They're targeting the most promising and most serious developers. Return on investment is critical in this situation. These VC guys are not going to fund tiny companies or single developers with apps that look like the latest Tetris knockoff.(
Yes, much like the forest service in the early 1900's when their policy as to put out any fire before sunset on the same day it was discovered.
This way, none of the undergrowth was burned away, thereby allowing catastrophic fires in the future (because all the undergroth would continue to build up, fueling these fires) and preventing new growth, which in many cases (redwoods and seqoias are good examples), actually require a fire to open the seeds.
Now all these companies that should have gone under in the true capitalist way, (because they suck) are robbing the taxpayers and preventing true competiton from weeding out the garbage.
Interesting analogy, and I understand your point. Good intentions are often shortsighted and hurt in the long run. I agree that some of the companies that were propped up should have gone under. In an ideal capitalist system, perhaps market forces would have made their demise happen naturally. However, our world is truly complicated today. The idealized capitalist system in which market forces allow us to adjust to change and promote survival of those who are weaker is not dependable. Human greed, emotion, and increased compartmentalization of financial expertise meant that the effect of market forces was diminished by deception and clueless regulators.
Now we have a global economy, instant access to emerging financial data, a 24 hour news cycle, pundits and bloggers pontificating about everything under the sun, and a tendency to panic at the slightest sign of trouble. Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed. The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).
Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed.
Doubtful. Damaged yes, collapsed, no.
Quote:
The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).
My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.
To continue with the forest service analogy, look at Yellowstone fires in 1988.
They decided to let it burn and everyone thought that was the worst possible thing they could do and that it would take years to recover, yet before anyone could blink an eye, it came back stronger than ever.
Researchers learned a LOT from that specific fire and it is still being studied.
My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.
Who knows? I'm not sure. I'm just not as upset about the bailout as you are, based on my understanding of the situation.
Unfortunately, human nature never changes. There will always be economic bubbles that eventually burst, there will always be greed, there will always be petty politics, and a bunch of forces beyond our control and beyond our awareness. So you're probably right. The next economic crisis may bring badness on a massive scale.
I agree with your summary of the difference between VC funds and other types of financial services. I also agree with your explanation of the key role of these companies in providing funding options to companies that otherwise may remain only an idea in the mind of a socially awkward, but brilliant innovator. However, I disagree with the idea that the government gave out bailout money like candy with no useful objective that benefited the country. I don't want to get this thread off topic too much, but I think a case can be made that government intervention averted a catastrophic cascade of failures that would have made all of our lives much more difficult. We're fortunate that Ben Bernanke learned some key lessons from studying the Great Depression.
Thanks... it's refreshing to find someone here on AI that doesn't immediately take the polar opposite of my point of view and then do their level headed best to twist the discussion up so badly that the actual point I was trying to make isn't even being discussed anymore.
So again... thank you!
As to the bailouts... you're right this really isn't the place to discuss them but clearly I've tipped my hand as to how I feel. (thats SO unlike me)
But I see nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree... that topic is chock-full of different point to be made both in defense of them as well as deriding them. Finally, given the magnitude of the action it might not be known for years or even decades if it was the best move to make and even then I'm quite sure people will still argue on both sides of the issue. Short term they certainly seem to have achieved positive results. How the bailout money was used is clearly a sensitive issue as well as the overall .... 'impression' it leaves with ... everyone.
Finally, and in all honesty, I'm too much of a fiscal libertarian to think it was the right action to take but that is a topic for a DIFFERENT thread...
Comments
They're targeting the most promising and most serious developers. Return on investment is critical in this situation. These VC guys are not going to fund tiny companies or single developers with apps that look like the latest Tetris knockoff.(
So that's not where all the fart apps came from?
Yes, much like the forest service in the early 1900's when their policy as to put out any fire before sunset on the same day it was discovered.
This way, none of the undergrowth was burned away, thereby allowing catastrophic fires in the future (because all the undergroth would continue to build up, fueling these fires) and preventing new growth, which in many cases (redwoods and seqoias are good examples), actually require a fire to open the seeds.
Now all these companies that should have gone under in the true capitalist way, (because they suck) are robbing the taxpayers and preventing true competiton from weeding out the garbage.
Interesting analogy, and I understand your point. Good intentions are often shortsighted and hurt in the long run. I agree that some of the companies that were propped up should have gone under. In an ideal capitalist system, perhaps market forces would have made their demise happen naturally. However, our world is truly complicated today. The idealized capitalist system in which market forces allow us to adjust to change and promote survival of those who are weaker is not dependable. Human greed, emotion, and increased compartmentalization of financial expertise meant that the effect of market forces was diminished by deception and clueless regulators.
Now we have a global economy, instant access to emerging financial data, a 24 hour news cycle, pundits and bloggers pontificating about everything under the sun, and a tendency to panic at the slightest sign of trouble. Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed. The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).
Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed.
Doubtful. Damaged yes, collapsed, no.
The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).
My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.
To continue with the forest service analogy, look at Yellowstone fires in 1988.
They decided to let it burn and everyone thought that was the worst possible thing they could do and that it would take years to recover, yet before anyone could blink an eye, it came back stronger than ever.
Researchers learned a LOT from that specific fire and it is still being studied.
Doubtful. Damaged yes, collapsed, no.
My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.
Who knows? I'm not sure. I'm just not as upset about the bailout as you are, based on my understanding of the situation.
Unfortunately, human nature never changes. There will always be economic bubbles that eventually burst, there will always be greed, there will always be petty politics, and a bunch of forces beyond our control and beyond our awareness. So you're probably right. The next economic crisis may bring badness on a massive scale.
I agree with your summary of the difference between VC funds and other types of financial services. I also agree with your explanation of the key role of these companies in providing funding options to companies that otherwise may remain only an idea in the mind of a socially awkward, but brilliant innovator. However, I disagree with the idea that the government gave out bailout money like candy with no useful objective that benefited the country. I don't want to get this thread off topic too much, but I think a case can be made that government intervention averted a catastrophic cascade of failures that would have made all of our lives much more difficult. We're fortunate that Ben Bernanke learned some key lessons from studying the Great Depression.
Thanks... it's refreshing to find someone here on AI that doesn't immediately take the polar opposite of my point of view and then do their level headed best to twist the discussion up so badly that the actual point I was trying to make isn't even being discussed anymore.
So again... thank you!
As to the bailouts... you're right this really isn't the place to discuss them but clearly I've tipped my hand as to how I feel. (thats SO unlike me)
But I see nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree... that topic is chock-full of different point to be made both in defense of them as well as deriding them. Finally, given the magnitude of the action it might not be known for years or even decades if it was the best move to make and even then I'm quite sure people will still argue on both sides of the issue. Short term they certainly seem to have achieved positive results. How the bailout money was used is clearly a sensitive issue as well as the overall .... 'impression' it leaves with ... everyone.
Finally, and in all honesty, I'm too much of a fiscal libertarian to think it was the right action to take but that is a topic for a DIFFERENT thread...
$100 million from only 18 titles? Am I misreading that?
Yes you are misreading that.
All iFund ventures (14 companies) scored more that 100 million downloads and more than $100 million in revenues.
18 of those titles released made it to the top 10 sales in the App store.