Prime Minister David Cameron promised improvements to British broadband and more support for smaller, high tech companies as he outlined the Coalition government's "national infrastructure plan". Speaking at the CBI Annual conference, Cameron promised the best broadband in Europe by 2015 thanks to investment of £530m. He noted …
Facebook and Twitter
*Waste* millions of pounds a year and don't make a profit ( a real one, not a fudged one that facebook released a couple of months ago). Hardly the best businesses to base your recovery model on David.
I may have missed the memo...
I dont generally keep up with twitter... but last I heard it wasn't actually making money.. am I to understand that its now generating billions?
Define "The best"
Is it the cheapest?, Is it the fastest? We already have access to "cheap, unlimited, superfast broadband" if you listen to the marketing hype. But the real life experience is "expensive compared with some countries, limited by fair use policies, dependent on creaky infrastructure broadband"
Somehow I don't expect the delivery of this promise to be measured against anything useful, such as actual line speeds or volumes of transferred data.
"Apple, Cisco and Google didn’t even exist"
Erm, this bloke is supposed to be co-leading the country , two of those three have been around a long time. Condom-head* hasn't a clue.
We're doomed if he thinks that start-ups are going to save the tech industry.
*thanks to Steve Bell
THIS MAN RUNS THE COUNTRY
Apple Inc., founded 1976
Cisco Systems, Inc., founded 1984
Google, Inc. founded 1998
Mind you, he did just give the thumbs up for V-tards to jump on the Handout Bandwagon (electrically powered, real world range about 30 miles between charges).
Time to invest in lithium and unicorn burps, the two essential components in electric vehicles.
My palm and my face are truly in alignment...
But think what profits Dettica (BAe Systems subsidary) will make
Mfgs of world class internet snooping equipment.
And with the *entire* UK as their reference site.
How could that be wrong?
Well, if the Coalition economics experiment fails it is just likely that there will be no popular consumer uptake because it will be out of reach of -well- most anybody?
Hmm, not long?
Apple have been around since I was 5 years old, and that was a very, very long time ago. Bloody kids running the country.
So a high proportion of new hires come from start ups...
...misses the coresponding stats for the number of businesses which fail in the first five years of operation. Which is very high. I don't have the numbers to hand, I'd look a lot smarter if I did, but I know that there used to be a lot of tax incentives to invest capital in startup companies bt you had to leave your investment in place for the first 5 year "danger period". it was an effective tax write off.
I suppose if you maintain the churn, enough new startups keep coming to fill the gaps by those who fail then you keep some kind of equilibrium.
I applaud anything which helps business startups, whether they are tech companies or plumbing services. I hope that the same rigor will be applied to business plans of all sectors though not just letting the funding agencies get blinded by the glitz of it being "all techy"
Same old same old?
If things go the same as the last time what seems to happen is that the banks win (again).
Investment to start a new business perhaps on an ambitious business plan.
The start-up fails.
Pays back to the bank or the bank secures its loan on assets.
Back then (looks over shoulder) smart organisations were creating two companies. One that held the assets (a holding company?) and one that took the risks.
If the risky company failed it didn't have assets (theoretically those belonged to the holding company)
Can't say if it is a good working model but a few businesses seemed to adopt it (put assets far away from the at risk company so tax people or banks cannot get their hands on it)