and the sad thing about a conversation with many wave investors is this.
they simply disappear whenever you tell them technology does not have a trump power in the conversation.
and really, contemplating the other argument is the only way to make one's own more encompassing.
if for instance, one of them goes - i understand you think cash flows defines architecture and here's why i think it isn't always true - that would be a cool conversation.
but what you know will happen is this.
.
.
.
.
silence
.
.
.
.
...."it's inevitable that tc will succeed. technological elegance defines architecture."
if you don't engage the other side, then you just end up trying to exclude it from discussion.
but if i was a believer in the primacy of technological efficiency in the marketplace, i'd want to know the reasons why i think so and why it matters more than anything else. because this is wave's argument. and it plainly has difficulties when faced with an incumbent industry. surely we have learnt this much.
in many ways i wish it were so - that markets worked as advertised. that it's a level playing field. but see how an incumbent player like ms or visa gets embedded. incumbency is a huge obstacle.
the point is to learn from experience. to engage in conversation on the turf the other side presents (so long as they are sincere). that's the pathway to wisdom. rather than to operate like the three wise monkeys.
it's okay to have doubts. you don't need to say they don't exist.
| 