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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michaelth1 who wrote (23885)	7/25/2000 11:53:59 AM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

There are two separate issues with self-install: The technical problems it creates and the subscribers it adds. Irrespective of the first problem, self-installs will help the top line. If you conflate the two issues and treat them as one, then you would have to argue that Home Depot was never a good buy because too many do-it-yourselfers screw things up <g>. DocStone

To: Michaelth1 who wrote (23885)	7/25/2000 12:28:31 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Do you think that ATHM makes 3 million by YE00 without self installs? It's a moot point because @Home looks like it is going to go that route anyway. So we'll never know if it would make a difference. They may or may not make it to 3 million this year and in the long run it matters about as much as all the other metric deadlines that they have had to meet. Remember trying to make it to 100,000? Who cares now? Or 6 million by YE01? Or 12 million by YE02? Yes, as we get further out the predictability gets better.....but with one cavet, everyone is notoriously bad at predicting the future, especially those involved intimately with technology. So far @Home has come awfully close to their plan, closer than can even be rationally expected considering how many unknowns were involved when it was put into place. If so, perhaps the better investment is in whoever supplies the vans. Hey, that was my idea. I think that it's erroneous to think that self-installs won't spur demand. Regardless of whether there's a backlog of people on the waitlist of "@Home-ready" areas, I think that there are many, many people who don't have @Home because they don't want to deal with taking a day off from work or waiting in a 4 hour window of time for the cable guy to arrive, not to mention the installation fee. To some degree it's an enertia thing, like you say. Perhaps some people will be moved to join up if they can order their self-install kit. I know I left very little for the tech to do on my install (I don't trust an $8/hour guy inside my computer) and might have opted for a self-install if the install hadn't been free. But the reason I waited a year and a half to get the service was because it wasn't available in my area yet.....staying home waiting for the guy was not an issue in the least. I thought the guy who showed up was great and he went a long way to give me a good feeling about the company and the way it was being run. This is really the only opportunity for the @Home people to come face to face with their customers. When you have a premium service, face to face is important. This should be seen as an opportunity to create goodwill with the customer instead of a problem. I've set up and run many networks (although I admit that it's been a while) and know the headaches that go along with people monkeying with their configurations. I think it's worth the risk. Right now we have few unhappy campers. Unhappy campers are an Internet company's worst nightmare. People always blame problems with their computer on someone else even when they have caused the problem. I'm sure you know this. To think we'll get to 16 million without some kind of big issue like this is naive, but why give it a chance to start now...it is very early in the game. 3 million is nothing in the Internet space. Remember, an install done correctly only has to be done once and then you have that revenue stream in perpetuity. >>>That doesn't mean that ATHM can't use some of AOL's tactics.<< Be specific....which tactics? AT&T wants C&C as partners and I don't think that AT&T cares that C&C is on the board, so long as AT&T controls the board and management, which it does. How can this be known? I think that management HAS improved since AT&T took over the reigns. But wait, I thought you were sighting them as the problem. Or is it that you think they are still a problem, but not as big a problem as they were before? In what way have they improved? I don't see how it's in T's interests to lose the other cable guys. They need them and they don't need them. If you have them as part owners then they have a vested interest in seeing ATHM succeed. In the future, though, most likely the interests of the other cable partners and T will diverge. Fast execution is the most important thing in the Internet. Committees are not renowned for fast execution. The cable companies also have intrenched interests within their own, these interests are in conflict with ATHM to a certain degree. You could see a situation where they agree and then do nothing. This kind of thing happens all the time when interests are not aligned. The fact that T has control over the board doesn't insure that this won't happen.