Subject: Re: So... Re: offering pre-purchases
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:36:46 -0700

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Thomas Lord writes:
>
>  > They either get the generalized characteristics of the topology of
>  > the dynamic design-space state of software -- or they don't.  If
>  > they get it, they'll fit financing models to it.
>
> Why?  What's in it for them? 


Well, I hate "selling from the negative" but there's both a negative and 
positive here.

The positive:  they survive, my way.   The negative: they don't.



>  My whole point is that I haven't seen
> anything that plausibly gives them as good returns as the business
> they're currently in.
>
>   


That's because there isn't one.




> Remember, the VCs don't care about the topology of software; 


I call "bs".


> they only
> really care about the distribution of the random variable called
> "ROI".  


That's how they keep score, yes.



> You need to show them that understanding the topology gives
> them better distributions of ROI.
>
>   

Yeah.  It's a detailed conversation about which I've given sufficient
hints.  Sign up today.




>  > There are a few VCs who really "get" software but they tend also to
>  > be cynics who are mining veins that few see
>
> Well, that's what VCs are there for.  After all, if the win is really
> repeatable, where's the "venture"?
>   

Building out good ideas into at-scale firms is hard.




> Indeed, I recognize the potential circularity here: "we don't look for
> repeatability because we've not found it yet, and we don't find
> repeatability because we don't look for it."  However, we're talking
> about VCs.  There *are* organizations which have managed to (to some
> extent) institutionalize repeatability: Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM,
> and in a different field the game companies.  Maybe the
> "repeatability" field just has too big an ante for your typical VC.
> And that would break the circle.
>
>   


The good repeatability examples you cite there failed only because "all 
is change" --
the boundaries of cooparation and participation were too inflexibly set.

-t