IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The mathematics is interesting and I presume . .
reasonably valid, but network scaling has little to do with the failure of most Dot.coms.

Take the market exchanges which were going to match buyers and sellers and make a friction-free and highly efficient market. These folded up far faster than anyone involved could possibly have expected.

Business inexperienced developers were certain people wanted to buy at the lowes price. This is false. Those who shop the lowest price are losers. What's important is existing business relationships. You only look for new ones when you have to. The established relationship is worth paying a higher price for (within limits, of course) because it provides other forms of efficiency. Businesses were interested in using the Internet to enhance and streamline existing relationships, and they didn't need the exchanges for that.

Another thing so many expected was the death of the middleman - everyone would buy direct. Many still believed that even long after it was obvious the middlemen were the ones most benefitting from the Internet.

Why, for instance, do I buy from Tech Data when I could buy directly from the manufacturers. A few reasons are:
  • The price is lower because Tech Data buys by negotiated contracts and they have negotiation power.
  • Delivery is way faster, because delivery is Tech Data's specialty. Most manufacturers take days, even weeks to ship rather than about an hour.
  • Availability is better because their warehousing smooths out productions runs.
  • I only have to establish a business relationship with one company, not 450 companies each with different requirements and credit applications.
  • I can make one phone call and order products made by ten, or fifty different manufacturers, not ten or fifty phone calls for one product each.
  • I can write one check to cover the purchase of many different items.
  • I know what the return policies are and how to apply them - I know who to talk to when there's a problem.
For this I need an Internet based exchange service? I think not.

Many other examples of stupid Dot.com thinking can be displayed for our amusement. The funniest though was the concept that you could sell goods at cost and get rich selling advertising on your site. Of couse you needed to build traffic so you could sell advertising so you had to advertise your site to build traffic. This resulted in a big circle jerk where all the Dot.coms were buying advertising with each other in hopes of generating enough traffic to sell advertising to each other. Alas, this perpetual motion machine leaked a lot faster than most due to complete lack of cost controls.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Mostly true
What you're saying is all true (and I'll send back comments to Andrew about it), but there are notable exceptions. For instance one of the companies that was trying to create a frictionless market happened to be a site named AuctionWeb that was hosted at [link|http://www.ebay.com/|http://www.ebay.com/].

It didn't exactly fold. ;-)

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Andrew's obviously talking B2B
Interesting statistic would be: what percentage of commerce is B2B vs B2C? If, for instance, B2B makes up 80% of all commerce, existing relationships and single points of contact will be much more valuable than lowest price.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New My very favorite was a B to C
WebVan, an online grocer. They deliberately and firmly refused to have anyone in the company from the "old economy". With no exerienced buyers they were paying a lot more for everything than established grocers, and with nobody who knew anything about warehousing and distribution they ran through an incredible amount of money in an incredibly short time. I guess that's what the "new economy" was all about, but it's old now.

I have one of their refrigerator magnets and the liquidator's auction catalog around here somewhere.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
Expand Edited by Andrew Grygus March 4, 2005, 06:08:19 PM EST
New Oops!
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New I don't know the breakdown...
but I think that I've seen claims that most business is business to business.

Certainly that's been true of every job that I've had, it has all been companies that were business to business. (Some consumers may have thought that Rent.com was doing business with them, but we weren't. Like in advertising, consumers are product, not customers. Though obviously we can't actually treat them as product and still successfully deliver them...)

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New But it isn't exactly frictionless . . .
Seems there's a fair amount of friction between eBay and their sellers with this year's annual fee increase (and they've had to back off a little on some fees).
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New True but...
that's far less friction than used to exist in the same market. It is like comparing moving a puck across sandpaper as opposed to air hockey. Sure, there is friction in air hockey, the puck will not travel forever, but compared to sandpaper it might as well not be there!

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
     Here's as good as anywhere, questioning Metcalfe's Law - (ben_tilly) - (30)
         I stopped at the point where - (Arkadiy) - (15)
             He's not saying what you think - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                 At least two of his examples are wrong - (Arkadiy) - (13)
                     Disagreement - (ben_tilly) - (12)
                         One counter-example, and a possible new POV - (drewk) - (3)
                             That's not entirely a counterexample - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                 You got the analogy, but missed the point - (drewk) - (1)
                                     Chicken and egg on value - (ben_tilly)
                         OK, I finished reading - (Arkadiy) - (7)
                             If n^2 holds for users... - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                 Switching is not same as joining - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                                     Larger by 30% wins? - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                         I guess I should re-read - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                             Read section 4 - (ben_tilly)
                                         There's your example :-) - (drewk) - (1)
                                             More valuable to you, yes - (ben_tilly)
         I have come to the conclusion... - (folkert)
         Re: Paper. - (a6l6e6x)
         Something else I just realized - (drewk)
         The mathematics is interesting and I presume . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
             Mostly true - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                 Andrew's obviously talking B2B - (drewk) - (3)
                     My very favorite was a B to C - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Oops! -NT - (ben_tilly)
                     I don't know the breakdown... - (ben_tilly)
                 But it isn't exactly frictionless . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                     True but... - (ben_tilly)
         Ben, do you mind if I cite this for a paper? - (jake123) - (2)
             You can cite this, if unpublished papers are acceptable - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                 No, it works as it's on the net - (jake123)

It didn’t ruin my childhood, but it did aggressively strip-mine several shallow deposits of nostalgia.
62 ms