Wednesday, January 04, 2006
I'm trying to unify a lot of stuff I've been discussing for a while.
If you can help, I would appreciate it. Here's how - let me know (comment) what you think is too obtuse, what you don't get, what you think is hype/bs/nonsense, etc...
I will try to answer all comments and explain ideas, concepts, models, etc, wherever possible.
OK, what are "liquid and plastic ads"?
Hell yeah! Ask Umair time...
1. So what is Apple doing right? What is it doing wrong? You bag on them a lot, but they are also successful for now. I guess you could answer that by placing Apple moves along your grid of peer/edge/microchunk/liquidity economics grid.
2. Uh, I hope the above makes sense. I better reread your definitions for media 2.0.
3. What is myspace doing right? Wrong? Also successful.
First here are some more tags that you might want to consider.
-'Recombinative Innovation'&'Radical Innovation'
-'Anti-Strategy'(aka How not to strategize)
-'Zero Sum' or 'Power Laws'
-'Post Effecient Markets'
-'Post Networks Era'
-'Post Brands Era'
-'Dot Com 2.0'
Some terms that are not standard usage that are used in the blog which would be a lot clear through a definition.
Value chain atomization
zero Intelligence Corporation
Aggergators vs Reconstructors
Distributed Economies of Scale
Some terms which are standard terms (in econ or mgmt) but have no easy access(or vague & confusing) to definition in general.
Value (a definition of this will help many make sense of the post on Carr)
Use Value & Exchange Value
Price & Price Discrimination
Innovation ( ok there is a value creation tag in the tag cloud)
Two sided Markets
Simulcra (Simulation Economy)
Comparative Advantage - (This is a standard & age old concept but difficult even for many econ prof to understand it correctly, also included is the related concept of 'oppurtunity cost')
Competence ( A term not from economics and only accessible/understood by those well read in management literature)
Models used that are not understood well by many
- Indirect, Direct network effects & pecuniary externalities ( Used in Google Research Note)
- Knowledge of "Property Rights by Coase & its further development by Demesetz" is something that is implicitly assumed in the peer
production ppt and I am not sure many would have understood it well , though you have given an extensive treatment on this in the 4 property
rights article. Especially the concept/idea that Property rights rise to internalize externalities and how it gets redefined when the modes of production undergoes a fundamental change(Marx).
- The model behind combinatorial law(haque) needs an explanation of why it is combinatorial ,for ex reed's law explanation is that it
summation(nC1..nCn) = 2^n.
I like what you've done. I tackle similar issues with what I call outside-in (http://www.collaboratemarketing.com/modernmarketing/2005/04/why_open_source.html)
I find the greatest difficulty is getting the right balance between making clear the scale of change and not just alienating everyone who is dealing with the world as it stands today. All you can really hope to do is spark a dicussion and give people the context to work out what it all means for them.
Thanks guys. Please keep em coming. Answers to follow tomorrow.
in this post
you wrote that Google is an information organizer, not an attention allocator. Can you elaborate on this, and what you see are the differences between information organizers and attention allocators?
// kid mercury // 2:36 PM
Maybe a tag for:
Perhaps you could explicitly and susinctly provie your working definition of the "the edge" since its so (ironically) core to much of your work.
// niblettes // 8:36 PM
+1 for clear definitions of "liquid" and "plastic".
I'm guessing "plastic" means you can pull things apart and put them together into different sized and shaped microchunks, whereas "liquid" means these microchunks can easily be reused in different situations, syndicated to different downstream recombinant services etc.
But I may be way off the mark ...
// phil jones // 7:23 AM
ok, I'll bite ...
1) you do really well when you're creating new vocabluaries for new concepts ... i.e. "microchunking"
2) you loose credibility when you try to redefine or "own" old vocabluaries i.e. plasticity, competencies, discontinuous (e.g. who ever said a "discontinuous future" is desirable?)
3) try to point more to "edge competencies" already in action than where you believe they should be or are about to be applied - this is a subtle strategy but it's not new; there are some great main-stream examples out there that could make the concept more real for your readers.
4) would be great to have bubblegen move beyond media commentary
5) keep up the great work - have an awesome '06
// David Gibbons // 8:40 AM
Your site is an invaluable source for pushing the boundaries of economic and cultural thinking. I have no problem with the fast and furious neologisms. After all, you're usually in the role of trail-blazer rather than road-paver.
What would help, though, is a page or two of "working definitions" one could link to, where you could define a term and briefly explain its (disruptive) significance. That way, new readers could come up to speed quickly. And they would have a theoretical context for absorbing what comes next.
// Brian Phipps // 6:54 PM
Post a Comment