Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Nnamdi
Is this you? Claim Profile »
11 months ago
in Awesome presentation from Tara Hunt on building social capital on The Equity Kicker
Glad you found it useful Nic.
1 year ago
in MySpace versus Facebook: Analysis of both traffic and ad revenue, using Google Trends on Futuristic Play by @Andrew_ChenI think that the real answer is that the products are not direct substitutes for one another. They certainly have an overlap in feature set, but their initial focus was on very different underserved clusters, and they have very different cultures. (real vs imagined identity etc)
More details on fred's blog here: http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/google-opensocial-and-situational.html
1 year ago
in Healthcheck on the Facebook platform - negative outlook on The Equity Kicker
Hey Nick,
I can't help but be reminded of Umair's thoughts on facebook from 6 months ago. I think he was dead right about the problem being down to facebook's DNA. Excuse the long quotes, but I think what he wrote is very important to understand.
"Almost all of today's new market leaders, interestingly, share this trait: it is a deep genetic difference that underpins advantage. The deeply felt desire to change the world for the better is ultimately how radical innovators are able to explode value propositions, redesign value chains, etc.
But that's not what Facebook wants to do. Facebook wants to take over the world.
See the difference?
One is about improving things radically, about innovation: the other is about capturing rents, about scarcity and control.
We can put this a bit more formally. Facebook wants to play games of coercion and domination: I threaten, you obey."
"It will take a long time - 6 months, a year - before they start to come down to earth, and see and understand these economic problems. "
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/11/researc...
"Orthodox strategy teaches you to invest in complements if you're a platform owner. Complements amplify demand - and if they're free, you capture all the value.
Now, that's all well and good.
But it masks a (much) deeper problem with Facebook - and gives us very strong clues about Facebook's DNA.
Facebook has lots of traction - but very little to show for it. That's OK - unless you're evil. Good beats evil in the edgeconomy.
Now, think about all this strategically for a sec. Facebook - the hottest platform in the world - has to subsidize complements.
Why? Well, the answer is hidden in plain sight. Because complement producers can't make capture any value by making complements yet. If they could, you wouldn't have to subsidize them.
That is, there is little incentive - beyond traction - for complements guys to be interested in the first place. They certainly, at the moment, can't make any money.
The point is that Facebook's CEO and investors should not be investing in complements before they've found a working business model.
Because the two are in conflict. The more Facebook and it's investors subsidize complements, the less pressure there is on Facebook to actually discover and experiment with a working business model.
Conversely, one can run this pseudo-pyramid scheme for as long as there's (a sucker's) money in the bank - but when the money runs out, without a business model, everyone will head for the exits."
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/09/researc...
As advertisers buy into Facebook - no one will be better off - except Facebook.
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/11/researc...
I can't help but be reminded of Umair's thoughts on facebook from 6 months ago. I think he was dead right about the problem being down to facebook's DNA. Excuse the long quotes, but I think what he wrote is very important to understand.
"Almost all of today's new market leaders, interestingly, share this trait: it is a deep genetic difference that underpins advantage. The deeply felt desire to change the world for the better is ultimately how radical innovators are able to explode value propositions, redesign value chains, etc.
But that's not what Facebook wants to do. Facebook wants to take over the world.
See the difference?
One is about improving things radically, about innovation: the other is about capturing rents, about scarcity and control.
We can put this a bit more formally. Facebook wants to play games of coercion and domination: I threaten, you obey."
"It will take a long time - 6 months, a year - before they start to come down to earth, and see and understand these economic problems. "
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/11/researc...
"Orthodox strategy teaches you to invest in complements if you're a platform owner. Complements amplify demand - and if they're free, you capture all the value.
Now, that's all well and good.
But it masks a (much) deeper problem with Facebook - and gives us very strong clues about Facebook's DNA.
Facebook has lots of traction - but very little to show for it. That's OK - unless you're evil. Good beats evil in the edgeconomy.
Now, think about all this strategically for a sec. Facebook - the hottest platform in the world - has to subsidize complements.
Why? Well, the answer is hidden in plain sight. Because complement producers can't make capture any value by making complements yet. If they could, you wouldn't have to subsidize them.
That is, there is little incentive - beyond traction - for complements guys to be interested in the first place. They certainly, at the moment, can't make any money.
The point is that Facebook's CEO and investors should not be investing in complements before they've found a working business model.
Because the two are in conflict. The more Facebook and it's investors subsidize complements, the less pressure there is on Facebook to actually discover and experiment with a working business model.
Conversely, one can run this pseudo-pyramid scheme for as long as there's (a sucker's) money in the bank - but when the money runs out, without a business model, everyone will head for the exits."
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/09/researc...
As advertisers buy into Facebook - no one will be better off - except Facebook.
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/11/researc...
1 year ago
in Social objects and social gestures on The Equity Kicker
Hi Nic
The notion of social objects is also very relevant if you think of the sites not as they are today, but what their original focus was. As they grow, they add in a lot of extra objects and features which make this less clear.
Facebook's original social object: Harvard University
http://web.archive.org/web/20040212031928/http:...
then others:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610104606/http:...
Bebo: your school
http://web.archive.org/web/20060101024441/http:...
Myspace: probably music if you've read danah and remember that friendster was the only real open alternative (with its own issues) for the majority of people at the time.
The notion of social objects is also very relevant if you think of the sites not as they are today, but what their original focus was. As they grow, they add in a lot of extra objects and features which make this less clear.
Facebook's original social object: Harvard University
http://web.archive.org/web/20040212031928/http:...
then others:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040610104606/http:...
Bebo: your school
http://web.archive.org/web/20060101024441/http:...
Myspace: probably music if you've read danah and remember that friendster was the only real open alternative (with its own issues) for the majority of people at the time.
1 year ago
in ‘Mediated voyeurism’ - one use of social networks on The Equity Kicker
Hi Nick,
Easily mispelled, but it is Nnamdi, not Nnmandi.
I doubt that the answer for non-students is that different than what the student research shows.
Typical use of social networks at the moment is based around 1) discovering information about people 2) communicating in a lightweight manner 3) sharing media and 4) maintaining a social peripheral vision of sorts.
If your questioning is driven by the issue of social network sustainability, then Fred Stutzman's writings will likely be well worth your time.
Start here:
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-ne...
Easily mispelled, but it is Nnamdi, not Nnmandi.
I doubt that the answer for non-students is that different than what the student research shows.
Typical use of social networks at the moment is based around 1) discovering information about people 2) communicating in a lightweight manner 3) sharing media and 4) maintaining a social peripheral vision of sorts.
If your questioning is driven by the issue of social network sustainability, then Fred Stutzman's writings will likely be well worth your time.
Start here:
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-ne...
