i think mits point-which both of us and mach etc

i think mits point-which both of us and mach etc have pointed out many times- is you have to be a major player to break through the closed door cycle inertia of big business- usa big pharma is particularly notorious in this manner such that many usa citizens take chartered buses to canada to get their prescriptions

big pharma is more powerful in the usa than anywhere else

somebody-in a post i deleted because it attacked another poster made a false argument using the iphone introduction as an example of a company making a breakthrough in the market against big companies

1 that example does not hold for several reasons- phone tech is an extreme example of tech idolatry - most ppl under 50 cannot live without their smartphones

2 phones are also one of the modern quintessential status showoff keeping up with the joneses devices

3 the company which made that breakthrough was a major force with an iconic inventor with unusual abilities -so iconic that the only person generally judged to be in the same ranks would be bill gates-with computers being an extreme example themselves

4 i dont know how big apple was at that time but i venture to say they were magnitudes larger than NNLX -the apple computer was introduced in 1976 sio i think its safe to say apple was already a hundreds of billions of dollars corporation by the time the iphone was introduced-

you cant compare that w NNLX- if NNLX had that much money it would not have to partner w other groups to get er done