We all agree on the negative effects of those externalities, but pricing them in before completing the transition to sustainable systems would only make resources MUCH less affordable for the end-consumer - you, me and everyone else, given the basic needs those goods fulfill.
That's the point. When people in rich parts of states can get artificially cheaper power through coal plants that poison the poor people in the state, the incentive to move to alternatives is diminished.
Okay, here's a thing - how about developing a more accurate risk profile assessment and pricing structure than any other broker out there (just like some lending platforms doubled the accuracy in evaluating credit ratings in comparison to large banks and built their business around that technology) and then buy in advance low risk properties, while charging relatively high fees? You'd have to keep the asset on the books (while knowing the average time required to sell it for a low commission) till it's gone, but eliminate the pain number 1 for consumers, as in most cases they're ready to be charged more to get rid of the property asap.
Just throwing it there. Crazy enough to make sense.
Ok. There's the attraction that Spotify might have had for that kind of market, along with some synergies in its structure i.e. 1) major shift within an old & monopolistic industry being left behind by new technologies and 2) similarities between the larger music and video industry that Spotify can leverage (having learned from music already). THAT said, the road to disruption can be taken through a highly profitable niche first - avoiding the pressure of being omnipresent from day 1, which is what Spotify will inevitably do. We're in the film space and I'm happy about this development. Competition within new online distribution channels is only good for us.
"But if I had to do it over again today, I might choose bio-informatics or nanotechnology.”
In 20 years from now, IT skills will better be more than common. The internet will be in a post-maturity stage. The new "lack of" won't be of CS folks. It may as well be of what he mentioned.
Is this really true though? I'm sure the internet will be at a mature technology, but there will always be something new that's bound to come up. Programming != Web dev.
I have doubts, given that machines are getting locked down both in terms of hardware and software, preventing users from exploring the guts of their gadgets as their curiosity is piqued by using these devices.
The advances in technology, while making "creation" more accessible than ever, also seems to be enabling fewer people to serve more people than ever before.
I expect more and more to be locked down. Not so much because of desire by companies to lock their product (although that is a motivator), but media sensationalism and politicians need to look like leaders while expending no effort. I look at the case of the startup uploading all the addresses found in the contacts of an iPhone and the reaction to that. I did not see one article asking if someone's Outlook for Windows contacts had ever been uploaded. It was a stupid move for the startup, but given the history of PCs, it seems like something post-PC product managers would overlook. People seem to want to share everything, but have control over privacy. Adding to that, I am sure a push to make absolutely sure security measures (remote wipe, find my phone) cannot be disabled by a thief. All this gets us secure, locked devices, because it is easier than having your C-level executive be lectured to by some member of Congress's committee.
So, I would expect to see less and less of people in the industry who got into like me with and Atari 400. There are certainly no modern day version of the C64, Sinclair Z80, or TI-99/4a (no, Raspberry Pi isn't even close).
iOS provides great software to start every career but the one that makes it sing.
I disagree. Technology is advancing at an extremely rapid pace and in the future it will require more knowledge and training to keep up, thus raising the bar to enter. Look at the medical field, for example. 200 years ago it didn't take much education or experience to be considered a doctor. Nowadays you have spend nearly half your life in preparation to become one.
Our industry is definitely becoming more popular but that doesn't mean that the demand is dying down.
Never said it's dying down, on the contrary - the supply of such skills will eventually have to be much more common given strong demand. The new uncommon will be something else though.
Yes, but I wouldn't even go so far as to cite the 100% new market creation - where's the usual timing / major shift argument? If that actually applies for real, forget the fallacy. In all other cases, feel free to keep it in mind.
b2c: depending on your users, you may even prefer .co to .com - esp. if you target users like me.
b2b: generally careful here - except if you target startups like ours.
So yeh, directly correlated to your target being tech savvy or not I'd say.
We all agree on the negative effects of those externalities, but pricing them in before completing the transition to sustainable systems would only make resources MUCH less affordable for the end-consumer - you, me and everyone else, given the basic needs those goods fulfill.