Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- william
- William
- william
- william
- william
- william
william
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 month ago
in Facebook Payment Platform Coming? on OneHalfAmazing!
facebook is a closed source content trap that takes from developers, members and their commnites and gives nothing in return...The "Value" of the the facebook "Technology" is far exceeded by the value of the content,development, and engagement time of its members. And for this value facebook is worth billions and the members, developers, and community that have given them this value receive nothing but rude childish behavior from the facebook "boy" king.
If Facebook is worth 10 billion; what precetage of this value comes from the members ?
Oh....on the payment system that they are building....We have had this in place for about a year....and when we were thinking of revenue models, we put the members in the equation first. ...It is not how you the company can extract wealth and value from your members; it is more about how you can give your members an equitable portion of the value that they bring.
If Facebook is worth 10 billion; what precetage of this value comes from the members ?
Oh....on the payment system that they are building....We have had this in place for about a year....and when we were thinking of revenue models, we put the members in the equation first. ...It is not how you the company can extract wealth and value from your members; it is more about how you can give your members an equitable portion of the value that they bring.
1 year ago
in I want control of my data (Scripting News) on Scripting News
we are about to launch a social network service that will give members total control over all of their content as well as their account.
at the least we are hoping that this will put other service in the position of having to do the same thing
the url for the service is www.adelph.us
at the least we are hoping that this will put other service in the position of having to do the same thing
the url for the service is www.adelph.us
1 reply
1 year ago
in The Facebook Kool-Aid is Really Sweet on AllFacebook
Face Book is the new AOL/You can not fight the internet
Currently most Social Networking sites create closed silos of user information and content that cannot be easily shared, reused, or redistributed outside of the network. FaceBook is a closed Silo. Myspace is a closed Silo.A Facebook member cannot export their Profile to Myspace. A Myspace member cannot export their profile to FaceBook. This is not because their is no technical way to export member profiles; its because both companies want to lock users into the Myspace and Facebook silos.
The Facebook "Open" platform is not only a gimmick it is also an Orwellian attempt to hi jack and redefine the term "Open" I think that may "Open" source proponents would agree that "Open" when it refers to software applications at the very least means inter operable. FaceBook is not interpretable. Myspace is not inter operable. From today onwards it is my hope that those reporting on and covering FaceBook will no longer use the term "Open" to describe the FaceBook platform.
The Data and content that members own cannot be easily exported out, or used with many other existing internet applications. The flow of data and information is one way. The Open platform is in fact open for developers, but closed to the rest of the internet. A one way vacum of application development that can never expand to any users base other than Facebook. FaceBook is a "Closed" platform much the way that Microsoft is a closed Platform. Develop for Microsoft and your application will be dependent on Microsoft technology and will not easily port to any other platfrom. Develop for FaceBook and your application will not work on any other platform. By developing applications for either you have limited the possible amount of networks that can distribute and use your application.
AOL at one time was also the darling of the internet. A big fat closed platform that attempted to lock in users. While AOL had quit a run; it was only a matter of time before users understood that AOL was not the internet. That there were millions, and millions of other networks to participate in. Once the hole of reality was opened and members realized that they were free to go beyond the AOL wall; the flow of members leaving the silo could not be stopped. It will be the same for FaceBook.
The arrogance of attempting to redefine and close in that which cannot be defined or captured can only lead to a steady fall and ultimate humiliation.
Currently most Social Networking sites create closed silos of user information and content that cannot be easily shared, reused, or redistributed outside of the network. FaceBook is a closed Silo. Myspace is a closed Silo.A Facebook member cannot export their Profile to Myspace. A Myspace member cannot export their profile to FaceBook. This is not because their is no technical way to export member profiles; its because both companies want to lock users into the Myspace and Facebook silos.
The Facebook "Open" platform is not only a gimmick it is also an Orwellian attempt to hi jack and redefine the term "Open" I think that may "Open" source proponents would agree that "Open" when it refers to software applications at the very least means inter operable. FaceBook is not interpretable. Myspace is not inter operable. From today onwards it is my hope that those reporting on and covering FaceBook will no longer use the term "Open" to describe the FaceBook platform.
The Data and content that members own cannot be easily exported out, or used with many other existing internet applications. The flow of data and information is one way. The Open platform is in fact open for developers, but closed to the rest of the internet. A one way vacum of application development that can never expand to any users base other than Facebook. FaceBook is a "Closed" platform much the way that Microsoft is a closed Platform. Develop for Microsoft and your application will be dependent on Microsoft technology and will not easily port to any other platfrom. Develop for FaceBook and your application will not work on any other platform. By developing applications for either you have limited the possible amount of networks that can distribute and use your application.
AOL at one time was also the darling of the internet. A big fat closed platform that attempted to lock in users. While AOL had quit a run; it was only a matter of time before users understood that AOL was not the internet. That there were millions, and millions of other networks to participate in. Once the hole of reality was opened and members realized that they were free to go beyond the AOL wall; the flow of members leaving the silo could not be stopped. It will be the same for FaceBook.
The arrogance of attempting to redefine and close in that which cannot be defined or captured can only lead to a steady fall and ultimate humiliation.
2 years ago
in 2007/04/30/snocap-warner-music/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Snocap cant beat this. Adelph.us Member Artist Keep 100% of thier sales revenue.
2 years ago
in 2007/03/27/myspace-making-30-millionmonth/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
As far as the Myspace love fest. It needs to end. Artist, fans, and consumers of content must know and understand that any revenue generated for Myspace (A Newscorp company) is going to continue to fund the operations of fox news ( http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/) as well as the continued dismantling of independent media around the world. If as an artist or a fan or a user of the Internet you support any social issues or an independent and free media then myspace is not the place to become a member. By doing this you give them continued revenue and power.
2 years ago
in 2007/03/27/bebo-7digital/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Pete,
Are social networks with closed widget systems social networks or Silos ?
Are Bebo, Myspace and the rest cutting edge and new or are they the same old portal song in dance in different clothing.
A music widget that will only work on one social network. This brings up many of the same issues that we have with drm and the lack of interoperablity.
If we want to sell music will we now have to upload or tracks and become a member of all of the social networks.
Why do these services charge the artist and not the majors.
The ugly hidden truth about most of the current music services offering (Check the Snocap pricing matrix here ) for artist is that through complicated fee matrix that hide the fact that they create an uneven playing field for independent artist and labels that are not attached to one of the majors. Some of the services that participate in the lowering of the field for independents artist and labels are backed by the majors either financially (Directly or through proxy investors) or helped along in their business by begin given some access to content. This means that the through these services the majors have cooped the independent artist into their distribution channel and into their drm schemes. All of this while charging the independent artist and label to use the service.
I think that the only way to truly lower the playing field for independent artist and labels is to have a service that gives them the ability to sell and distribute their content at a price point that mathces what the majors would pay to use such a service. Zero.
Currently Darmik.com charges no fee to list or to sell music. Currently Artist and independents that sell on Darmik.com receive 100% of the revenue. All we ask in return is that you use your Darmik payment rule to donate to at least one Darmik listed charity. Once an Aritst or Label has their tracks on Darmik they can be easily sold on the adelph.us social network as well as any other webpage or social network. As companies Adelph.us and Darmik give a portion of their revenue to charity.
Are social networks with closed widget systems social networks or Silos ?
Are Bebo, Myspace and the rest cutting edge and new or are they the same old portal song in dance in different clothing.
A music widget that will only work on one social network. This brings up many of the same issues that we have with drm and the lack of interoperablity.
If we want to sell music will we now have to upload or tracks and become a member of all of the social networks.
Why do these services charge the artist and not the majors.
The ugly hidden truth about most of the current music services offering (Check the Snocap pricing matrix here ) for artist is that through complicated fee matrix that hide the fact that they create an uneven playing field for independent artist and labels that are not attached to one of the majors. Some of the services that participate in the lowering of the field for independents artist and labels are backed by the majors either financially (Directly or through proxy investors) or helped along in their business by begin given some access to content. This means that the through these services the majors have cooped the independent artist into their distribution channel and into their drm schemes. All of this while charging the independent artist and label to use the service.
I think that the only way to truly lower the playing field for independent artist and labels is to have a service that gives them the ability to sell and distribute their content at a price point that mathces what the majors would pay to use such a service. Zero.
Currently Darmik.com charges no fee to list or to sell music. Currently Artist and independents that sell on Darmik.com receive 100% of the revenue. All we ask in return is that you use your Darmik payment rule to donate to at least one Darmik listed charity. Once an Aritst or Label has their tracks on Darmik they can be easily sold on the adelph.us social network as well as any other webpage or social network. As companies Adelph.us and Darmik give a portion of their revenue to charity.
2 years ago
in 2007/03/27/bebo-7digital/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Why is there a limit to the amount of tracks can be sold. Why do indie artist can sell on any social network using darmik.com. And they can keep all of the revenue.
If they want to sell on a social network that give back to charity then they can sell on adelph.us
If they want to sell on a social network that give back to charity then they can sell on adelph.us
2 years ago
in 2007/03/15/music-com-myspace-music/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
he Snocap pr blitz continues to use smoke and mirror announcements to blur many important issues. The “Major labels Alliances†announcement covered here ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/15/snocap-ann...) does not merit a precursor to any major selling the content that they own without drm and without price and distribution restrictions. In fact the announcement surely point to the fact the Snocap has been around for more than two years and that they still dont have many deals with the majors to distribute any of much of their music in a non drm format. I only know of 3 bands that are currenlty using the serivce. If anyone knows where I can find more major label Snocap conten please point me to it.
Why do we need the labels ? Why don’t the artist sell their music on their own and keep all of the revenue from their music along with the rights to distribute and sell it where and at whatever price they want (This can be done using Darmik as well as many other places on the internet). DRM is not the issue; control of distribution channels and revenue from holding the intellectual property of artist is the issue. For many major labels it seems that their strategy is to own or shut down any and all independent avenues to sells and distribution for the artist. In my opinon the major labels want to make sure that the artist has no choice in who sells and distributes their content; and that the fans have no choice in price and format. The Majors want to be the only game in town.
I think that we should no longer look to labels for the solution to freeing music from its old world model. We should look to the artist and to the fans that purchase the music. The artist should be the group that charts their own destiny as far as price, format, and distribution point. The fans that purchase the music should be allowed to purchase the music in a format that works uniformly on the devices that they use to play the music. If the artist gives their permission fans should also have the ability to resell the artist content for them, and in exchange receive a portion of the revenue. Neither the artist or the fans needs a label or a technology company to force a model or a format on them. I think that if we asked the artist and their fans what they wanted as far as music formats, pricing, distribution and ownership that we would more than likely already know the answer.
Artist should control pricing of their content as well as the format (drm or no drm) and distribution points. There are DRM formats available to content owners, so the issue of drm or not is one that is up to the content owner not one that should be made by any technology that is used to distribute the content. The decision to use drm is one that the content owners must make based on many factors. The key point here is that there are choices available and that the content owner should and can make this decsion.
I think that we should write off any current music that the major labels own as content that will never be in an open format playable on any device. We should also understand that more than likely this content will only be available at distribution points and at prices that the label; not the artist or their fans have anything to do with. We must accept this and move on to the next phase of digital content distribution that will give artist and content owners the freedom to decide their own destiny.
As far as the Myspace love fest. It needs to end. Artist, fans, and consumers of content must know and understand that any revenue generated for Myspace (A Newscorp company) is going to continue to fund the operations of fox news ( http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/) as well as the continued dismantling of independent media around the world. If as an artist or a fan or a user of the Internet you support any social issues or an independent and free media then myspace is not the place to become a member. By doing this you give them continued revenue and power.
Why do we need the labels ? Why don’t the artist sell their music on their own and keep all of the revenue from their music along with the rights to distribute and sell it where and at whatever price they want (This can be done using Darmik as well as many other places on the internet). DRM is not the issue; control of distribution channels and revenue from holding the intellectual property of artist is the issue. For many major labels it seems that their strategy is to own or shut down any and all independent avenues to sells and distribution for the artist. In my opinon the major labels want to make sure that the artist has no choice in who sells and distributes their content; and that the fans have no choice in price and format. The Majors want to be the only game in town.
I think that we should no longer look to labels for the solution to freeing music from its old world model. We should look to the artist and to the fans that purchase the music. The artist should be the group that charts their own destiny as far as price, format, and distribution point. The fans that purchase the music should be allowed to purchase the music in a format that works uniformly on the devices that they use to play the music. If the artist gives their permission fans should also have the ability to resell the artist content for them, and in exchange receive a portion of the revenue. Neither the artist or the fans needs a label or a technology company to force a model or a format on them. I think that if we asked the artist and their fans what they wanted as far as music formats, pricing, distribution and ownership that we would more than likely already know the answer.
Artist should control pricing of their content as well as the format (drm or no drm) and distribution points. There are DRM formats available to content owners, so the issue of drm or not is one that is up to the content owner not one that should be made by any technology that is used to distribute the content. The decision to use drm is one that the content owners must make based on many factors. The key point here is that there are choices available and that the content owner should and can make this decsion.
I think that we should write off any current music that the major labels own as content that will never be in an open format playable on any device. We should also understand that more than likely this content will only be available at distribution points and at prices that the label; not the artist or their fans have anything to do with. We must accept this and move on to the next phase of digital content distribution that will give artist and content owners the freedom to decide their own destiny.
As far as the Myspace love fest. It needs to end. Artist, fans, and consumers of content must know and understand that any revenue generated for Myspace (A Newscorp company) is going to continue to fund the operations of fox news ( http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/) as well as the continued dismantling of independent media around the world. If as an artist or a fan or a user of the Internet you support any social issues or an independent and free media then myspace is not the place to become a member. By doing this you give them continued revenue and power.
is it avail for memebership ?