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.

Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/7/2000 10:49:56 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 104159

el: It's called 'leapfrogging' technology... ... in the third world countries just now developing their infrastructures. Been goin' on at least since the early '80s, since I've written about it for corporate PR newsletters, etc. Infrastructure = electrical, telephone, utility (waste/wastewater). 'b-i-a' ###

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/7/2000 11:23:00 PM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 104159

elf, Somebody has been wearing their thinking cap... Cool post. I hope you share it with some of the other Porches. -ThinkingClap

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/8/2000 9:14:14 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 104159

Cool post... echos thinking around the water cooler. One guy here thought of a fanciful solution a few months ago. I'm posting for him. His advice: don't worry about deploying the latest technology. Don't worry about obsolescence. That's a "keeping up with the Jones' " strategy. Instead, take a few engineers and lock them away in a secret facility. Put them to work on the time machine. Who cares how long it takes, once it's finished, they can come back with the benefit of hindsight and precisely guide you towards optimum solutions. So you don't need the best and brightest. Just the ones with staying power. Who cares how much money it costs. Put a few bucks in the bank today - maybe a few banks - & when they're finished they can dial the exponent of the compound interest to whatever you want. Those working on the project won't need wages. Imagine the completion bonus! The sheer simplicity of his idea is stunning. It is almost a certainty that in some future it has already occurred ;)

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/8/2000 3:04:56 PM
From: Clappy	Respond to of 104159

I told you it was a cool post. SI agrees. Look on the front page. Polvie makes it big time! Congrats! -Clapping

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/8/2000 3:08:28 PM
From: Didi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 104159

polvie: COOL POST...BIG CONGRATS! eom

To: elpolvo who wrote (887)	12/10/2000 1:35:02 AM
From: she_x	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 104159

re: the "new problem" by the time we can research our options and engineer a solution for hardware and software deployment - IT'S OBSOLETE and we feel like we'll have made a bad decision because something more efficient and less costly will be available. i'm sure that almost all businesses are running into this "new problem". your neodigitechnophobia is needlessly holding your progress back IMO. this is not a new problem. probably started with the first invention. i'm sure igor said this octagon shaped wheel is really cool but thor is working on a more rounded one so i'll wait for that wheel to come out. many eons later, i myself wondered if my purchase of 4 new yokohama 245/45 ZR18's was wise. how long can you wait before you make a decision, that the decision to wait will end up costing you in the long run. a good example of this is china. it's easy to see how china has struggled with it's wireless communications solution... which technology to deploy, how long to wait before beginning deployment, etc. this is not what china is wrestling with. they are not trying to decide who's technology to buy as much as they are trying to find standards they can deploy using chinese resourses and in a manner where they are making the majority of the profits on the manufacturing and deployment of this technology. another aspect of this "new problem" is that those who WAIT to deploy capital improvements end up leapfrogging the technology of their competitors AT LESS COST, mind you. obviously, china will end up having a more advanced, more efficient telecommunications network (CDMA) than europe, at a much reduced deployment cost. again i say waiting too long costs a company in productivity growth and progress. this does illustrate the importance of technology being backward compatible or scalable though. that cuts out a lot of the leapfrogging and allows companies to quickly and cost efficiently upgrade or deploy new technology on the fly. perhaps in the future, instead of seeing huge companies increasingly growing larger and larger, we'll see huge companies becoming leaner, spinning out semi-independent "offspring". the large lean company will act as the "umbrella" company providing capital, research and development for the "offspring" to "leapfrog" each other with newer technologies in exchange for profit sharing back to the "umbrella", thereby averaging out the disadvantages of the "new problem". i think a conglomerate like say TYC is probably about as close to this as you'll get. i think one of the most valuable assets a company can have, as far as future successful growth goes, is smart, quick personnel with the right attitude and the ability to see and effectively deal with the "new problem". they need to be lean, they need to be small enough to deploy whole new systems quickly and affordably, and they need to have a constant supply of new capital. even with as low a rate of unemployment that we now have there is still a serious shortage of high tech employees and the answer for most of these companies is educational programs to teach and promote new technology. CSCO has some great programs in a lot of colleges now as does intel and many other tech companies. so i don't necessarily see this as a new problem as much as an ongoing problem. all companies are cyclical in their productivity, growth, profitability and progress. some just run in longer cycles than others. indentifying the upward cycle of a company can indeed be profitable for the investor. i believe this is one factor in the investing theory of buy when they hate the stock and sell when the love them. i think that's held up mainly because it follows the cycles of companies closely. again, all JMHO. she_xtreme