Ah Larry!

"Donald Graft" wrote

Quoted message said:

"Al" wrote

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don

Good time! I've been feeling guilty about my nazi arm band post, by the way - didn't mean for it
to come off as "Don is a nazi because he's conservative..." - it's just such a rare occassion
when I feel I have something "witty" to contribute that I tend to sometimes lose sight of the
underlying meaning or insinuations, so I apologize.

Thank you, Al. That is a gracious post and I appreciate it. I too have sort of gone over the top.
I'm planning to make up for it with a new batch of Barcelona 2003 videos, to be uploaded shortly.

Don

🙂

"Better to light a candle than curse the darkness". -- Anon

r.s.s. is an exceptional NG.

Shahin (burning the midnight oil with an assignment)

Martin - one thing I will concede about Gen. Clark - he has served his country well and with
distinction - and I'd also say the same about John Kerry. As for Bush going AWOL....that was pretty
typical for the rich, pampered spoiled brats of the time. If you didn't have the financial
resources - but also wanted to avoid going to Vietnam - you had other options, such as those taken
by Clinton and Dean.

Can Gen. Clark lead the country? I don't know, but I will give him as much consideration as any
other candidate.

Bill

M.W. Smith said:

But Microsoft didn't do that. It was a mistake by IBM in the negotiations for IBM's licensing of
DOS. This sort of think is an anomoly, not a path to success that can be duplicated. It isn't
something to emulate, because there isn't anything that can be duplicated.

Actually it wasn't a mistake in negotiations IBM made...it was a flat mis-read of the critical
importance of of the desktop O/S. IBM, in its glorious arrogance, assumed hardware - not software -
was the market driver, and Microsoft took them apart as a result. Proves my point even more - every
company has a weakness or a blind spot. Big ones in particular. It just takes someone with the
ambition, courage, and perservance to point it out, as MicroSoft did. Here are other examples:

Dell pointed out the merits of a direct, more cost-effective distribution channel...and has become
the number one supplier of PC's.

Cisco was the first mover in recognizing TCP/IP as the defacto communications protocol vs. SNA
- the protocol IBM created, favored, and blindly followed.....Cisco has become the world leader
in routers.

So, it can be duplicated...even in WalMart's turf...look at Amazom.com...better yet - look
at Ebay....they could be more disruptive - and powerful company - than WalMart could ever
hope to be....

Quoted message said:

But "rags to riches" and "possible for the small guy to compete" are not at all the same thing.
Furthermore, the ratio of rags to riches stories to failures is almost 0. It is simply
irresponsible to suggest that the way for the small guy to compete against the big guys is to
depend on achieving a rags to riches story.

no question about it - the odds for survival of a small business are staggeringly small. I know
firsthand. I've spent the last 20 years in venture-backed technology startups, where 7 out of 10
fail and only one, maybe two, hits it big. But, we all go into this world knowing the odds. And we
all don't apologize when we hit the jackpot....high risks carry high rewards.

Irresponsible? No. Risky? Yes. And, no one is forcing us to follow this path.......its our
choice to make.

Another point - change is constant. More so now than ever before, largely due to the steady stream
of technology. This requires companies to become more nimble and closer to their customers than
ever before.

One last point - I'm speaking strictly from a U.S. perspective. The opportunity to create wealth
from scratch not be true anywhere else in the world. But, America still remains the land of
opportunity to those who choose to go for it.

Quoted message said:

Why should it be legal for a company like Microsoft or WalMart to operate at a loss for years in
some area, when small guys are trying to compete in that same area?

Because there are U.S. laws against it, generally falling under the category of Anti-trust
violations and which incldue: pricing fixing, predatory pricing, bid-rigging, customer and market
allocation, tying arrangements, price discrimination, monopolization and various species of unfair
competition, including false advertising.

Quoted message said:

But by then it is too late. They don't have to prove up front that their pricing is not predatory.
Selling below cost is not illegal. A pattern of selling below cost for the purpose of defeating
competition is illegal. That is often hard to prove, because WalMart isn't required to prove
anything up front.

Very true. Sometimes the bad guys don't caught until its too late. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global
Crossing are just a few examples. The real damage these companies inflicated took place in the late
'90's......

Bill

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

Martin - one thing I will concede about Gen. Clark - he has served his country well and with
distinction - and I'd also say the same about John Kerry. As for Bush going AWOL....that was
pretty typical for the rich, pampered spoiled brats of the time. If you didn't have the financial
resources - but also wanted to avoid going to Vietnam - you had other options, such as those taken
by Clinton and Dean.

Can Gen. Clark lead the country? I don't know, but I will give him as much consideration as any
other candidate.

I can help. What are you looking for in a candidate? Here is a link to a web page that explains
General Clark's position on each of the important issues. These position papers include descriptions
of the programs he envisions and the actions he would take as President:

clark04.comissuesOpen ↗

martin

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

M.W. Smith said:

But Microsoft didn't do that. It was a mistake by IBM in the negotiations for IBM's licensing of
DOS. This sort of think is an anomoly, not a path to success that can be duplicated. It isn't
something to emulate, because there isn't anything that can be duplicated.

Actually it wasn't a mistake in negotiations IBM made...it was a flat mis-read of the critical
importance of of the desktop O/S. IBM, in its glorious arrogance, assumed hardware - not software
- was the market driver, and Microsoft took them apart as a result. Proves my point even more -
every company has a weakness or a blind spot.

Whoa! It proves *my* point, not yours. It was a on-off situation. A turning point in history. It
isn't something a small guy can use to compete with the big guys. Bill Gates didn't know he was
right that personal computers would be the next big thing. He just believed it passionately and
pursued his belief relentlessly. Nor was this a case of a small guy competing with the big guys.
There was no big guy in the personal computer software industry, because basically there was no
personal computer software industry. Microsoft became the first big guy there, and he didn't have to
compete with big guys to do it because there weren't any.

Quoted message said:

Big ones in particular. It just takes someone with the ambition, courage, and perservance to point
it out, as MicroSoft did. Here are other examples:

Dell pointed out the merits of a direct, more cost-effective distribution channel...and has become
the number one supplier of PC's.

In other words, they weren't competing with the big guys. Dell became big by not competing.

Quoted message said:

Cisco was the first mover in recognizing TCP/IP as the defacto communications protocol vs. SNA -
the protocol IBM created, favored, and blindly followed.....Cisco has become the world leader in
routers.

TCP/IP became the standard of the internet as soon as it was invented. SNA was never the standard.
Cisco wasn't competing with IBM. Cisco sold routers to build the internet during a time when there
was no big guy in that market

Quoted message said:

So, it can be duplicated...even in WalMart's turf...look at Amazom.com...better yet - look at
Ebay....they could be more disruptive - and powerful company - than WalMart could ever hope
to be....

Yes, all these examples can be duplicated, because they are all examples of a small guy *not*
competing with the big guys. They are all examples of a small guy finding a new market and becoming
the first big guy in that market.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But "rags to riches" and "possible for the small guy to compete" are not at all the same thing.
Furthermore, the ratio of rags to riches stories to failures is almost 0. It is simply
irresponsible to suggest that the way for the small guy to compete against the big guys is to
depend on achieving a rags to riches story.

no question about it - the odds for survival of a small business are staggeringly small. I know
firsthand. I've spent the last 20 years in venture-backed technology startups, where 7 out of 10
fail and only one, maybe two, hits it big. But, we all go into this world knowing the odds. And we
all don't apologize when we hit the jackpot....high risks carry high rewards.

Irresponsible? No. Risky? Yes. And, no one is forcing us to follow this path.......its our choice
to make.

But that has nothing to do with small guys competing with big guys.

Quoted message said:

Another point - change is constant. More so now than ever before, largely due to the steady stream
of technology. This requires companies to become more nimble and closer to their customers than
ever before.

So the analogy to swimming would be that we should expect change and accept it when it comes. eg, we
should stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on drug testing and just allow swimmers to use drugs
safely under doctor and scientist supervision. And we should have more open water events with a
division for people who wear fins.

Quoted message said:

One last point - I'm speaking strictly from a U.S. perspective. The opportunity to create wealth
from scratch not be true anywhere else in the world. But, America still remains the land of
opportunity to those who choose to go for it.

There are lots of lands of opportunity, Bill. America isn't all that special these days.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should it be legal for a company like Microsoft or WalMart to operate at a loss for years in
some area, when small guys are trying to compete in that same area?

Because there are U.S. laws against it, generally falling under the category of Anti-trust
violations and which incldue: pricing fixing, predatory pricing, bid-rigging, customer and market
allocation, tying arrangements, price discrimination, monopolization and various species of unfair
competition, including false advertising.

Quoted message said:

But by then it is too late. They don't have to prove up front that their pricing is not predatory.
Selling below cost is not illegal. A pattern of selling below cost for the purpose of defeating
competition is illegal. That is often hard to prove, because WalMart isn't required to prove
anything up front.

Very true. Sometimes the bad guys don't caught until its too late. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Global
Crossing are just a few examples. The real damage these companies inflicated took place in the
late '90's......

Bill

M.W. Smith said:

Whoa! It proves *my* point, not yours. It was a on-off situation. A turning point in history. It
isn't something a small guy can use to compete with the big guys. Bill Gates didn't know he was
right that personal computers would be the next big thing. He just believed it passionately and
pursued his belief relentlessly. Nor was this a case of a small guy competing with the big guys.
There was no big guy in the personal computer software industry, because basically there was no
personal computer software industry. Microsoft became the first big guy there, and he didn't have
to compete with big guys to do it because there weren't any.

At a high level I think we're actually in agreement on this, but semantics are getting in the way.
Just to be clear, here's my point broken out step-by-step:
1. every big company has blind spots. even a 'monopoly'
2. if you are a small company trying to gain a foothold against the monoploy its much smarter to
focus on the monopoly's blind spot vs its sweet spot
3. Gates spotted one of IBM's sweet spots (they had & have more) & went after it
4. the dumbshits at Ralph's & Albertson's are trying to outgun WalMart where WalMart is strongest -
by reducing costs.

However, this is not a binary situation, as you suggest. The 'market' dominated by a monopoly is
actually comprised of many 'niche' markets, that when given passion, focus, attention, & luck can
sometimes turn into big markets. Going back to IBM in the '70's they dominated the entire computer
industry. This encompassed everything from communications to hardware to software and everything in
between. As the industry expanded, the niche players, who applied more energy, focus, passion, &
technology started beating the giant...but did so because they picked their battlefiled carefully.

Lastly, while Gates didn't know the desktop O/S was going to be the next big thing...he knew it was
going to be a hell of lot *bigger* than IBM thought it would be (go back to MS' original missin
statement - 'a computer in every home...and MS in every computer'😉.

BTW, the same can be said for WalMart. do you think Sam Walton knew WalMart would be the next big
thing? NOf course not. He became the big guy by being the first mover....and so it goes.

Quoted message said:

TCP/IP became the standard of the internet as soon as it was invented. SNA was never the standard.
Cisco wasn't competing with IBM. Cisco sold routers to build the internet during a time when there
was no big guy in that market

This is my sweet spot having spent nearly 30 years in this exact segment of the market.

The problem with 'stardards' is there are so many.

Are we talking legit standards or defacto standards? One of the biggest problems in computing today
and for the past 30 years has to do with standards.

WRT to TCP/IP becoming a 'standard' as soon as it was invented....just are simply misinformed. It
was invented at DARPA back in the '60's, long before it was made 'official'. And, a company called
BBN commercialized a TCP/IP router long before Cisco got started. They just couldn't execute.
Proteon then took this product, but screwed up as well. Cisco came in...and you know the rest of the
story. BTW, in the midst of this there was also another 'war' going on; namely what's the better
communication product to use for connecting dissimilar networks: bridges; routers, or gateways.

And, wrt to IBM & SNA....even though SNA was not a legit standard, with over 70% of the worldwide
market it clearly became a *defacto* standard. The customer (again) makes the ultimate call, not
some industry, trade association, or gov't wonk.

Quoted message said:

So the analogy to swimming would be that we should expect change and accept it when it comes. eg,
we should stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on drug testing and just allow swimmers to use
drugs safely under doctor and scientist supervision. And we should have more open water events
with a division for people who wear fins.

I have no idea what your point is here. but it sure looks like bait...and I'm not touching it....

But to set the record straight - sports should be pure; no chemical additives allowed.

Quoted message said:

There are lots of lands of opportunity, Bill. America isn't all that special these days.

I'm glad to hear there is opportunity all over.

ABTW, Martin, while you may not think America is special, I can assure you of one thing. It is
special to *me*.

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

There was no big guy in the personal computer software industry, because basically there was no
personal computer software industry. Microsoft became the first big guy there, and he didn't have
to compete with big guys to do it because there weren't any.

Apple computer was the "big" guy back then, in what was a very tiny industry. They made critical
mistakes as well, leaving them, well, we know where they are today.

Art

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

M.W. Smith said:

Whoa! It proves *my* point, not yours. It was a on-off situation. A turning point in history. It
isn't something a small guy can use to compete with the big guys. Bill Gates didn't know he was
right that personal computers would be the next big thing. He just believed it passionately and
pursued his belief relentlessly. Nor was this a case of a small guy competing with the big guys.
There was no big guy in the personal computer software industry, because basically there was no
personal computer software industry. Microsoft became the first big guy there, and he didn't have
to compete with big guys to do it because there weren't any.

At a high level I think we're actually in agreement on this, but semantics are getting in the way.
Just to be clear, here's my point broken out step-by-step:
1. every big company has blind spots. even a 'monopoly'
2. if you are a small company trying to gain a foothold against the monoploy its much smarter to
focus on the monopoly's blind spot vs its sweet spot
3. Gates spotted one of IBM's sweet spots (they had & have more) & went after it
4. the dumbshits at Ralph's & Albertson's are trying to outgun WalMart where WalMart is strongest
- by reducing costs.

However, this is not a binary situation, as you suggest.

I meant one-off, not on-off. It was a paradigm shift. These things don't happen often.

Quoted message said:

The 'market' dominated by a monopoly is actually comprised of many 'niche' markets, that when
given passion, focus, attention, & luck can sometimes turn into big markets. Going back to IBM in
the '70's they dominated the entire computer industry. This encompassed everything from
communications to hardware to software and everything in between. As the industry expanded, the
niche players, who applied more energy, focus, passion, & technology started beating the
giant...but did so because they picked their battlefiled carefully.

Lastly, while Gates didn't know the desktop O/S was going to be the next big thing...he knew it
was going to be a hell of lot *bigger* than IBM thought it would be (go back to MS' original
missin statement - 'a computer in every home...and MS in every computer'😉.

BTW, the same can be said for WalMart. do you think Sam Walton knew WalMart would be the next big
thing? NOf course not. He became the big guy by being the first mover....and so it goes.

Quoted message said:

TCP/IP became the standard of the internet as soon as it was invented. SNA was never the standard.
Cisco wasn't competing with IBM. Cisco sold routers to build the internet during a time when there
was no big guy in that market

This is my sweet spot having spent nearly 30 years in this exact segment of the market.

The problem with 'stardards' is there are so many.

Are we talking legit standards or defacto standards? One of the biggest problems in computing
today and for the past 30 years has to do with standards.

WRT to TCP/IP becoming a 'standard' as soon as it was invented....just are simply misinformed. It
was invented at DARPA back in the '60's, long before it was made 'official'. And, a company called
BBN commercialized a TCP/IP router long before Cisco got started. They just couldn't execute.
Proteon then took this product, but screwed up as well. Cisco came in...and you know the rest of
the story. BTW, in the midst of this there was also another 'war' going on; namely what's the
better communication product to use for connecting dissimilar networks: bridges; routers, or
gateways.

And, wrt to IBM & SNA....even though SNA was not a legit standard, with over 70% of the worldwide
market it clearly became a *defacto* standard. The customer (again) makes the ultimate call, not
some industry, trade association, or gov't wonk.

Quoted message said:

So the analogy to swimming would be that we should expect change and accept it when it comes. eg,
we should stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on drug testing and just allow swimmers to use
drugs safely under doctor and scientist supervision. And we should have more open water events
with a division for people who wear fins.

I have no idea what your point is here. but it sure looks like bait...and I'm not touching it....

But to set the record straight - sports should be pure; no chemical additives allowed.

Quoted message said:

There are lots of lands of opportunity, Bill. America isn't all that special these days.

I'm glad to hear there is opportunity all over.

ABTW, Martin, while you may not think America is special, I can assure you of one thing. It is
special to *me*.

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

M.W. Smith said:

Whoa! It proves *my* point, not yours. It was a on-off situation. A turning point in history. It
isn't something a small guy can use to compete with the big guys. Bill Gates didn't know he was
right that personal computers would be the next big thing. He just believed it passionately and
pursued his belief relentlessly. Nor was this a case of a small guy competing with the big guys.
There was no big guy in the personal computer software industry, because basically there was no
personal computer software industry. Microsoft became the first big guy there, and he didn't have
to compete with big guys to do it because there weren't any.

At a high level I think we're actually in agreement on this, but semantics are getting in the way.
Just to be clear, here's my point broken out step-by-step:
1. every big company has blind spots. even a 'monopoly'

This doesn't make sense. It implies that all small guys can make it. As soon as a blind spot is
exposed, it is no longer a blind spot, but according to you a big company always has blind spots,
which means every big company always has lots of blind spots, enough blind spots for every small guy
to take one.

Quoted message said:

2. if you are a small company trying to gain a foothold against the monoploy its much smarter to
focus on the monopoly's blind spot vs its sweet spot

Again, this simply cannot be the case. It leads to the conclusion that all small business can
succeed by choosing one of IBM's infinite number of blind spots.

Quoted message said:

3. Gates spotted one of IBM's sweet spots (they had & have more) & went after it

It wasn't a sweet spot. The market for PC software didn't yet exist.

Quoted message said:

4. the dumbshits at Ralph's & Albertson's are trying to outgun WalMart where WalMart is strongest
- by reducing costs.

However, this is not a binary situation, as you suggest. The 'market' dominated by a monopoly is
actually comprised of many 'niche' markets, that when given passion, focus, attention, & luck can
sometimes turn into big markets. Going back to IBM in the '70's they dominated the entire computer
industry. This encompassed everything from communications to hardware to software and everything
in between. As the industry expanded, the niche players, who applied more energy, focus, passion,
& technology started beating the giant...but did so because they picked their battlefiled
carefully.

Lastly, while Gates didn't know the desktop O/S was going to be the next big thing...he knew it
was going to be a hell of lot *bigger* than IBM thought it would be (go back to MS' original
missin statement - 'a computer in every home...and MS in every computer'😉.

No he didn't. He believed it would be big. He wanted to make it big. He made it big. He also
believed the internet would not be big. He believed that no one would need more than 640K of memory.

Quoted message said:

BTW, the same can be said for WalMart. do you think Sam Walton knew WalMart would be the next big
thing? NOf course not. He became the big guy by being the first mover....and so it goes.

Quoted message said:

TCP/IP became the standard of the internet as soon as it was invented. SNA was never the standard.
Cisco wasn't competing with IBM. Cisco sold routers to build the internet during a time when there
was no big guy in that market

This is my sweet spot having spent nearly 30 years in this exact segment of the market.

The problem with 'stardards' is there are so many.

Are we talking legit standards or defacto standards? One of the biggest problems in computing
today and for the past 30 years has to do with standards.

We are talking standard's you can make money supporting.

Quoted message said:

WRT to TCP/IP becoming a 'standard' as soon as it was invented....just are simply misinformed. It
was invented at DARPA back in the '60's, long before it was made 'official'. And, a company called
BBN commercialized a TCP/IP router long before Cisco got started. They just couldn't execute.
Proteon then took this product, but screwed up as well. Cisco came in...and you know the rest of
the story. BTW, in the midst of this there was also another 'war' going on; namely what's the
better communication product to use for connecting dissimilar networks: bridges; routers, or
gateways.

Wait. The internet was itself a niche when BBN and Proteon were supporting TCP/IP. Cisco came along
at another paradigm shift. First there was the paradigm shift of the PC, and then came the paradigm
shift of the internet. If Cisco had started when BBN did, they probably would have failed too.

Quoted message said:

And, wrt to IBM & SNA....even though SNA was not a legit standard, with over 70% of the worldwide
market it clearly became a *defacto* standard. The customer (again) makes the ultimate call, not
some industry, trade association, or gov't wonk.

Yes, but Cisco was never competing with IBM.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So the analogy to swimming would be that we should expect change and accept it when it comes. eg,
we should stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on drug testing and just allow swimmers to use
drugs safely under doctor and scientist supervision. And we should have more open water events
with a division for people who wear fins.

I have no idea what your point is here. but it sure looks like bait...and I'm not touching it....

But to set the record straight - sports should be pure; no chemical additives allowed.

Why? You are violating your own advice about accepting change. Drug testing is wasting more money
than is being spent on youth sports.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are lots of lands of opportunity, Bill. America isn't all that special these days.

I'm glad to hear there is opportunity all over.

ABTW, Martin, while you may not think America is special, I can assure you of one thing. It is
special to *me*.

But that also applies to most people in the world. Most Chinese think China is special.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

Again, this simply cannot be the case. It leads to the conclusion that all small business can
succeed by choosing one of IBM's infinite number of blind spots.

What I'm saying is a) it is possible and b) it ain't easy; in fact is very risky.

You seem to be saying it is impossible. I diagree.

Entrepreneurs are optimists, and are have the ability to 'see around corners' (ie they see market
opportunities where others don't). Sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong. They go into
these risky ventures believing they can win...most don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. Gates spotted one of IBM's sweet spots (they had & have more) & went after it

It wasn't a sweet spot. The market for PC software didn't yet exist.

I meant to say he spotted their blind spot. He saw a market opportunity that IBM didn't.See
comment above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4. the dumbshits at Ralph's & Albertson's are trying to outgun WalMart where WalMart is strongest
- by reducing costs.

However, this is not a binary situation, as you suggest. The 'market' dominated by a monopoly is
actually comprised of many 'niche' markets, that when given passion, focus, attention, & luck can
sometimes turn into big markets. Going back to IBM in the '70's they dominated the entire
computer industry. This encompassed everything from communications to hardware to software and
everything in between. As the industry expanded, the niche players, who applied more energy,
focus, passion, & technology started beating the giant...but did so because they picked their
battlefiled carefully.

Lastly, while Gates didn't know the desktop O/S was going to be the next big thing...he knew it
was going to be a hell of lot *bigger* than IBM thought it would be (go back to MS' original
missin statement - 'a computer in every home...and MS in every computer'😉.

No he didn't. He believed it would be big. He wanted to make it big. He made it big. He
also believed the internet would not be big. He believed that no one would need more than
640K of memory.

Martin - personal question - do you like to argue just to argue?

We're saying the same thing.

Quoted message said:

We are talking standard's you can make money supporting.

We agree. Making money is what businesses do...or should do.

Quoted message said:

Wait. The internet was itself a niche when BBN and Proteon were supporting TCP/IP. Cisco came
along at another paradigm shift. First there was the paradigm shift of the PC, and then came the
paradigm shift of the internet. If Cisco had started when BBN did, they probably would have
failed too.

We agree, again. Timing is very important. Most pioneers end up as...pioneers - with arrows in their
back. Being an entrepreneur is risky...as I've said now about a dozen times.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but Cisco was never competing with IBM.

See, we agree again! The trick to beating the big boys is to hit it where they ain't! That's what
Cisco did. That's what Central Market is doing.

Quoted message said:

Why? You are violating your own advice about accepting change. Drug testing is wasting more money
than is being spent on youth sports.

I must have really set you off, didn't I? Now you are putting words in my mouth. You asked a
question, I answered it...now you want to debate?! You are trolling, Martin.

Quoted message said:

But that also applies to most people in the world. Most Chinese think China is special.

As well they should.

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

M.W. Smith said:

Again, this simply cannot be the case. It leads to the conclusion that all small business can
succeed by choosing one of IBM's infinite number of blind spots.

What I'm saying is a) it is possible and b) it ain't easy; in fact is very risky.

You seem to be saying it is impossible. I diagree.

We were talking about how small guys can compete with big guys. You claimed to offer a strategy for
that. My points are: 1) Your strategy is not a strategy for small guys to compete against the big
guys. All your examples were about *not* competing with the big guys, ie serving a market they are
not in; and 2) your strategy only works for a few winners, ie if 1000 guys want to be NFL
quarterbacks, only a few can actually succeed.

Quoted message said:

Entrepreneurs are optimists, and are have the ability to 'see around corners' (ie they see market
opportunities where others don't). Sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong. They go
into these risky ventures believing they can win...most don't.

Yes, but that is not about competition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. Gates spotted one of IBM's sweet spots (they had & have more) & went after it

It wasn't a sweet spot. The market for PC software didn't yet exist.

I meant to say he spotted their blind spot. He saw a market opportunity that IBM didn't.See
comment above.

But it wasn't a blind spot. IBM wasn't in that market because that market didn't exist. You are
saying that we are all blind to the future. Well, of course. If Bill Gates had acted on his belief
too early, what would you be saying now? His belief in PCs would still have been right, but it would
have been the wrong time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4. the dumbshits at Ralph's & Albertson's are trying to outgun WalMart where WalMart is strongest
- by reducing costs.

However, this is not a binary situation, as you suggest. The 'market' dominated by a monopoly is
actually comprised of many 'niche' markets, that when given passion, focus, attention, & luck can
sometimes turn into big markets. Going back to IBM in the '70's they dominated the entire
computer industry. This encompassed everything from communications to hardware to software and
everything in between. As the industry expanded, the niche players, who applied more energy,
focus, passion, & technology started beating the giant...but did so because they picked their
battlefiled carefully.

Lastly, while Gates didn't know the desktop O/S was going to be the next big thing...he knew it
was going to be a hell of lot *bigger* than IBM thought it would be (go back to MS' original
missin statement - 'a computer in every home...and MS in every computer'😉.

No he didn't. He believed it would be big. He wanted to make it big. He made it big. He
also believed the internet would not be big. He believed that no one would need more than
640K of memory.

Martin - personal question - do you like to argue just to argue?

No, I like to argue to clarify my beliefs, ethics, morals.

Quoted message said:

We're saying the same thing.

Quoted message said:

We are talking standard's you can make money supporting.

We agree. Making money is what businesses do...or should do.

Quoted message said:

Wait. The internet was itself a niche when BBN and Proteon were supporting TCP/IP. Cisco came
along at another paradigm shift. First there was the paradigm shift of the PC, and then came the
paradigm shift of the internet. If Cisco had started when BBN did, they probably would have
failed too.

We agree, again. Timing is very important. Most pioneers end up as...pioneers - with arrows in
their back. Being an entrepreneur is risky...as I've said now about a dozen times.

But it isn't a competitive strategy. Your competitive strategy can't be something like: Anticipate a
paradigm shift, and then make the right moves at the right time. The venture capitalist will show
you the door.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but Cisco was never competing with IBM.

See, we agree again! The trick to beating the big boys is to hit it where they ain't! That's what
Cisco did. That's what Central Market is doing.

I'm saying this isn't beating the big boys at all. If you mean that the small guy should avoid
competing with the big guy, then I agree. That doesn't work in swimming, however.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? You are violating your own advice about accepting change. Drug testing is wasting more money
than is being spent on youth sports.

I must have really set you off, didn't I? Now you are putting words in my mouth. You asked a
question, I answered it...now you want to debate?! You are trolling, Martin.

I'm simply saying that your positions are inconsistent. You want to keep swimming pure, but you
don't want to keep the air we breath pure. In your view, it is immoral to allow performance
enhancing drugs in sport because they pollute the purity of the sport. But you don't think it is
immoral for billions of people to drive cars each day, even though they pollute the purity of the
air we breath. The dangers to health are known in both cases.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that also applies to most people in the world. Most Chinese think China is special.

As well they should.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

I'm simply saying that your positions are inconsistent. You want to keep swimming pure, but you
don't want to keep the air we breath pure.

Am I a victim of identify theft? Show me exactly when I said I don't want to keep the air pure......

Quoted message said:

But you don't think it is immoral for billions of people to drive cars each day, even though they
pollute the purity of the air we breath. The dangers to health are known in both cases.

Ditto......show me where I said this.

Martin...the fact is you don't know anything at all about what I think about air purity, auto
pollution, and any one of a thousand other topics. You've simply chosen to accuse me of these
beliefs based on statements I've made about business. Is that your typical M.O.?

I'm not sure what you are: bigot, troll, confused, sincere, maybe all of the above, maybe none of
the above. Nonetheless, I do know this - you don't know me.

One last thing - you can have the last shot, I won't reply back on the newsgroup - we're way off
topic. But, I will be happy to keep the dialog going via email. In fact, I would have preferred to
send this directly to you vs the NG, but the email address on your posting doesn't seem to be valid.

Bill Geiser

Quoted message said:

M.W. Smith said:

I'm simply saying that your positions are inconsistent. You want to keep swimming pure, but you
don't want to keep the air we breath pure.

Am I a victim of identify theft? Show me exactly when I said I don't want to keep the air
pure......

I'm assuming you don't argue for elimination of the private automobile from transportation the way
you argue for elimination of drugs in sport. Having a warm feeling about it won't do. I just
guessed. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But you don't think it is immoral for billions of people to drive cars each day, even though they
pollute the purity of the air we breath. The dangers to health are known in both cases.

Ditto......show me where I said this.

Martin...the fact is you don't know anything at all about what I think about air purity, auto
pollution, and any one of a thousand other topics. You've simply chosen to accuse me of these
beliefs based on statements I've made about business. Is that your typical M.O.?

No, no, no. Look, I assume you are like most people. You own at least one car, and you don't get
upset when you hear about someone driving a car to work instead of riding a bike, like you get upset
when you hear that a swimmer used steroids to be able to train harder and win a gold medal.

Am I wrong? Do you feel the same about these things? Ot have you come to accept that it is ok to
drive cars?

What about businesses that destroy the purity of the American dream by shifting jobs to India?
Do you think that is immoral, or do you suspend morality where the motive is victory in the
profit sense?

It all comes back to this definition of purity in sport. It is arbitrary in sport in the same way it
is arbitrary in driving cars and in moving jobs around. I'm still willing to bet you don't see the
contradictions as double standards, but I could be wrong. You might be a fellow kindred spirit, but
given your view that drug use destroys the purity of sport, I doubt it. I mean, if you are serious
about the purity of swimming, you would have to be against using goggles and caps and any added
device that has any speed enhancing effect. I don't hear you crying out for the banning of all these
google-cheats and cap-cheats and body-suit-cheats.

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what you are: bigot, troll, confused, sincere, maybe all of the above, maybe none of
the above. Nonetheless, I do know this - you don't know me.

I don't know why you keep saying I don't know you. I haven't threatened you, so why is this
important. I know you are a human being, so I know quite a lot about you.

Quoted message said:

One last thing - you can have the last shot, I won't reply back on the newsgroup - we're way
off topic. But, I will be happy to keep the dialog going via email. In fact, I would have
preferred to send this directly to you vs the NG, but the email address on your posting doesn't
seem to be valid.

I ran into some spam problems and harassment problems a few months ago. As a libertarian socialist,
I have more than a few people out there who don't like me, and nowadays they try to do something
about it. I used to publish my mail and email addresses with each message, and my phone numbers as
well, but now I just use my name.

The drugs in sport issue certainly does relate to this group. In any case, I don't see the harm in
arguing it hear, and I don't want to take it offline, because then I don't have the opportunity to
get feedback I can use from others in the group.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

I'm assuming you don't argue for elimination of the private automobile from transportation the way
you argue for elimination of drugs in sport. Having a warm feeling about it won't do. I just
guessed. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Quoted message said:

No, no, no. Look, I assume you are like most people. You own at least one car, and you don't get
upset when you hear about someone driving a car to work instead of riding a bike, like you get
upset when you hear that a swimmer used steroids to be able to train harder and win a gold medal.

Am I wrong? Do you feel the same about these things? Ot have you come to accept that it is ok to
drive cars?

What about businesses that destroy the purity of the American dream by shifting jobs to India?
Do you think that is immoral, or do you suspend morality where the motive is victory in the
profit sense?

It all comes back to this definition of purity in sport. It is arbitrary in sport in the same way
it is arbitrary in driving cars and in moving jobs around. I'm still willing to bet you don't see
the contradictions as double standards, but I could be wrong. You might be a fellow kindred
spirit, but given your view that drug use destroys the purity of sport, I doubt it. I mean, if you
are serious about the purity of swimming, you would have to be against using goggles and caps and
any added device that has any speed enhancing effect. I don't hear you crying out for the banning
of all these google-cheats and cap-cheats and body-suit-cheats.

Quoted message said:

I don't know why you keep saying I don't know you. I haven't threatened you, so why is this
important. I know you are a human being, so I know quite a lot about you.

Quoted message said:

I ran into some spam problems and harassment problems a few months ago. As a libertarian
socialist, I have more than a few people out there who don't like me, and nowadays they try to do
something about it. I used to publish my mail and email addresses with each message, and my phone
numbers as well, but now I just use my name.

The drugs in sport issue certainly does relate to this group. In any case, I don't see the harm in
arguing it hear, and I don't want to take it offline, because then I don't have the opportunity to
get feedback I can use from others in the group.

martin

Martin, what a remarkable man you are! Your ability to synthesize small amounts of data and then
publicly state your opinions about who people are and what they stand for is truly amazing,
borderline bizarre. Have you thought about becoming a fortune teller?

Here's a summary of the assumptions about me, as stated above:

1. I support humanity's right to drive automobiles.
2. I favor banning performance enhancement drugs from sports.
3. I favor banning caps in swimming.
4. I favor banning goggles from swimming.
5. I favor banning body-suits in swimming.
6. I'm against any nation that exports jobs to foreign nations (I know you said American jobs, but
I don't want to be secular...let's include all nations!)

So, let's see how right you are (this is really fun, isn't it!):

7. I support humanity's right to drive cars. Bicycles too! (1 right; 0 wrong...we won't count the
bicycle thing here, okay?)
8. I favor banning performance enhancing drugs from all sports, not just swimming. (2 right; 0
wrong - Martin, you are doing great!)
9. Since the rules allow, I'm in favor of goggles, caps, and body-suits in swimming. (Uh oh...2
right; 3 wrong)
10. I'm in favor of exporting jobs for all nations. (Too bad! 2 right; 4 wrong - you lose, Martin,
but thanks for playing anyway!!!!)

Martin, it's hard to argue with facts - you don't know me. And, I don't think I want to know you.

Bill

M.W. Smith said:

As a libertarian socialist, I have more than a few people out there who don't like me

One more thing.

It comes as no surprise to hear that more than a few people don't like you. But it would surpise me
greatly if this is because you are a libertarian socialist. Most people don't care about your
political leanings. My hunch is people don't like you because of the fallacies and mispresentations
you make about them. Count me in with this bunch.

Clearly, your insecurity is so great that you have not and do not fairly represent my views (see my
last post - of the 6 allegations you made about me only 2 were accurate). If you were secure in your
own convictions, you would be content to be accurate in reporting my views. You haven't been.

If you must resort to the fallacious tactic of creating a straw man, does that not indicate a strong
possibility that your own arguments are weak and deep inside you know it? If you can only win the
argument by diminishing my argument by misrepresenting me, you are actually bearing false witness
against me. The Bible says this ain't a cool thing to do people. No wonder people don't like you.

Here's some friendly advice...take it or leave it - its better by far to represent accurately a
person's point of view in such a way that he or she would agree that what you are saying is actually
what they said. Then - if appropriate - level your argument at a real foe, and not a fallacious one.
This approach may not come natural for you because of your insecurities, but is the one most
rational, and, most likely to help you win friends and influence people.

Bill

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

First, to imply that WalMart got to be a dominant as they are simply by underpaying people is a
gross oversimplification.

Are you suggesting they should be forgiven for their well-documented exploitation of those who are
relatively powerless -- simply because it's only part of the picture. No one but no one disputes
that their pay and benefit policies keep the average Walmart employee in the ranks of the working
poor. I frankly don't care a whit about the rest of it. I will personally boycott Walmarts and
speak out against them for their failures in simple human dignity for workers.

No, I'm not suggesting that they be forgiven - if laws were broken - as you've suggested. If that's
the case, I say throw them in jail. Fast and without mercy.

You said the grocery workers are going on strike in California because of WalMart's entry into
the market.

Are any other states boycotting or is this just happening in California? If it's just California -
I'm not surprised - you have make a lot of money to maintain a lifestyle in that state. Is that
WalMart's fault...or the fault of one poorly run state?

Also, are WalMart employees going on strike or is it the employees of their ineptly-run competitors?
If the latter...I would humbly recommend they go on strike against the real villans - the nimrods
who are running the company they work for.

As for the poor pay and benefits for WalMart employees...seems to me this newsgroup should focus on
a more central issue - poor pay and benefits for swim coaches. Not long ago on the ASCA web site
they advertised a session at their national convention about "How to make $30,000 per
year"....that's not much more than a WalMart employee makes.....

"Totalswimm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

I will personally boycott

Quoted message said:

Walmarts and speak out against them for their failures in simple human

dignity

Quoted message said:

for workers.

anywhere i can get a box fan, a box of pringles, some q-tips, cat litter, a pair of socks and a
gallon of milk at 4.20am, i ain't going to boycott 😉

"Brian D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donald Graft said:

"M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You probably aren't a swimmer either.

My last timed 50 free was a 24.9 sec. I am 50 years old. I hope to get faster.

Proper distance or yards, SC or LC?

Short course yards. Not a great time, but respectable. I've been improving steadily since age 8, and
I don't see why that should stop until at least, say, age 75. :-)

Don

Totalswimm said:

Quoted message said:

"How to make $30,000 per year"....that's not much more than a WalMart employee makes.....

The average annual income for Walmart sales clerks is about $14,000.

I'm guessing they have high turnover, too...at least 70% if not higher. WalMart's customer are the
ultimate judge and jury. When they perceive the value they get from purchasing at WalMart to not
warrant the lousy service they most assuredly get, they will take their business elsewhere.

And, as I've said, there are other ways to compete with WalMart. In Dallas there is a new grocery
concept called 'Central Market'. Interestingly, they are located across the street from a 'Sam's
Club' and within a couple of miles of a WalMart. Their business is booming. Why? They've choosen to
not fight Goliath on his battlefield. They carved out a niche - in this case groceries, and have
focused on offering a broad selection of fresh items. For example, Central Market sells something
like 200 types of apples...the rest of produce department is equally remarkable. In fact, its become
a real tourist attraction because shopping there is such a unique and enjoyable experience. The
employees are called 'foodies' because they are so passionate about what they do....I'm assuming
they are well-paid too becuause the store's margin are considerable higher than the average. I could
go on. My point is this - they are kicking WalMart's and Sam's ass in groceries because they've
adopted a better strategy. If they can do it, why can't Ralph's or Alberston's? (Hint - it's
management).

BTW, Central Market is a subsidiary of HEB Foodstores, a 200 store grocery chain very similar to a
Ralph's and Alberstons. Unlike Ralph's and Alberston's, HEB's management team choose not to whine
and [censored] about stiff competition....they decided to outsmart them.....and did.

Consumers, employees, etc. have choices. If we don't like a particular business we can shop
elsewhere or work elsewhere.

"Brian D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

About 27.2 SCM, quite a respectable time for 50M. at age 50. I've stopped competing for now with
knee trouble, but got 3 pbs last year at about Larry's age, but had to do the hard events like
200fly and 400IM to get them.

I admire you for having the guts to tackle these grueling events. I am planning to swim my first
race longer than 50 yards this season: a 100 IM!

Quoted message said:

I'm still very slow, as I've only been swimming 25 years. It's all downhill, now, I'd hoped to
improve now I've retired and have more time for training.

How old are you? I strongly believe that even to quite an old age, technical improvements can
outweight losses due to aging. Of course that assumes you're not an elite and still have a lot of
room for technical improvement.

Let's hijack this thread and return it to the subject of swimming. :-)

Don