From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 11:01:22 MDT
--- Gary Miller <garymiller@starband.net> wrote:
> I won't claim this is an original idea because I
> read about this on
> Wired possibly a few years back and it was such a
> good idea I can't
> believe it hasn't popped up yet.
It has. It's been done over and over and over again.
The problem is the network effect: without a large
number of users that travel within range of this
device on a typical day, it has little value. But
you don't get said large number of users even in the
highest-population-density areas until after it
starts having significant value. Catch 21, and no
one has yet been able to solve it - though there have
been many failed attempts that just wasted everyone's
time and money. Indeed, from what I've heard, it was
not atypical for purchasers of such a device to never
once encounter anyone else who had a compatible device
- to say nothing of a compatible profile entered into
said device - in the months or years between
purchasing it and ceasing to use it (tossing, leaving
at home permanently, or whatever).
The expansion to stores and medical facilities is a
new twist - but, frankly, you'd have to push that
aspect of the electronic ID almost exclusively before
it would be adopted by enough people that the romantic
connection side would become useful. And even that
has similar prior examples (smart cards, for instance)
where similar network effects come into play (if none
of the stores I go to support this device, for
instance, then I get no value from purchasing one).
In short: find a way to beat the massive downside of
the network effect, or your attempt to realize this
idea will fizzle, just like everyone else's
attempts.(Unfortunately, said downside is so massive
that you
might have trouble giving these things away - to
merchants, medics, and customers - even ignoring
concerns about how to make a profit without selling
any devices.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 11:12:37 MDT