There are at least a few stories from the 90s where companies that readily could have invested in “getting online” instead decided that it would only harm their existing business. The hype at the time was extraordinary to be sure, but after the dust settled the internet did change the shape of the world.
Nobody can really know what things will look like in 10 years, but if you have the capital to deploy and any conviction at all that this might be a sea-change moment, it seems foolish to not pursue it.
> Nobody can really know what things will look like in 10 years,
100% true. Do not invest trillions on such an uncertainty in the long term is always a bad investment.
> but if you have the capital to deploy and any conviction at all that this might be a sea-change moment, it seems foolish to not pursue it.
Gamblers argument: "But what if this is the winning ticket?"
Then aren't most forms of investment based on a "gambler's argument"?
A risky investment is obviously akin to gambling, but to get things built and make a profit you have no other choice.
> Then aren't most forms of investment based on a "gambler's argument"?
Are you now equating an investor with some guy in a casino? Sorry, but that seems like a stretch.
You are quoting and responding to a rhetorical question from a person with essentialy the same criticism as you, to respond as if they are making the claim.. why??
No I am not, you took the opposite of the intended meaning.
I'm saying the risk aspect is similar, but I take issue with equating (product) investment and gambling, since one has a potential to create, and the other just shifts money around.
Pascal's Wager for tech.
More like it's edgy cousin, the basilisk.