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: H James Morris who wrote (131120)	9/10/2001 6:36:39 PM
From: Mark Fowler	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Name me one investor who ever accused William of losing them money here??? Maybe Rob Rose, but he got out of the market several months ago and is happily retired due to the $millions he took out before the bubble burst. Don't worry about Rob Rose running out of money. He sold eBay near its peak, and dumped all of his Amzn in Dec 1999. Trust me.:) Just think of the millions you can make on the way down! I read some of the latest posts here and most of you guys don't have clue. Well i think most you bubble bashers here are fence watchers. Well i'll give some credit to Craig and you to Jim but thats it.

To: H James Morris who wrote (131120)	9/10/2001 8:16:11 PM
From: Mark Fowler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

i Guess you know what? !

To: H James Morris who wrote (131120)	9/10/2001 10:50:51 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

NETWORK WORLD NEWSLETTER: GIBBS AND BRADNER 09/07/01 - Today's focus: Not so sure bets Today's focus: Not so sure bets By Scott Bradner If there's one thing that the network biz has had in excess it's unbelievable success stories. Unfortunately, most of these stories were written well before the results were actually in. It's hard to count the number of times this and other publications, professional pundits and telecom research firms have declared victory in the telecom arena before a race actually started. SNA, APPN, ISDN, ATM, IPX, IP, PKI, a whole bunch of wireless variants, CLECs, DSL, cable modems, switches, routers, a pile of optical technologies, Fibre Channel, Lucent, Nortel, Cisco, network-based storage, peer-to-peer networking, the Grid, and untold-other-seemingly-important-at-the-time technologies and companies were all touted as going to take over the world. But most have faded almost as fast as they appeared. The full story has not yet been written on some, but I strongly doubt that any of them, other than maybe IP, will ever live up to the hype. This is not a phenomenon limited to professional prognosticators. I spent most of last week with someone who is absolutely convinced that third- or fourth-generation wireless (3G or 4G) will alleviate the need for all other forms of access technology. In his mind, there will be no need for any type of wired broadband access service with 10s of megabits flowing through the ether. And he would brook no disagreement with that view. With such a success-free history, why do folk of all types persist in making their assertions and predictions? We can ignore those who are in marketing and are just trying to sell a product (or raise venture capital) but that leaves a bunch of people who should have learned from history but seemingly have not. Next are the analysis firms. You know the ones that predict billions of dollars in sales in three years for a product that has not yet made it to the market. I have no idea where they possibly have gotten the data on which they make their predictions - it seems most likely that it is data-free analysis. And they will keep at it as long as people will pay them for the results of the "analysis." What a different world it would be if these firms got paid partly upfront and the remainder three years later based on the accuracy of the predictions. That mostly leaves amateur psycho-historians who, like amateur lawyers, assert with great vigor the imaginations of their own mind, reporters for trade publications who blindly quote the wild predictions, and folks like me who write for those trade publications. The reporters' actions can be understood by the combined pressure of deadlines, few real facts and good marketing people. But I see little excuse for us writers to fall for the marketing. ("Marketing" is not the word I would use if it were not for the polite nature of this publication.) But too often we do. Disclaimer: Harvard does OK in the marketing department but the above disbelief is mine and not the university's. _______________________________________________________________ To contact Scott Bradner: Bradner is a consultant with Harvard University's University Information Systems. He can be reached at mailto:sob@sobco.com.