11–20 of 93 posts
Plenty of people are paying attention,and Gates contradicts his own title with this sentence: "The portion of the world's economy that doesn't fit the old model just keeps getting larger." How can it get larger if no one is paying attention?
Or do you think the phrases mean the same thing?
Plenty of people are paying attention,and Gates contradicts his own title with this sentence: "The portion of the world's economy that doesn't fit the old model just keeps getting larger." How can it get larger if no one is paying attention?
That also means it’s cheaper to develop. Software is so popular since it’s only requires a developer and a PC. The return/investment is a lot higher and faster than traditional hardware development. Cheap and fast is what everyone wants.
Of course investors are now realizing, in the case of self driving cars (or cars themselves with Tesla), that hardware still plays a role, and it’s not cheap and fast with instant riches.
20 years ago, biotech was supposed to be the hot thing after the internet. Instead it has been software services, focusing on service labor. Biotech is not cheap and fast enough.
“It’s a sunk cost. If your investment doesn’t pan out, you don’t have physical assets like machinery that you can sell off to recoup some of your money” That also means it’s cheaper to develop. Software is so popular since it’s only requires a developer and a PC. The return/investment is a lot higher and faster than traditional hardware development. Cheap and fast is what everyone wants. Of course investors are now r…
Also, his statement implies that digital assets have no real-world financial value. In practice, even if the investment fails, the codebase of the company, body of active users, and any user data gathered will have some value.
"It" refers to "intangible investment" here--
1. It’s a sunk cost. If your investment doesn’t pan out, you don’t have physical assets like machinery that you can sell off to recoup some of your money.
2. It tends to create spillovers that can be taken advantage of by rival companies. Uber’s biggest strength is its network of drivers, but it’s not uncommon to meet an Uber driver who also picks up rides for Lyft.
3. It’s more scalable than a physical asset. After the initial expense of the first unit, products can be replicated ad infinitum for next to nothing.
4. It’s more likely to have valuable synergies with other intangible assets. Haskel and Westlake use the iPod as an example: it combined Apple’s MP3 protocol, miniaturized hard disk design, design skills, and licensing agreements with record labels.
Plenty of people are paying attention,and Gates contradicts his own title with this sentence: "The portion of the world's economy that doesn't fit the old model just keeps getting larger." How can it get larger if no one is paying attention?
You've substituted "no one" for "not enough" in order to gin up your pedantry. The title is "not enough". Or do you think the phrases mean the same thing?
(e.g. it doesn't matter if I have insufficient money or no money at all; life sucks in both of those alternate-universes)
I think his straw man for supply and demand is off. Higher demand doesn’t create lower prices. Lower prices creates “more quantity demanded” at a given level. If demand increases, then prices and quantity both go up. This may be semantics, but it isn’t like economics completely falls apart. Similarly, economics is able to handle products with high fixed and low marginal costs. (Natural monopolies) I suspect he gave t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could simply be either from the study he mentioned or be worded as such to make it easier for non technical people to understand, as in more are familiar with MP3 than AAC. It is irrelevant to the greater point of the article
I'm sure a man as smart as Bill Gates could find a way to write it in a way that is accessible to non-technical people and still not so egregiously factually incorrect.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/knowledge/finance...
He’s just using the example from the book and doesn’t feel the need to restate it?
This title is kind of uninformative .. how about "the rise of intangible goods requires different economic models"?