3 ms·

Yet another variation on: Don't be a sharecropper.

logicallee 10y ago
I know. Why anyone would choose to make a few thousand a month using someone ELSE'S infrastructure, rather than be a 400.64B company is completely beyond me. I coded this up so you can see it in black and white: http://codepad.org/7t5RvxUg http://codepad.org/7t5RvxUg How anyone can get such incredibly simple math wrong boggles my mind.
- ska 10y ago
  Thank you for such a clear example of the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". Now I'll have a link to demonstrate the issue when needed!
  - logicallee 10y ago
    My real point is that there's nothing wrong with sharecropping; because you still have your past revenues, until the point the landowner pulls the rug. The implication of GP, that you somehow shouldn't have chosen sharecropping until that point, is totally wrong for the majority of the people who make that choice. (For another example see app developers on Apple's App Store. Nothing wrong with their choice.) The GP post made it super explicit: "Don't be a sharecropper". Well, why not? This news doesn't mean it wasn't their best choice.
    - ska 10y ago
      You would have been better off making that point, then. Creating a false dichotomy didn't help you, it's even sillier that original implication that you should never do this. The real maxim is something like "be very careful when your business model is (some better word than sharecropping) - because it can be disabled at any point"
kevan 10y ago
It's fine to build your business on someone else's platform as long as you accept that they have a lot of control over your destiny.
pasbesoin 10y ago
Some other responses to my parent comment have validity: It was a quippy comment I made. At the time I made it, there were only a few other comments. A few of which reflected on the likes of e.g. the impact upon Wirecutter. I actually like Wirecutter; I've found their articles useful, and I've used their affiliate links a few times. As I have also done with e.g. camelcamelcamel. They add value, for me, and I try to reciprocate. Unfortunately, they and others are at the mercy of Amazon. And, I think many here will agree, Amazon basically has no mercy. You're fine and good, until they see a way to expand their own profit at your expense. You are only "tolerated" as a business partner -- never embraced. Nor, perhaps, even respected. Per some other replies to my parent comment, sure, go ahead and make some side money off of affiliate links. But I would never rely on them for my well-being. Even if they represented the bulk of my income for a while, I'd want to have an immediately actionable exit-plan at hand. And... somewhat akin to Amazon Prime, which I've renewed with increasing reluctance: I am coming to resent Amazon's all-embracing tentacles more and more because they choke off competition that might actually offer better value-added. Such as Wirecutter and the like. And, Wednesday, another Amazon Prime package did not get to me on its emailed delivery date. I increasingly don't trust Amazon with the monopoly they already have; once "locked in", it seems they feel they can let their side of the deliverables slip.

I know. Why anyone would choose to make a few thousand a month using someone ELSE'S infrastructure, rather than be a 400.64B company is completely beyond me. I coded this up so you can see it in black and white: http://codepad.org/7t5RvxUg http://codepad.org/7t5RvxUg How anyone can get such incredibly simple math wrong boggles my mind.

ska 10y ago
Thank you for such a clear example of the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". Now I'll have a link to demonstrate the issue when needed!
- logicallee 10y ago
  My real point is that there's nothing wrong with sharecropping; because you still have your past revenues, until the point the landowner pulls the rug. The implication of GP, that you somehow shouldn't have chosen sharecropping until that point, is totally wrong for the majority of the people who make that choice. (For another example see app developers on Apple's App Store. Nothing wrong with their choice.) The GP post made it super explicit: "Don't be a sharecropper". Well, why not? This news doesn't mean it wasn't their best choice.
  - ska 10y ago
    You would have been better off making that point, then. Creating a false dichotomy didn't help you, it's even sillier that original implication that you should never do this. The real maxim is something like "be very careful when your business model is (some better word than sharecropping) - because it can be disabled at any point"

kevan 10y ago

It's fine to build your business on someone else's platform as long as you accept that they have a lot of control over your destiny.

pasbesoin 10y ago

Some other responses to my parent comment have validity: It was a quippy comment I made. At the time I made it, there were only a few other comments. A few of which reflected on the likes of e.g. the impact upon Wirecutter. I actually like Wirecutter; I've found their articles useful, and I've used their affiliate links a few times. As I have also done with e.g. camelcamelcamel. They add value, for me, and I try to reciprocate. Unfortunately, they and others are at the mercy of Amazon. And, I think many here will agree, Amazon basically has no mercy. You're fine and good, until they see a way to expand their own profit at your expense. You are only "tolerated" as a business partner -- never embraced. Nor, perhaps, even respected. Per some other replies to my parent comment, sure, go ahead and make some side money off of affiliate links. But I would never rely on them for my well-being. Even if they represented the bulk of my income for a while, I'd want to have an immediately actionable exit-plan at hand. And... somewhat akin to Amazon Prime, which I've renewed with increasing reluctance: I am coming to resent Amazon's all-embracing tentacles more and more because they choke off competition that might actually offer better value-added. Such as Wirecutter and the like. And, Wednesday, another Amazon Prime package did not get to me on its emailed delivery date. I increasingly don't trust Amazon with the monopoly they already have; once "locked in", it seems they feel they can let their side of the deliverables slip.