> The big 5 have something to lose. They fence. The little guy is sword fighting. This isn't just you not explaining yourself well. This is an entirely differ

> The big 5 have something to lose. They fence. The little guy is sword fighting. This isn't just you not explaining yourself well. This is an entirely different claim. Your first claim was that the big companies "are incapable of risking losing billions on an idea" which is patently untrue. This claim isn't as clearly untrue. It's just not meaningful. If you need billions to win, then the "little guy" need not apply. If only big players can afford to compete, then that's who will compete. For the record, Nokia and BlackBerry and a number of other phone companies got to the point that they had nothing to lose, dumped in billions, and still lost the market. I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of taking a major market from an established player. > There is an umami to sword fighting. There's this whole other flavor that's hard to describe, unless you've tasted it. I know, it's kind of a bullshit argument. Yes, that is a bullshit argument, partly because it's the whole "you couldn't possibly understand" thing that is in general a bad argument, but mostly because this claim means that you've been in a sword fight and literally hacked someone to death. I find this hard to believe.