Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (95611)	3/6/2000 7:45:00 AM
From: Robert Rose	Respond to of 164687

<The AT&T analogy is perfect, because before the telephone was widely used, companies had to employ much less efficient means of contacting their suppliers and distributors. The telephone revolutionized the flow of information. > Let's forget about revenue models for a moment. Do you happen to know where AT@T ranks in the Fortune 500? <BTW- I saw no less than two major online articles stating my exact position over the past week. This viewpoint is hardly mine alone.> Feel free to post such articles here, kis. Don't be afraid to contribute some substance!

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (95611)	3/6/2000 8:07:00 AM
From: dbblg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

>>More likely because you're long to the gills in B2B mania stocks LOL! I wish. Other than ITWO I missed the sector completely. (I do own some EXLN, but they aren't claiming a transaction-based future revenue stream.) >>and applying any sort of actual logic to those positions would keep you from sleeping at night. Ignorance is bliss. "Doctor? You were wrong. I wasn't an insomniac all those years, I was just very very well-informed." Notwithstanding my hours of blissful slumber, I am still having some trouble figuring out what you think you are proving. >>The AT&T analogy is perfect, because before the telephone was widely used, companies had to employ much less efficient means of contacting their suppliers and distributors. The telephone revolutionized the flow of information. OK, I'm with you so far >>Who knows, there were probably some crackpots predicting that AT&T would get a cut of every deal made over a telephone. Maybe there were even some crackpots claiming that AT&T would get paid every time someone used the phone, and that as telephone use increased, AT&T's business would also increase. Oh, wait, that happened. The premise behind the revaluation of the supply-chain companies is that getting paid every time a transaction occurs is preferable to getting paid solely when your salespeople somehow manage to get a license deal through the bureaucracy at a given company. Since you are so fond of your telephone analogy, it would be as if AT&T started out by selling customers a hugely expensive standalone telephone and switch and expected the customer to string wire to whomever they wanted to do business with. And then, as if AT&T later decided instead to establish a network, perhaps sell the telephones and switches for less money, and get paid whenever there was activity over the network. >> It's the exact same thing as the current B2B stock pimp's prognostications. Could you be more specific? Hoffman at CMRC has made a point of emphasizing that their business model doesn't care how big each individual transaction is as long as the number of transactions keeps going up. (Someone more current on CMRC pl. correct me on this if I'm wrong. That was the party line as of last fall.) Anyway, you get the last word. All this talk of B2B reminds me of the profits I missed out on by taking CMRC off my watchlist when they got replaced at WCOM last year. (I think the split-adjusted price was 14 or so...)