From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 22:27:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: toolkits?
Message-ID: <199511211405.GAA17363@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Alice here ...

On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Daniel R. Oelke,
 <droelke@aud.alcatel.com> wrote:

> > Now were getting specific. These are things that us ordinary folk can do
> > which show the 'leaders' how to follow. What software, hardware,
> > applications, support and sysadmin experience is required and where is it
> > available on what terms. What are the cash flow opportunities to support
> > such services? 

By "cash flow-opportunities", is this the "opportunity-cost" of providing
services??  The foregone profits of today.  Or is this the future cash
flow opportunities which could arise from this type of activity.  The
future assets of tomorrow? 

Essentially, doesn't all of this reduce to "valuing" in present dollar
terms (i.e.  attaching a discounted present value through some appropriate
hurdle rate) to some level of future benefit. 

The real issue as I see it, is finding some way to actually "fund" that 
hazy discounted present value.

> A good service would be to provide and support distribution of 
> of privacy enhancing tools to universities and companies that
> want them.  i.e. have people who will help set up firewalls,
> PGP, encrypted telnet (pick your flavor), etc. 

As long as it of course *obviously* excludes product like Netscape
Navigator -- the black-box code with significant security holes and flaws --
I'd have to agree that this is in fact a very good idea.

But it requires forward-thinking.  It's no different actually than paying 
someone for what they know, rather than paying them for what they do.

> Yes - I know that most of this stuff is out there already,
> but having people *willing* to integrate it for you without
> charging an arm and a leg would go a long way towards convincing the
> suits that this is a *good* thing.  

It sounds good on the surface.  In fact the liason officer / integrator
might even establish some valuable "working relationships".  I think that
this form of thinking is what will define who will be long term players in
this industry -- and who won't.  

Those who are able to build "goodwill" will survive and flourish, while
the others will flounder. 

If I may paraphrase, I believe that Dan is speaking possibly of
loss-leader services.  Services which do not in actuality show presently
as "high value-added" under our antiquated systems of accounting and
measurement.  Services which might in fact reduce short-term "profits"
because they are "current-expensed" rather than being recognized as the
deferred assets, they in fact truly are. 

(Essentially, the same problem we've visited with R&D expenses.  The
problem where the "solution" is defined as cutting R&D expense, so that
there is increased "profit", although long-term health and corporate
competitiveness is actually weakened.  A true management accounting
paradox.)

There should be a re-focus onto a horizon that is somewhat longer than the
current quarter.  Or the current day, for that matter, or the current
moment.  Unfortunately, these types of "forward-thinking" plans and
projects all require current funds.  Money.  And lots of it, before they
start showing and generating "measurable" returns.  It really is the
laying and strengthening of foundations. 

And who has the authority to spend any money on "wasteful" foundations??

If no one funds these types of projects, either jointly or individually, 
then these projects and bright ideas invariably go absolutely nowhere.


> Dan
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dan Oelke                                  Alcatel Network Systems
> droelke@aud.alcatel.com                             Richardson, TX



Alice de 'nonymous ...

                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.