M/D's baseline solution is for clients to send their code. I am aware that they will provide on-site support for those who won't do that, but how will it work if most customers insist on keeping their code on site. They also pointed out to me that the business will be very competitive with many big players getting involved. M/D may have team with one of the big consulting firms. Again, I don't know that these are facts. This point of view seems correct to me on an intuitive basis, and as you've probably guessed I'm short on ZITL.
I'm interested in information from all sources if it is accurate. I've noticed that you've offered information about what is happening in Nevada and other beta test sites. I'm curious about the source of this data so that I can evaluate it.
However, I bode no ill will to anyone long and imagine that many have enjoyed an extraordinarily profitable ride in the last few months.
Regards,
Lyle
|
