Alexander van Elsas
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in The New Web on Modern Table ArtDon't worry about keeping up the pace or knowing what it is about. You can always respond using personal experience, just like you just did. Good to see you are joining the conversation on Social Media, don't get lost in it. :-)
4 months ago
in The real Web 2.0 shows its face on WinExtra CommentsThen again, if I'm correct, one of the biggest and most influential infrastructure owners in the world might try to balance out this eagerness to create more revenues by force of the cable companies. It might come as a surprise to some, but I do believe Google has its tentacles out everywhere in the infrastructure. They own fiber cables, immense data warehouses, uncountable servers. I wonder if they would be able to fight of this threat or at least put in some counterweight, as they are in need of a free Internet to run their business model.
Also, content is king, people could care less how they get it (via which pipes). If it becomes an issue, these players and/or the free market *will* route around the problem.
4 months ago
in My Vision For Social Media on A VC4 months ago
in Freenomics is the Great Internet Leveler on WinExtra CommentsI think you did a great job dissecting my post and adding your own views on it. You are absolutely right that freenomics has many, many advantages. Ensuring everyone can have access to services is just one of them (an important one).
"The fact is that I and a large percentage of the people who are on the web don’t have credit cards which is the principal method of payment accepted by any service wanting to be paid. Even today we are locked out of services like iTunes store or many other services that do business strictly on the web. Then as a subset of that there are also people who don’t have any money beyond what they need to keep them floating at the poverty line. Should all these people be excluded from being able to use the web to its fullest?"
Steven, one of the issues on the web is that there isn't a fully integrated payment system that allows anyone to pay when needed. Credit cards are not the way to go on the web imo. There is some innovation to be done there. Just look at the mobile ecosystem. People are used to paying for calls, SMS, they can upgrade prepaid cards, use SMS to pay for services etc. The billing is integrated, but more importantly, we pay because we get value.
I definitely agree with you that there shouldn't be a have and have nots split on the web. But lets run some math here. Lets assume that a social site that does really well on advertisement gets anywhere between $5-10 ad revs per user per year. The question is, if the service really provides value, would a user be willing to pay that amount per year instead of being locked into the advertisement business model? The advantages would be obvious, no more walled gardens or data hogging, but the focus of the service provider would be on user value only. His innovation capacity would be spent on creating new user value. There could be a split between light and heavy users, or a free and premium service. A person with a moderate income could maybe have 5-10 or even 20 of such services running a year.
Another, not so obvious model would be to use the social data as input for the 2 actions where advertisement makes sense. When I'm searching ro buying stuff on the web. Facebook could easily remove ALL advertisement on its site but still monetise the data they have collected from their users. The service would remain free for the users, but Facebook leverages the data in the background as you search or buy things.
"Sorry Alexander - you might like the idea of paying for services but I like having my access to the web and all the services that it lets me use even if that means I have to see ads and companies like Google get even richer. At least now we all have a level ground to work on rather than staring at each other from across the chasm of the technological divide."
This is a perfectly OK choice of course. I don't think or want the next evolution f the web be one where everything should be paid for. But the important services, those that provide user value could benefit from other business models than the current advertisement business model. If Tim O'Reilly gets his social operating system then I can't see the current advertisement model remain the mainstream business model, because the walls of all social service would be taken down and destinations wouldn't be as important any more. Good response!!
As for the prepaid cards - I've been down this road before with some-one who told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Try opening an account at your iTunes Store with a prepaid iTunes card - as of three or four months ago it wasn't possible as neither was PayPal support. It was credit card or US debit card or nothing. At the basis for any payment type of account there has to be a credit card or a bank account that has an acceptable debit card to the payment gateway being used. Even with my PayPal account which is linked to my Canadian bank I am limited because I don't have a credit card associated to the account.
So as nice as the idea of an *equitable* payment method might be it ain't happenin' and until it does freenomics is still the only leveler we have when it comes to the web.
Now as to your points about advertisers et al I think that is where I'm going to have to head off and do another post :)
4 months ago
in The social media time crisis on Colin WalkerBut in the end it always works out best if you blog about the things you are passionate about. If it gets you a lot of readers that's great. If it doesn't, well, does it really matter? Traffic is never a good driver for good posts, it's got the be the other way around. So I definitely agree with you on this Colin. Good post.
4 months ago
in Evolution of the social web. on Colin Walker4 months ago
in Evolution of the social web. on Colin Walker4 months ago
in Evolution of the social web. on Colin WalkerI totally agree with you that the public conversation will not stop. I focused a bit more on my initial thought that once everyone can interact in a public manner, we might see a move back (or forward if you will) to smaller communities. I should have balanced this a bit more with the observation you just made. An interesting side point to this is that I believe that the mainstream web 2.0 business models (freemium and free ads based)are build for large communities. You need to scale big, to the size of Facebook and beyond to remotely become successful with it, or you need to have a targetted niche community. Once the web becomes more social, destinations such as Facebook become obsolete (not the service, just the portal). From that point on, business models need to deal with much smaller and targeted communities. That will enhance the user experience and provide the user and his friends even more value. Well written response!
5 months ago
in Web 2.0 in limbo? Let’s get a grip on Mathew's comments9 months ago
in Does Facebook reflect your true friendships? How about e-mail? on Futuristic Play by @Andrew_ChenHi Andrew. Very good analysis. I like it. It helps me understand better how relationships evolve over time. But it also leads to a thin line many services cross in asking themselfes the wrong question. Facebook is doing that too. It shouldn't be about who has the best data or the best representation of relationships. That question originates from a desire to monetize that data, as walled garden services like Facebook are doing. And althought hat sounds great for an investor or service providers perspectinve, it doesn't provide the user any value.
There is a tendency to try and monetize the social graph figuring that the personal data and relationships between people will lead to better advertisement. At the same time this business model enforces walled gardens and a war over data.Again, not in the interest of the user.
There is an obvious but not so simple solution to get out of that advertisement trap. We should be concentrating on the creation of user value, and monetize that, instead of monetizing a social graph. The whole social graph thing is a techie created problem anyways. There is already a place where all your social data is at. It is in your head, and in your daily interactions. You know exactly who is and isn't your friend, how important he or she is to you, and you use all the different means to communicate with them. E-mail, Facebook, phone, anything. A central "address book" might be handy for that, but users cope with that problem already so it isn't a big issue. I feel we shouldn't be focussing on the social graph, we should be focussing on provinding value and facilitating the interaction between people. That is where the money is at.
11 months ago
in Google wants one ring to bind them on Mathew's comments11 months ago
in Facebook: Why Microsoft’s buy makes sense on Mathew's commentshttp://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/counti...
12 months ago
in Dave Winer: Something nice this time on Mathew's comments12 months ago
in Google scared of Facebook? Puh-leeze on Mathew's commentshttp://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/facebo...