Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: tkc

By: tkc in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 22 Apr 12 6:13 PM | 120 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 07413 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 07412 by awk)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Okay Awk. Your response, held in isolation, certainly has validity. I guess I see it as a piece of the entire mosaic. Management must always make choices. They assess the risks/rewards of various options, hopefully include contingent plans if potential implementation is impeded. Then opt for the apparent best choice. They make mistakes. But to continually have to make similar decisions regarding the same problem (i.e. funding), over and over again, and in almost each instance for the decision they choose results in harm seems to me as problematic. Thus it suggests that another approach is warranted. What in the heck are we doing wrong? How are we gonna fix this? When an organization is tightly controlled and those in control are secure, have nothing much to risk if decisions are poor the tendency is for less introspection. Oh well, next Q this stuff will sell and everything will be fine. Then, it doesn't, it isn't fine and the decision must be faced again. Awk, there's something wrong that causes this behavior and it requires intervention. IMO Thx for responding.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
tkc
By: awk in ALEA
Sun, 22 Apr 12 5:11 PM 		Msg. 07412 of 54959

The post you are responding to was in no way addressed to you. While I get your point that "economic and business" issues are important, my constant "thrust" is more in the direction of trying to outline and, yes, "hammer home" the fact that what the company is and has been doing can in no way, shape or form be compared to any "normal business".

And investors should recognize that: HIGH RISK, at least in the past...

One perfect example is the company's expansion into the mobile space:

Management decided to heavily invest into mobile before traction really had engaged. From a conventional business point of view this may be considered "risky", at best, and "suicidal", at worst. It certainly has "helped" creating dig's well formulated doughnut hole.

So, what possibilities did management have? Wait and not invest at that time and face the possibility that somebody else might do it... and avoid the risk of creating a doughnut hole?

Yes, I know, in the aftermath everybody has 20/20 hindsight and the dilution could maybe have been smaller... but in view of the phenomenal opportunity ahead I am not particularly worried. Actually I am excited!

In our case it's weighing "risk vs. opportunity vs. timeline" that must be considered as well. Especially considering that PC and mobile business are intrinsically linked for the future. Only the combination of both have the power to advance TC at an increasingly faster pace.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next