I know this is a bit over-used, but I think what you were saying about "only comprehensive services providers can compete our business. But users today seem to be more willing to visit many places on the web." Is really addressed by some of the Long Tail concepts.
Listing services (listible, digg, emily chang's ehub, etc) help match consumers with the sites and services that they want to use. All these tiny little services target more and more niche markets, that might not make them interesting services to be purchased by Yahoo and integrated with a massive portal page, but as long as some "acceptable critical mass" of consumers can find the site or service, then they might be more viable.
As to the quote about "that’s a feature not a company" I see this as becoming a very fine line. Some companies are pulling it off, while other companies are truely trying to commercialize one feature that won't stand on its on. I guess what makes are breaks these companies is the value that can be generated by this one feature, and the potential for their target market to adopt this one feature.
EP
· 3 years ago
It seems that many internet companies consider themselves "scalable", simply because they are web-enabled and thus able to server a wide geographic area. This in naive in my opinion, because true scalability requires not just a website, but a business complete with the infrastructure (sales team, customer service...) necessary to serve diverse geographies...and many times by doing just that, and building out the business, you loose the efficiencies you once had in a confined goegraphy.
The same applies to scalability in numbers, as handling 10,000 users is infinitely easier and less complex than 1,000,000 users.
Jim Peterson
· 3 years ago
Brad,
I really enjoyed your articles this week. This web business is fun stuff!
We focus on "one thing". The more we look into our logs and conversions- the more we see what people want...and the cycle continues.We can be better and better at our "one thing."
All Comments
I know this is a bit over-used, but I think what you were saying about "only comprehensive services providers can compete our business. But users today seem to be more willing to visit many places on the web." Is really addressed by some of the Long Tail concepts.
Listing services (listible, digg, emily chang's ehub, etc) help match consumers with the sites and services that they want to use. All these tiny little services target more and more niche markets, that might not make them interesting services to be purchased by Yahoo and integrated with a massive portal page, but as long as some "acceptable critical mass" of consumers can find the site or service, then they might be more viable.
As to the quote about "that’s a feature not a company" I see this as becoming a very fine line. Some companies are pulling it off, while other companies are truely trying to commercialize one feature that won't stand on its on. I guess what makes are breaks these companies is the value that can be generated by this one feature, and the potential for their target market to adopt this one feature.
It seems that many internet companies consider themselves "scalable", simply because they are web-enabled and thus able to server a wide geographic area. This in naive in my opinion, because true scalability requires not just a website, but a business complete with the infrastructure (sales team, customer service...) necessary to serve diverse geographies...and many times by doing just that, and building out the business, you loose the efficiencies you once had in a confined goegraphy.
The same applies to scalability in numbers, as handling 10,000 users is infinitely easier and less complex than 1,000,000 users.
Brad,
I really enjoyed your articles this week. This web business is fun stuff!
We focus on "one thing". The more we look into our logs and conversions- the more we see what people want...and the cycle continues.We can be better and better at our "one thing."
Thanks