Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?

[Jim Choate]

The letter signed by the 'economists' is already prima facia evidence in
support of 'network externality' and 'path dependence' as real effects.

A debate would only be further evidence in favor of their existance.

I've read only a small part of the various URL's that have been forwarded,
and a major reason for these sorts of effects to be out there, which is
ignored in this debate as near as I can tell, is 'nobody wants to be
first' with respect to bucking the trend.

The MS case is a perfect example: "Nobody ever lost their job for buying
IBM."

The reality is that people knew they were purchasing sub-optimal
resources. Their hope was that market effects with respect to support and
software would make up any difference. Sometimes the solution that gets
selected is 'good enough' rather than 'best'.


On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating
> the substance of his claim.
> 
> All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided
> by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not
> want to debate the issues with mere mortals.

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------