Dear Steven;
I agree with you on every point.
Re: doctors. Tendency to think we're smart about everything (read: 'hubris').
Re: competition, deep pockets, R&D, etc. You are right. The inside straight analogy is most appropriate, except I would construct that paradigm as a function of skill vs. chance. Strategic positioning and core abilities leave room for entrepreneurs in every field. Don't try to go down the teeth of the big dog; you'll get eaten.
My comments were very superficial re:Remedy. We are not trying to go down their teeth. More explanation would be required than what is reasonable here (I don't want to author a tome). Our product is synergistic with that of Remedy. There may at some time be some slight overlap in functionality, (as there is, for example, with CA). But we will never really do what they do, and they will never really do what we do. The potential for each to be substantially stronger based on a constructive, mutually beneficial relationship is the goal.
But as for big customers and small companies, would it make an impression on you if I reveal that Global's first three customers are:
- Storage Tek
- General Electric Capital Corp.
- Burlington Northern Railways
Thanks for your feedback. With no great surprise, I am finding more intelligent conversation here than over in "$5 and under".
Regards, Steve Roberts
P.S. I also agree with your assertion regarding the big companies getting bigger, often through acquisition. My first response is that, "hey, I think I'ld probably like that a lot (especially if they paid us about $800 million, as IBM paid for Tivoli)" Second response, if any small player has a 'strategic piece', there is a high likelihood that player will be acquired, once that piece has proved its worth in the marketplace.
P.P.S. Since I have accepted your 'light hearted' dig at my profession, it's only fair you tell me yours. |
