12 Universities Offering Free Business Courses Online | Educhoices.org
Tags: business, Education, course on 2008-11-12 and saved by 19 people -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromeduchoices.org
Technical Revenue: The Young Man's Business Model
Tags: startup, business on 2008-10-28 and saved by 7 people -All Annotations (14) -About
more frompaultyma.blogspot.com
-
The old guy on the other hand never went this route. He merely looked at it a moment, then immediately started taking off the neighboring easy-to-remove piece of the engine. Once that was off, he then effortlessly put his screwdriver in to remove the now exposed screw. Now mind you, the old-guy's way was my back-up plan - but I was betting that my brash exuberance would payoff in a slightly quicker result. Sometimes it did - sometimes it didn't - and sometimes I broke screwdrivers.
-
I should have structured the deal as a contracting agreement. Charging on a per-hour basis to develop their product using what we already had as a base. Then, give them a discount rate on the hourly rate in exchange for full-rights to further develop and sell the product as our own. This would have been a 6-figure deal which would have meant a lot at that time. What's worse is you might be thinking that I missed an opportunity to fleece a customer - but I argue you're wrong. In fact, that arrangement would have actually brought more value to the Adobe.
In the old-guy's arrangement, Adobe would have then had a hand in guiding the project and making sure all the features they wanted were in the soup. Not to mention, if I didn't build this for them, they simply would have had to hire someone else to do it - probably spending lots more. -
Visions of sugar-plums and multi-million dollar deals immediately started dancing in my head. As he talked, the rolodex in my mind quickly flipped from person to person. I thought of potential customers, potential partners and even maybe people appropriate to join his team. His product was good, and not that he asked me to, but I couldn't help forming a deal network in my head. -
He was basically building a (good) product, then laying it out on the web for all to see and hoping to get a million eyeballs. The viewpoint of the business is to get eyeballs, often from things like Digg or Techcrunch, and then figure out how to keep them. And then amazingly often, this really is the step where entrepreneurs have no clue what happens except they are sure the next step is "and then Profit!".
This is an extremely innocent look at business - and in some sense, its the most logical one if you simply have no other avenues. -
This model isn't wrong but now to me (who has of course only recently come to rather shocking self-realization that I am... an "old-man" at how I view business) it seems like a business model without considering connections. Deciding to make connections for your business of course isn't conscious. When something happens, the first thing that pops in your head is "Boy, Fred needs to hear about this". And depending on how many Freds you know dictates how often that idea pops in your head. (and of course, the more Freds you know, the more Freds you will know).
-
It wasn't so long ago that saying your new startup was monetized by ads wasn't scary. Some companies go right from eyeballs to ads and to sell-out. Thats great work if you can get it. But the number of eyeballs is limited. Its scary to think that, but on the web, we tend to give value away and "make it up on volume". The only problem is you need a hell of a lot of volume to make up for free. And 6 billion people isn't all that many when it comes down to it.
-
I have plenty of opinions about business models, but to me, the best business model is one that makes your customer money. I didn't say "saves" them money - big difference. Also, its better yet if that customer is a business. You need less businesses as customers to be successful than if you had individuals as customers. A common sweet-spot is BtoBtoC. Supply to businesses that supply to consumers (and of course, make them money).
-
Your real business model might be hiding like that last screw holding on part of the engine. Despite you stubbornly breaking screwdrivers, you might not get to what you need. It might just be worth asking yourself, "WWTOMD" - What would the old man do?
-
Good Post, I am a soon to be 30 year old who has been self employed for most of his 20's. I have been a partner in businesses with multi million dollar potential and seen them fail because the "Old Men" I was involved with had completely misunderstood how to run a successful technology company. I think that there is this allure of the web and of technology and some experienced businessmen fail to see technology projects as something that needs more than a virtual presence to become a successful venture. I have found that traditional businessmen frequently have either a complete misunderstanding of how to profit though technology or they have an "If you build it they will come" attitude where they think you flip the switch on your web app and all of a sudden you have customers. With that said, I will admit that I am starting to also feel like the old man myself. I learned a lot of hard lessons early in business and I'm now finally starting to see them pay off.
-
After two years I've seen a couple sucessful ventures. However, most of the time things simply don't work out. It is either a people thing, money thing, or we build it and --Surprise-- people don't come. In all this time my sticking to my guns and getting paid for my work at the time has always worked for me.
Maybe someday when I hear and idea not based off of "The Young Man's Business Model" I will jump in and work for the big payoff at the end. However, nobody I encounter thinks about how they will make money off the Internet wihtout trying to attract as many eyeballs as they can and hope that somehow they will make a profit. As if, as you suggest, things will somehow take care of themselves at that point. -
At one extreme I had one company who we contracted with. This was great when their business was booming but it hurt us when they slowed down.
At the other extreme I had all end consumers which meant higher margins but also a lot of expense and running around to manage all the accounts.
Of course the best situation is to have a blend.
Some large companies to cover your overhead with their lower margins and slower pay cycles.
Some smaller companies where you get a bit more profit and a bit quicker pay.
And end customers.
Visualize it as pouring rocks in a container; big rocks and then smaller rocks to fill in the gaps and then gravel to fill in the smaller gaps. -
Page and Brin had or still have this in mind in a sense that the only important point is to create a great product and everything else will come, not sure if this is true in the Enterprise space.
Old man cases are very very common and the Google ones (and how much they are resisting) are new and breakthrough. -
The young man model is totally why my startup company is out of money and looking to sell. We focused on developing a cool product and showing it to the college kids, while our competitors focused on recruiting musicians, who in turn publicized and made money for both themselves and the competition. We never worried about marketing, just thinking, it'll explode once we give it to a few thousand people. Now we have over 10K users and a meager income each month, but no tipping point has yet occurred. We haven't tapped into the market of money making customers and now it's too late for us to invest more into doing so.
Free Vs Paid
Tags: startup, business, revenue, monetization on 2008-10-06 and saved by 3 people -All Annotations (9) -About
more fromwww.avc.com
-
There's a movement afoot by investors to back web services with a real business model instead of the pervasive "give it away for free and hope for the best" approach that's been in favor for the past four years. Don't count me in that camp, but the movement is happening with or without me.
-
As I noted in the comments to Roger's post, we've struggled with early stage investments in enterprise oriented web services. Sales to enterprises often require expensive sales teams and it's much harder to know if you've nailed the product/service with feedback from a limited number of enterprise customers.
It's much better, in my opinion, to go with the freemium model, give a version of the service away for free to all comers, get a lot of users, get good market feedback, then develop a premium version of the product/service for sale to enterprise customers. If your free version is popular with a lot of users, your customer base is the target for the upsell and you might be able to live without an expensive sales force initially. And, of course, keep your costs really low until you start to get revenues.
-
I have been monetizing software for over 10 years (I specialize in the consumer space not enterprise, but it makes no difference), though back we simply called the model shareware.
-
There should ALWAYS be a free version of your product. Especially when it’s not a mature product, and there are lots of competitors - GET YOURS out there as much as possible. And if you absolutely insist you should use Trialware it should never be *time based* (most get this wrong), they should be usage based.
-
About number of years ago I was selling an enterprise solution into a large firm >1000 employees. The then IT manager and I were talking about why they selected MS Outlook for an email client. His answer was that Outlook was free, it came with every computer. Of course it is not free and it creates lockin and the company had to buy an Exchange Server, etc... MS perfected using the freemium model 20 years ago selling into the enterprise. They were competing with IBM so they had to.
-
The standard enterprise model is expensive and time consuming. It requires that you stuff as much as you can down the channel once you've carved it out. The natural ecosystem is a few companies with strong sales relationships buying up lots of smaller companies with strong products. The big guys need more product for the channel. Most of the small guys are focused on technology, not sales. They don't have the time, money, inclination, or talent to get big on their own with mainstream enterprise sales.
-
Our portfolio company Tumblr built and launched the service with two people working part time. They now work full time on it. It reaches 30mm uvs/month. And it's free. And it costs them almost nothing to support and improve it.
Same is true of disqus, delicious (pre yahoo), etc, etc
Freemium is alive and well if you keep your costs down -
It helps underfunded early stage startups focus on bettering their product rather than spend a lot of time trying to sell something not always not ready for prime time to a handful of customers.
-
We have Freemium version that is fully functional and has no expiration. It is limited to a certain amount of data you can acquire.
The purpose of Freemium is twofold, IMHO: To build an active user-community and to generate solid, qualified leads. We are converting a significant number of Freemium users into customers and our service is not cheap (starts at $500/month). The reason is that it is a professional tool, not a widget or aggregator.
The community aspect is invaluable in product development and utilizing collective wisdom for QA. This is a definite value add.
FREE LOVE
Tags: business, free on 2008-02-29 and saved by 7 people -All Annotations (0) -About
in list: Free economics debates
more fromwww.trendwatching.com
The Danger of Free - ReadWriteWeb
Tags: business, models on 2008-02-29 and saved by 24 people -All Annotations (3) -About
in list: Free economics debates
more fromwww.readwriteweb.com
Network effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tags: business, models, pattern on 2008-02-29 and saved by 17 people -All Annotations (2) -About
more fromen.wikipedia.org
Beware of Freeconomics - ReadWriteWeb
Tags: business, patterns, web on 2008-02-29 and saved by 24 people -All Annotations (2) -About
in list: Free economics debates
more fromwww.readwriteweb.com
-
The argument that it cost Google nothing to develop and offer GMail is wrong. Likely it costs millions of dollars each year.
The fact of the matter is that GMail was offered for free mostly because Google could afford it. This is a standard monopolistic
tactic used to enter a new market - drive the price down (in this case to $0) and kill off the competition. Yahoo! was actually first
to market and had a perfectly good product with a fair model: they offered a basic product for free and a premium product with more storage for a price. But when Google made its move, Yahoo! could not compete. -
Perhaps the biggest worry of free are startups. To begin with, how do you compete with free? Suppose someone hasAdd Sticky Note
a great idea for improving web mail. Entering the market is really difficult. A lot of inertia is now behind Google and in the new world of freeconomics, you can no longer compete on price. Not that long ago the
concept of better and cheaper allowed startups to make the bet. But now that cheaper has been replaced with free,
that axis is shut out.- Entrepreneurs just try to invent new communication ways.posted by joel on 2008-02-29
-
The downside of freeconomics is a monopolistic market, with barriers to entry,
and little incentive to innovate. In addition the middle-man and transactional complexities are the other side effects of this new economic trend. -
Likewise, Flickr/Yahoo gives away free image space to attract 1) a huge community to which they can market stuff, 2) a massive volume of page views (i.e. ad revenue) based on user-generated content, and 3) a fantastic pool of tagged images that Yahoo can serve as search results.
-
In this freeconomics world, startups still have a chance because startup costs are rock-bottom low. However, it is not enough to build a "killer app". They have to build a "killer honey pot" that uniquely attracts workers/customers that generate the content that both attracts page view "honey" and (virally) more workers/customers.
Is this bad or complex? Not really, just a different skillset. In this "honey pot" world, effective social architecture is more important than sheer quantity of application features. You don't charge (or charge much) for the "application." Instead, you harvest value out of the content/attention of your worker-bee customers.
-
It is unbalanced not to mention things like Google Apps and Google Search. Google follows the freemium model on many of its products: Google Apps is competing directly with Zoho. The google search appliance has many large corporate competitors. I am sure there are others. In this day and age, a free product can compete by being better. Larger companies will buy the user base, and shoulder the cost of "free." Witness Google's acquisition of YouTube for $2 billion; even though it already had Google Video, which was just as free. This is how it's done.
-
One of the biggest problems that I have with the "free" argument, which you've mentioned in your article, is the whole idea of marginal costs of zero, or virtually zero. Generally speaking (and I can't think of a good counter-example), the only way that you get to such low costs is through significant capital investment and mass production so that, over time, fixed costs are distributed over a huge volume of product.
Anything that's mass produced, or mass distributed, still requires a rather large up front investment. That takes deep pockets, which many smaller companies don't have. You've indicated this above in your comments about Gmail overpowering Yahoo Mail (although Hotmail is still around...?)
Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business
Tags: business, economics, pattern on 2008-02-29 and saved by 129 people -All Annotations (109) -About
in list: Free economics debates
more fromwww.wired.com
-
A few billion blades later, this business model is now the foundation of entire industries: Give away the cell phone, sell the monthly plan; make the videogame console cheap and sell expensive games; install fancy coffeemakers in offices at no charge so you can sell managers expensive coffee sachets.
-
But until recently, practically everything "free" was really just the result of what economists would call a cross-subsidy: You'd get one thing free if you bought another, or you'd get a product free only if you paid for a service.
-
You know this freaky land of free as the Web. A decade and a half into the great online experiment, the last debates over free versus pay online are ending. In 2007 The New York Times went free; this year, so will much of The Wall Street Journal. (The remaining fee-based parts, new owner Rupert Murdoch announced, will be "really special ... and, sorry to tell you, probably more expensive." This calls to mind one version of Stewart Brand's original aphorism from 1984: "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive ... That tension will not go away.")
-
The rise of "freeconomics" is being driven by the underlying technologies that power the Web. Just as Moore's law dictates that a unit of processing power halves in price every 18 months, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster. Which is to say, the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero.
-
The Web is all about scale, finding ways to attract the most users for centralized resources, spreading those costs over larger and larger audiences as the technology gets more and more capable. It's not about the cost of the equipment in the racks at the data center; it's about what that equipment can do. And every year, like some sort of magic clockwork, it does more and more for less and less, bringing the marginal costs of technology in the units that we individuals consume closer to zero.
-
Digital technology benefits from these dynamics and from something else even more powerful: the 20th-century shift from Newtonian to quantum machines. We're still just beginning to exploit atomic-scale effects in revolutionary new materials — semiconductors (processing power), ferromagnetic compounds (storage), and fiber optics (bandwidth). In the arc of history, all three substances are still new, and we have a lot to learn about them. We are just a few decades into the discovery of a new world.
-
For good reason: It's now clear that practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis, at least as far as we consumers are concerned. Storage now joins bandwidth (YouTube: free) and processing power (Google: free) in the race to the bottom. Basic economics tells us that in a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost. There's never been a more competitive market than the Internet, and every day the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing.
-
The second trend is simply that anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effect of falling costs. There's nothing new about technology's deflationary force, but what is new is the speed at which industries of all sorts are becoming digital businesses and thus able to exploit those economics. When Google turned advertising into a software application, a classic services business formerly based on human economics (things get more expensive each year) switched to software economics (things get cheaper). So, too, for everything from banking to gambling. The moment a company's primary expenses become things based in silicon, free becomes not just an option but the inevitable destination.
-
Their role was to conserve transistors, and they not only decided what was worthy but also encouraged programmers to make the most economical use of their computer time. As a result, early developers devoted as much code as possible to running their core algorithms efficiently and gave little thought to user interface. This was the era of the command line, and the only conceivable reason someone might have wanted to use a computer at home was to organize recipe files. In fact, the world's first personal computer, a stylish kitchen appliance offered by Honeywell in 1969, came with integrated counter space.
-
The purpose of this profligate eye candy? Ease of use for regular folks, including children. Kay's work on the graphical user interface became the inspiration for the Xerox Alto, and then the Apple Macintosh, which changed the world by opening computing to the rest of us. (We, in turn, found no shortage of things to do with it; tellingly, organizing recipes was not high on the list.)
-
From the consumer's perspective, though, there is a huge difference between cheap and free. Give a product away and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you're in an entirely different business, one of clawing and scratching for every customer. The psychology of "free" is powerful indeed, as any marketer will tell you.
This difference between cheap and free is what venture capitalist Josh Kopelman calls the "penny gap." People think demand is elastic and that volume falls in a straight line as price rises, but the truth is that zero is one market and any other price is another. In many cases, that's the difference between a great market and none at all.
-
But free is not quite as simple — or as stupid — as it sounds. Just because products are free doesn't mean that someone, somewhere, isn't making huge gobs of money. Google is the prime example of this. The monetary benefits of craigslist are enormous as well, but they're distributed among its tens of thousands of users rather than funneled straight to Craig Newmark Inc. To follow the money, you have to shift from a basic view of a market as a matching of two parties — buyers and sellers — to a broader sense of an ecosystem with many parties, only some of which exchange cash.
-
In the traditional media model, a publisher provides a product free (or nearly free) to consumers, and advertisers pay to ride along. Radio is "free to air," and so is much of television. Likewise, newspaper and magazine publishers don't charge readers anything close to the actual cost of creating, printing, and distributing their products. They're not selling papers and magazines to readers, they're selling readers to advertisers. It's a three-way market.
-
But for digital products, this ratio of free to paid is reversed. A typical online site follows the 1 Percent Rule — 1 percent of users support all the rest. In the freemium model, that means for every user who pays for the premium version of the site, 99 others get the basic free version. The reason this works is that the cost of serving the 99 percent is close enough to zero to call it nothing.
-
In any package of products and services, from banking to mobile calling plans, the price of each individual component is often determined by psychology, not cost. Your cell phone company may not make money on your monthly minutes — it keeps that fee low because it knows that's the first thing you look at when picking a carrier — but your monthly voicemail fee is pure profit.
-
Labor exchange
What's free: Web sites and services. Free to whom: all users, since the act of using these sites and services actually creates something of value.You can get free porn if you solve a few captchas, those scrambled text boxes used to block bots. What you're actually doing is giving answers to a bot used by spammers to gain access to other sites — which is worth more to them than the bandwidth you'll consume browsing images. Likewise for rating stories on Digg, voting on Yahoo Answers, or using Google's 411 service (see "How Can Directory Assistance Be Free?"). In each case, the act of using the service creates something of value, either improving the service itself or creating information that can be useful somewhere else.
-
It does. The word is externalities, a concept that holds that money is not the only scarcity in the world. Chief among the others are your time and respect, two factors that we've always known about but have only recently been able to measure properly. The "attention economy" and "reputation economy" are too fuzzy to merit an academic department, but there's something real at the heart of both. Thanks to Google, we now have a handy way to convert from reputation (PageRank) to attention (traffic) to money (ads). Anything you can consistently convert to cash is a form of currency itself, and Google plays the role of central banker for these new economies.
There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.
-
Well, consider this analogy: In 1954, at the dawn of nuclear power, Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission, promised that we were entering an age when electricity would be "too cheap to meter." Needless to say, that didn't happen, mostly because the risks of nuclear energy hugely increased its costs. But what if he'd been right? What if electricity had in fact become virtually free?The answer is that everything electricity touched — which is to say just about everything — would have been transformed. Rather than balance electricity against other energy sources, we'd use electricity for as many things as we could — we'd waste it, in fact, because it would be too cheap to worry about.
-
Today it's digital technologies, not electricity, that have become too cheap to meter. It took decades to shake off the assumption that computing was supposed to be rationed for the few, and we're only now starting to liberate bandwidth and storage from the same poverty of imagination. But a generation raised on the free Web is coming of age, and they will find entirely new ways to embrace waste, transforming the world in the process. Because free is what you want — and free, increasingly, is what you're going to get.
与女儿谈商业模式之6:我要办电力公司-陈志武-搜狐博客
Tags: business, pattern on 2008-02-24 and saved by 2 people -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromchenzhiwu.blog.sohu.com
-
美国式商业模式的最大诀窍其实很简单,专门找人们每天要用、要吃或者要住的东西,最好是每天要换个样、每天要几件或多次的重复需要的东西,你如果生产、销售这种商品,市场潜力就大得不得了,特别是像中国有十三亿人,任何每天没人要用的东西,都隐含巨大的商机。市场规模和生产规模两者既连在一起,又不完全一样,但这基本是美国两百年商业史的核心,也是中国正在发生的商业革命的要点。
-
“电的确是人人都用,而且现在几乎没有电就无法生活了。这是好主意。但是,有一点得知道,就是世界上几乎所有国家都对电价进行管制,把电价定得不高不低,让电力公司的资本一年正好有10%左右的回报。所以,如果你要办电力公司,赚大钱的机会有限。”
-
“当然,像房地产这样的市场,如果政府不控制土地供应、不控制房地产商,这应该是一个充分竞争的市场,只要没有垄断剥削,就不该由政府来插手。但是,电力市场可能有差别,主要原因是,一旦一家电力公司将电网线路接到我们家门口,这家公司就拥有该电力线路,也就拥有了我们家作为它的客户,于是,其它公司不可能来了,至少没有太多别的公司再愿花钱另铺新电线到我们家。因此,第一家公司就独占我们家,使我们成了它的固定客户,我们没有太多灵活性、没什么选择了。按经济学的话说,这家公司对我们家有某些自然垄断,他们就可以对我们随便提高电价了。按中国的话说,这些电力公司一旦拥有我们,它们即可‘关起门来打狗’,自然垄断使客户没有选择,只能听任这些电力公司摆布了。
-
“的确是这样,过去这些年,电力行业难有太多新技术创新。只要电力公司的利润空间有限,它们投资做新技术开发的动力就不大,潜在投资者也不愿意进来,所以,过去很多年,大家都把电力行业投资看成稳定性的,而不是高风险、高回报的投资领域。电价管制的结果,是抑制了对新技术的投入。到最近几年,能源价格、电力价格被放松管制了,能源危机感上也来了,就像你们老师在学校讲的那样,终于有新的风险资本进入新能源技术开发了。”
-
她意识到,像涉及到基本民生的行业,虽然规模和潜力都大,但所牵涉的政治也会太复杂,特别是那些已经很成熟的民生行业,会有太多既定的条框,让任何新手进入都难。
与女儿谈商业模式 (5):糖果连锁店?-陈志武-搜狐博客
-
陈笛:“我们的老师说,18世纪,英国通过‘三角贸易’获得银子:英国货船先从本土装上制造品、烈酒等物品,运到非洲海岸卖掉,完成第一笔交易;再用得到的钱买下非洲黑人,装上船,运到中美洲如墨西哥等地,把非洲运来的黑人做奴隶卖给那里的农场主,即完成第二笔交易;这些利润一部分用来购买美洲白糖、棉花、咖啡,剩下的是以银子形式运回英国,墨西哥等中美洲国家盛藏白银,运回英国再卖掉,即完成第三笔交易。按你这么一说,当时的这些美洲白银,对英国在亚洲的贸易很重要啦?”
-
“在18世纪末,东印度公司形成了一个新的‘三角贸易’,即英国、印度与中国的三边贸易圈。东印度公司的货船从英国装上制造品,运到印度卖掉,再装上印度盛产的鸦片,然后,运到广东沿岸,把鸦片在中国卖掉,换成茶叶、丝绸,装上船运回英国,就这样完成整个英、印、中‘三角贸易’。换句话说,正因为有了印度的鸦片,才大大减轻了英国公司的银两压力,不用银子支付,而是用鸦片换茶叶、丝绸。解决了跨国贸易的支付问题后,中国的茶叶与丝绸出口量当然猛增,但,同时进入中国的鸦片也大增。1730年中国进口鸦片15吨,1773年增长到75吨,到1820年升至900吨。”
-
“但是,鸦片是毒品,当初是帮助解决了外贸支付问题,可是,随着鸦片进口量的增加,太多中国人吸鸦片上瘾了,一天没鸦片就无法活了。从19世纪初,鸦片进口已不再是帮助解决外贸支付问题,而是为了满足不可收拾的毒瘾,毒瘾开始毁灭中国人的意志。到1834年,鸦片年进口量已超过1400吨,中国的茶叶与丝绸出口已远不够支付进口鸦片的钱,要付银子,中国的银子开始大量流出。
“1839年,道光皇帝派林则徐前往广州,禁止鸦片进口,违者要被杀头。林则徐到后,立即执行禁令,把大量鸦片扔进大海。那年,林则徐发函质问英国女王,为什么英国在其本土、爱尔兰以及苏格兰禁止鸦片销售,知道鸦片对人体有害,却把大量鸦片贩卖到中国?为什么他们为了贸易赚钱可以这么没有道德,采用双重标准?
-
“鸦片战争的负面意义在于当年大英帝国的不仁与霸道,在于它对中国主权的侵略,在于它的‘不管好钱、坏钱,是钱就赚’的一面。从更长的历史视角看,那次战争以及其结局也有积极的一面,逼着中国开放了,让中国接触世界,加入全球体系,走向现代化。试想,如果1793年马戛尔尼访问乾隆中国时,皇帝和朝廷大臣们能够有开放的眼光,而不是封闭自大,如果那次能积极利用英国与中国贸易的愿望,努力建立某种双赢的贸易体系,那么,鸦片贸易或许不至于走到那种地步。由于当时中国对世界不了解,世界也不了解中国,在那种情况下,任何矛盾、任何误解都可能导致武力冲突。那次战争给中国社会带来巨大的冲击,危机迫使社会精英谋求自强,迫使中国正视世界。比如说,如果没有那场危机,或许就没有你爸爸到美国来了,中国和世界也可能是另一种样子。”
Business English Pod :: The Business English Podcast for Professionals
Tags: business, english, podcast on 2008-01-25 and saved by 36 people -All Annotations (2) -About
more fromwww.businessenglishpod.com
Trading for their own account
Tags: business, patterns on 2008-01-02 and saved by 4 people -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromradar.oreilly.com
-
We see the same pattern at Amazon, which is aggressively pursuing authors for direct publishing on the kindle and seeking to displace publishers by making themselves the sole source for books on the device.
Ultimately, I think we see this pattern in the economic development of every innovation. When a new technology is introduced, there's a lot of green-field opportunity, and so much value is being created that there's no need to capture it all. But as the technology matures, the winners need to capture more of the total value being created. They gradually crowd out suppliers as well as competitors.
Josh Kaufman: Inside My Bald Head » The Personal MBA
Tags: book, business, mba on 2007-08-03 and saved by 43 people -All Annotations (1) -About
more fromjoshkaufman.net
Google Business Solutions
Tags: business, google on 2007-03-18 and saved by 4 people -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromwww.google.com
all in the head — Five Most Important Considerations
Tags: business, web on 2006-04-28 and saved by 11 people -All Annotations (0) -About
more fromallinthehead.com
Notation: * = Private bookmark and comment|… = Clipping [?] | … = Public highlight [?]
Joel Liu's Related Tags
See More Top Contributors
Related Groups on Diigo
-
Free economics debates
Items: 4 | Visits: 164
Created by: Joel Liu
-
Sell FM
Sell, Sell, SellFM Talking ...
Items: 6 | Visits: 150
Created by: Ma Theresa Camartin




