[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: sterling [mailto:sstouden@thelinks.com]
>How does one distinguish a low energy from a high energy transport
marketing model? Where does the energy come from?
>Where is the energy stored? How does energy become a function of
marketing?
"It's in the way that you use it." - Eric Clapton
A high energy model uses the most direct route in the least time.
Consider the Apollo moon shot. A single orbit booster is put into
orbit by the first two stages. After one orbit, the booster fires and
puts the capsule and service module into a direct shot toward the
gravity well of a moving orb. That is Hohman transport. It takes the
most energy for the least time. In a low energy transport, a series of
eliptical orbits tend the satellite toward the target until the target's
own gravity well can be used.
A current model. Diplomacy says that if you have dangerous regimes, you
use sanctions and diplomacy to modify the behavior towards a more
acceptable target. This is similar to stimulus/response behaviorist
models for shaping behavior. A high energy model kicks the door in and
attempts that all at once. Low energy models assume there is time to do
it by small kicks. So again, the trade is time for energy.
Marketing a product with a very large mass media campaign is a high
energy means. A low energy means uses well-placed ads in targeted media
such as AdSense, technology magazines, etc. It assumes that if you can
get the early adopters and opinion leaders, they will convince the
purchasing agents. Another means is to sit on various committees with
the job to select technologies for procurements. For example, the US
Navy has a product procurement list. GSA has one. These nodes have a
lot of scope and reach. In smaller locales, it might be your city
council.
>(Does Darpa water its flowers each day?)
Yes. And if one of them grows, they party. They accept that a lot
won't. Note that the technology purchases they make tend to be small
and targeted to a particular domain or solution set for which they
require innovation. They don't want the produce; they want the seeds.
That is what open source becomes to the big companies. They have the
customers and relationships. They want to get around the costs of loss
leaders (browsers have to be free, so do most plugins). So where they
can find a community with a product that grows 'in the wild' and is
thriving, they can seed that with support and provide the software to
their customers. RedHat makes a handsome living doing that. Now it is
a matter of how well that model can work for document formats. MS is
dipping their toes into that model. The neat thing is that it enables
a lot of variant products to sit side by side (eg, X3D as a common
object model for real time 3D systems - this is a market that is
invisibly growing fast because of deep pocketed customers who want it,
not because of the Web which is mostly obsessed with 2D vector and thus,
not able to do this kind of work cheaply).
> The physical networks and early hyperlinking technology may have
been
> DARPA steered, but I suggest Darpa has little to do with the
internet
> as preceived by most people. What products does DARPA make that
the
> Public uses?
The public doesn't use them. You do. Microsoft does. Netscape does.
> I agree without DARPA there would have been no Internet, but once the
> physics was elaborated, the lines connected, and the protocol
> made sufficiently well known, the entrepreneurial public took over.
> The internet became a communications transport utility! Its
details
> are all but irrevant to but a handfull of people.
Which is how it should work. The devil is in the use. DARPA doesn't
worry about predators in mySpace. The US Congress does.
> >Many times the actual acceptance requirements has little to do with
the real needs of the buyer, and as a result the best >product for the
buyer is eliminated from competition at selection time. This is
generally true because the buyer has no >relevant experience whatsoever
in the field at the time that they buy.
>All buyers in the early days were naive? But that does not make them
stupid.
No. It makes them risk takers. That is ok until one has to defend a
risky move that didn't pan out or starts defending a patch for a problem
that is architectural as if it were 'intended the whole time'.
>I think the first browser senario is the point.
>New ideas, take time to learn. They require effort to achieve
application competence. Geeks learn because they are
>geeks, but that does not enable management to select the tools or to
design the project tasks to include or even consider
> the new tools.
Yes. Now again, the question is when to field or otherwise, when to get
mass feedback. Caveat vendor or caveat emptor.
>Application competence occurs only after enough users find the software
to be an indispensable and it becomes reliable
>utility [a tool] in the hands of all who are going to participate in
the project or who are going to use it in their
> daily tasks.
Again, that is a risk model. I can handle an ODBC connection reasonably
well, but I don't want some of my customers to use that backdoor. They
can hurt themselves if their sysAdmin didn't configure that correctly
and configuring it correctly is a matter of understanding the
interlocking schemas, not simply read/write privs.
>Few will reach to the moon for an earth bound solution, no matter the
numbers of new degrees of freedom.
Actually, I believe that in my son's lifetime, anyone with the money to
go will if they want a vacation in an environment that is somewhat like
living underground in the Mojave. Why? Well, people camp in all kinds
of places I wouldn't consider fun or comfortable just for the view or
the photos. We are going back to the moon post haste because our
competition is going there. Once there, a modern trebuchet is all one
needs to make a little hiroshima every few minutes. The transport from
the little gravity well to the big one is very low energy.
Again, the risk model.
len
|
