[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [kDev] The idea could be good; the implementaiton needs some improvement



Having started this thread I feel it only right to apologise for my silence
over the past week, having been just a tad busy, and comment now.

Firstly, many thanks to Phillip for articulating what was in my mind when I
first read Daniel's reply to my original note.  As Daniel acknowledges now
>>>


ALL THAT SAID: I understand that my reply to Scott had a bit of a heavy
tone to it - reading back though my comments. It's not that I disagree
with his criticisms or feel like I'm being attacked or feel the need to
defend myself. But that I'm impatient to get to the crux of the matter.
I will endeavour to be more patient (I'll add it to my list) and not
jump down people's throats.

<<<

So moving on from that, and commending the eagerness, I come to the crux of
my concern about Kendra.  Which is simple.

It's a dream, not a business.

The current structure doesn't reward the real "stakeholders" -- the talent,
the imagineers, the investors, the drivers, the administrators and so on.
All the folk that will actually make it work.  OK, it may provide a "job"
for some, but as Phillip implies, "so what, there's plenty of them around
for GOOD people".

And that to me is key.

For those that don't have a million quid [or whatever] under our belt, sheer
altruism isn't a great reward.  Yes, maybe it should be, and indeed maybe it
*could* be if one was for what ever reason keen to take on mega-businesses
who "invent" things to ensure their own continued profitability... Linux,
MySQL and Apache spring immediately to mind.

But Kendra doesn't look like that from the cheap seats.  What you have
stated as the aim of Kendra is a brilliant -- and I mean that
un-reservedly -- concept as the second stage of a business plan.  Which you
really MUST have is a way to move Kendra forward other than as a hobby.

That means making it a proper business, and offering GREAT, not even just
"good", potential rewards to key participants.

Your stated plan >>>

Absolutely, those things are still at the core. Because the goal is
still seeing the building of and take up of an "open architecture
system that will provide the entertainment/content industry with a
platform for content distribution and delivery over the Internet and
facilitating revenue generation for content owners/aggregators and
service providers". It's on the front page of the website.

<<< is a viable secondary process to "how" do we meet the first objective
and is thus the means to implement a notion that will attract many more and
competent followers.

So what is this mystical first objective?

I have always found the first real objective for most key talent is "TO MAKE
A LOT OF MONEY SO WE CAN FOLLOW OUR OWN INTERESTS"

One might then include in the first objective other real things like "to
have fun"; "to invent and implement new techniques and technologies"; "to
quickly build something existing Corporates couldn't possibly deliver" and
so on... until we reach the key bit... "and sell it for a ton of money"

There is in my mind NO viable objective that says "devote loads of time,
energy and talent to build a framework that huge Corporations can then use
themselves to make even more money by our facilitating their revenue
generation ... " etc.  And then not own any part of it.

Daniel, I've DONE most of this stuff already -- it's not difficult:

>From 1995 to 1998 I participated in building your upstream ISP, BusinessNet.
I saw you guys work on the Cerberus Digital Jukebox.

Then from 1999 to 2001 as Chief Technical Officer, I then participated in
building an agnostic media delivery platform called the British Internet
Broadcasting Company -- check it out at www.bibc.com -- it still limps along
in the face of a mixture of fear and apathy from the big corporate "content
owners" and broadband "suppliers".  Our video is Real System, our audio was
Microsoft [but is now dormant].

Easy peasy to replicate each one.  We obtained content.  We negotiated
Rights.  We retransmitted satellite programming from around the Globe.
Nobody really does that even now.

We designed all the interfaces one could want to monetise content.  But at
the end of the day, the media industry is still digging canals whilst those
idiots promoting these stupid new railways are trying to change things -- or
any other Luddite analogy you wish to choose.

All your dreams can be delivered... but only as a BUSINESS.

Possibly invested in by outright dreamers, or maybe as a skunk works by some
of the aforesaid media companies.

I do feel there is opportunity.

But to exploit it, one needs to attract, keep and reward talent, money,
imagination, marketing people, a driver with business acumen and a dedicated
support infrastructure.

Food for thought I hope.

Kind regards, Scott

PS -- strap line mark 3 -- "there is an inexhaustible demand for free
competence"

PPS -- Me?  I'll join for an undiluted eight percent of the open market sale
price in 2006   8-))


[... original notes not replicated ...]