« »

Track is Expensive

Risk

Saying that “Track” is expensive is another way of saying that it’s risky. It’s saying you haven’t solved enough of the technology problem to proceed. Given the circumstances, the current price is too high for the projected revenue.

However, the absence of track isn’t a static problem. A moment will arrive when a player will take the plunge and dominate the market. They will have put enough of the pieces together to see how the story ends. The first one in will have access to the most information about what track means, how to implement it and how people use it. That means they’ll be able to optimize the service faster than followers in the space. As time passes, the price of the technical solution will go down, the revenue opportunities will go up and cash flow will move from investment to revenue.

The question is, at what point do you enter the game? Can you wait for a set of economics that are cash flow positive? Of course, by then, usually the game is over. Unless of course, there’s only one player in the game. Then the cost of waiting is zero. Riskless competition isn’t competition.

Comments

  1. dave | November 17th, 2008 | 10:33 pm

    When Google does their Twitter-clone it will have track in all its glory.

  2. briantroy | November 18th, 2008 | 11:34 am

    Track isn't and shouldn't be about “track” on a single network (service). The value is being able to track across services and allow the user to control the scope of the track-able data AND adjust the signal-to-noise by filtering.
    That is what I'm working on… It isn't perfect but a great “track” experience with great user adoption will drive the services to open their kimono's and publish the full fire-hose.
    Just my 2 cents…