Does anybody else get what fleitz was trying to say here?
The nice thing about no one knowing who you
are is that 22 year old college geeks don't
get the idea to 'disrupt' your industry and
instead focus on 'disrupting' a more well
known brand like Facebook.
What I'm saying is that you can easily get yourself into the 1% with out having to make a huge name for yourself and if you want to get REALLY rich it's also possible to do without huge branding. Although YHOO and MSFT in the tech press are 'dying' businesses in the 'real world' they are hugely profitable.
If you build yourself a business that puts you into the 1% with out making a huge name for yourself you're less likely to have your revenue stream threatened because most people aren't even thinking of competing with you.
I understand the point you are bringing up. However, there's one thing about tech companies is that their cashflow can only be sustained if their position were defensible. RIM and Nokia demonstrate how quickly a stellar business can fall into the precipice. In terms of business lifecycle, Yahoo is effectively a cash cow. http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_bcgmatrix.html It may generate a lot of profit, but it is in a business that isn't growing its market share, and risks not replacing its lost audience.
