OpenKollab

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/topics

• An Update of a More Personal Nature [2 Updates]
• somethins happen [2 Updates]

Alex Rollin <alex.rollin@gmail.com> Apr 10 12:55PM +0200 ^


 
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Suresh Fernando <
 
> This is true, but it doesn't follow from this that they are not successful
> business models since it doesn't follow that business models need be static
> in any sense.
 
Yes, and these are only a couple of metrics for success, scaling and
profitability.
 
>> http://mashable.com/2009/12/21/twitter-is-already-profitable/
 
> Sure. As stated they will lose a bunch of members. If they are already
> profitable then this just underscores the success of their current models.
 
It underscores that particular metric for success, only. This also
underscores the futility, from some perspectives, of relying on traditional
funding structures and 'business models' to fund projects that are
inherently open and at least partially antithetical.
 
> successful. I would also argue that they do add a lot of value from the
> standpoint of transforming interaction and providing visibility into a
> system of relationships.
 
You are making most of your points from this traditional perspective, it
seems to me. It seems I am pushing you a bit to declare your own values and
filters in this discussion by sharing a bit of my perspective about where
these solutions lie on a scale of 'successes.' I hear you judging
exploitative business models as successful because they meet traditional
guidelines. Surely that can't be all, and surely that is not what we are
here to do, right?
 
>> possible.
 
> It's true that open platforms could pose some risk to these models, but I
> still think that they will have monetized the platforms sufficiently.
 
Sufficiently for what? TO ensure that open platforms are no threat? I
doubt that. And to what end? Is that something that makes them
successful?
 
>> make money, they are not the best example of Open or Peer-to-Peer.
 
> They are definitely not examples of open p2p. But that was never my
> contention.
 
It is my contention. The deployment of the solution, as a base capability
in generic form, allowing the widest global audience to use the solution
without exploitation.
 
Exploitation in the online space is a difficult beast to understand. I
highly recommend this article by Michel Bauwens on the subject.
 
Tempering discussions of success with a thought to the future, the Commons
in all it's forms, and the greater business environment through the practice
of bringing an open business online has led many to the conclusion that
small replicable localize-able entities are a very sophisticated approach,
and while these entities may not be capitalized at hundreds of millions of
dollars the worth of the products they manufacture has a far greater value
when considered in the re-distributability of the solution and the potential
for voluntary interoperation and cooperation.
 

 

Gerry Gleason <gerryg@inbox.com> Apr 10 06:23AM -0500 ^


 
>least. Hence, I am sure that investors do 'care' about the risks,
>but I suspect they are happy with their investments in these
>platforms ;-)
 
The effect of actions to monetize some enclosed portion of
collaborative P2P space is to demonstrate ever more clearly why open
platforms are required.
 
In a robust P2P ecosystem there will be many ecological niches for
people and organizations to make their livings. The only question
that remains is how to "pay" for the common assets that create the
shared production space. I am drawn to pay-it-forward/gift-economy
approaches to this rather than going towards fee or membership based
models.
 
Invite people to invest in building common infrastructure. Use free
currencies to track who has invested what, and to flow as circulated
currencies as well as to track interactions with scarce currencies
and the exchange of hard goods and services.
 
>Peer-to-Peer.
 
>They are definitely not examples of open p2p. But that was never my
>contention.
 
It might be better to rate these models as to how well they are
aligned with core P2P structural requirements. Of the social media
platforms that have come along so far, the most aligned is Twitter.
The name and web-services are all hung on twitter.com, so it can
never be a truly distributed service, on the other hand, the APIs
give open access to their data flows enabling a whole ecosystem of
connected and related apps.
 
When you see them try to keep users from moving personal linkage data
to another social media site, and I know you have all heard some of
the stories, this is really a betrayal of the user communities that
contribute almost all of the actual wealth that makes them valuable.
The data about the people belongs to the people, not to the company
that has it stored on their systems.
 
This clearly has implications for what types of funders will be
willing to fund this. Those that profit from concentrating capital
will not be interested. Those who are interested in healthy
economies and ecosystems will invest in this work with and without
strings if they can see what is happening throughout the systems and
networks that their gifts and investments are funding. That's what
the new expressive powers of free currencies are about, acknowledging
the contributions of everyone and the common and individual wealth
created by or collective labors.
 
Gerry

 

Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> Apr 10 07:39AM ^


 
Suresh and all,
 
things happen at subatomic level (even in our consciouness?) that we may not
be able to observe
immediately,
 
just to inform that a couple of us will be having a go at something
mentioned on this list
 
http://sites.google.com/site/entrepreneurcommons/home/chapter-pages/scotland
 
 
Please feel free to share, connect with us, and to let us know how our
small local initiative can serve
a greater, more global purpose
 
thanks :-)
 
PDM