| |
In lugnet.market.services, William Brumbach writes:
> I'd prefer they pay for it with advertising and an IPO.
Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"?
That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that
doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital,
forever?
Or did you mean something else?
It's one thing to fund current deficits while building mind and market
share, if you have a path to profitability. But it is entirely another to
ask stockholders to fund something that never will make money. As many
dot.com companies learned the hard way.
FUT .debate since this is about economic reality.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
| (...) You are correct, too many of the e-business get treated by consumers as "make hey while the sun shines" type deals. Despite that, I think there is a need for what paypal is providing. However, I see no reason why individuals should not be able (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
| I'd prefer they pay for it with advertising and an IPO. But seriously, if the costs of CC transactions are part of the industry then they should have introduced some of nominal transaction fee from the start, even 1%-2%, and then raised it from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
