Thanks Jeffz2...unless what you are saying is that you fail to understand any of my posts ;) Of course, if this is in fact the case please advise, as I cannot correct what I am unaware of.
Fyi, I feel it important to note that while srowen is a highly skilled software engineer, my experience with engineers in general (and this may or may not apply to him in particular) is that they are often tactical in nature. Seniors such as Vint Cerf are typically strategic in nature and exercise tactics through delegation.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that certain discussions at the top may be a bit different than discussions at srowen's level. This is often the case in many large companies.
Srowen is understandably proud of his work, but frankly, it would not surprise me if Google chose Direct codes as a strategy. Understanding that patents were already issued, in order to avoid a worst case scenario (licensing in the event patents were upheld) they needed to focus on the “license-free” model knowing that if all else failed they could fall in line at any time. This may or may not be the case, but I do find it plausible. How else does a person such as Vint demonstrate his true value. rather than surrender and fall in line, he becomes a tad divisive, aggressively inventive, while utilizing a proven (yet in my mind still not as efficient) process...possibly one of the reasons he is so valued.
Keep in mind that one of the comments made over the last several days is that there is no licensing associated with the direct method and that direct is just as stellar as indirect. Well, simply stated, if this were the case, all more reason that each of Neom's competitors (including Scanbuy) should be focusing on direct codes to avoid licensing. However, they do not appear to be.
In addition, and just as relevant, someone on this board made a point yesterday that srowen is not versed in sales & marketing. Without a licensing fee Google stands to gain a competitive advantage over "all" the competitors in the marketplace. So why would so many, if not all, of these competitors be so focused on "indirect.?" Wouldn’t they want to compete on price in a marketplace that has not been established yet? However, they do not appear to be.
They are focused on indirect BECAUSE, as I have indicated through my exchange with srowen over the past few days, there exists a substantial array of information he is unaware of...to the extent that he shocked me. To be proud of your work is one thing, however, to attempt to sway an entire board without the slightest understanding or appreciation of the milestones accomplished by the competition is surprising to say the least.
If I enter a business meeting to present to a group of executives and a simple question is asked of me, the likes of, "So what is your competition doing, and how does their solutions suite compare?" I had better know the answer or I risk my credibility, their confidence, and their confidence in my company.
Srowen was unaware of many significant applications and milestones including the KeyWord Registry, Neustar, and others. What this indicated to me is that he was given a directive...to build a "direct" platform, and he did his job quite well (kudos). However, he has not demonstrated an awareness of much of what has transpired in the industry of which numerous milestones are quite notable and relevant.
Therefore, as I reiterate, all players will find their niche. Btw, I personally continue to feel that Google will eventually license in some way shape or form. They likely will not license for all aspects of their business model, but I feel they will need to license.
Bottom line, this industry is prepped and ready. I look forward to witnessing this technology proliferate globally over the the next several years, and I plan to enjoy the ride :)
All of the above is just my opinion. My comments are based in part on certain facts but my reasoning is pure conjecture.
Best,
BC
AI
