alan p
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in What Comes After Post Modernism? on A VC
Oops - stub is here - except I've not written anything in it yet. It only exists in the mind of the observer....
http://broadstuff.com/archives/1032-Modernism-2...
Beat that for modernism 2.0 :)
http://broadstuff.com/archives/1032-Modernism-2...
Beat that for modernism 2.0 :)
1 reply
3 months ago
in louisgray.com: Scooped: Who Brought the Story to Techmeme First? on louisgray.com
@ Louis - nice bit of analysis - now, since you are "in the groove" analysis wise ;-) , it would be interesting to test another two hypotheses - ie that Techmeme story origination has narrowed over the 3 years to a smaller subset of both (i) contributors and (ii) storylines.
(I suspect that (i) causes (ii) as well )
(I suspect that (i) causes (ii) as well )
1 reply
Louis Gray
On that type of real analysis, I'd lean to Yuvi Panda of The Statbot. He just wrapped up a series of analysis on Techmeme sources, which you can find at http://thestatbot.com/. He does a great job.
4 months ago
in Facebook knows who you are, and that's worth more than you think on Paul Buchheit
"I think that assessment misses out on something very interesting: Facebook is capturing everyone's identity and relationships"
With respect, I think thats the only reason anybody gives them any credit for being anywhere even near a possible $ bn future valuation - monetizing that "graph" was the whole point of Beacon for example, but the user base reacted quite strongly to having all that captured data (ab)used.
With respect, I think thats the only reason anybody gives them any credit for being anywhere even near a possible $ bn future valuation - monetizing that "graph" was the whole point of Beacon for example, but the user base reacted quite strongly to having all that captured data (ab)used.
1 reply
Jon K.
True. Nobody missed that out ..
5 months ago
in Can The Y Combinator Idea Turn Into A Movement? on A VC
Right - its just an example of the restructuring of the VC model in response to the reduction in transaction costs across the "startup supply chain". A Coasian no-brainer - whether the brain is standalone, integrated, diffused or whatever ;-)
1 reply
fredwilson
A coasian no brainer! That's a good one.
5 months ago
in New York Times: blog trolling 101 on Mathew's comments
Matthew, like Paul Kedrosky above I think the real story here is the emergence of the piece-work blogging industry, and I suspect that segment does fit his model well.
People who are earning a living elsewhere and blogging for free are just not part of this game - ironically they (we) are the ones crashing the piecework market, which imho makes it unsustainable.
Anyway, these thoughts in more depth here:
http://broadstuff.com/archives/833-Bloggers-vs-...
People who are earning a living elsewhere and blogging for free are just not part of this game - ironically they (we) are the ones crashing the piecework market, which imho makes it unsustainable.
Anyway, these thoughts in more depth here:
http://broadstuff.com/archives/833-Bloggers-vs-...
1 reply
mathewi
I agree, Alan -- and that's a good point about the unsustainability,
or the competitive threat from those who blog for free. That's
something that is affecting all media. As I said to Paul, I wish Matt
had spent a bit more time on that and a bit less on the "blogging will
kill you" idea.
or the competitive threat from those who blog for free. That's
something that is affecting all media. As I said to Paul, I wish Matt
had spent a bit more time on that and a bit less on the "blogging will
kill you" idea.
5 months ago
in The Declining Power Of The Firm on A VC
Fred, to my mind most of what is going on can actually be fairly well described by existing strategic models, its just you can't use existing assumptions / axioms in the models.
Your example of Transaction costs is a typical example of this - it's not hard to work out that if transaction costs change, a lot of structures in a supply chain will change even if it is doing exactly the same thing - its just that the old ways don' make economic sense.
But look at the confusion going on in industries being hit early today - music, media, pro photography - nearly all the strategic and economic models do predict the outcomes fairly well, but its totally unacceptable to the current powers so is unsaleable (and unmentionable in some channels), is hugely threatening to the current workforces so is bitterly rejected, etc etc (heck, Machiavelli had all this stuff written down - it ain't new news)
I think where strategists typically do go wrong is not going far enough, or wide enough in looking for the pressure points that drive changes. The other major criticism I have of much strategy work I've seen is that its not dynamic, i.e. it doesn't think through the "what happens after X happens".
You know - the "I know, we'll sell subprime mortgages cheap to get market share" (or similar...). Great idea, but what about when everyone else is doing it too.....you have to reset the strategy as the original assumptions have changed, but did Bear Sterns or Northern Rock?
(Or all the BlogZines for that matter ;-)
Your example of Transaction costs is a typical example of this - it's not hard to work out that if transaction costs change, a lot of structures in a supply chain will change even if it is doing exactly the same thing - its just that the old ways don' make economic sense.
But look at the confusion going on in industries being hit early today - music, media, pro photography - nearly all the strategic and economic models do predict the outcomes fairly well, but its totally unacceptable to the current powers so is unsaleable (and unmentionable in some channels), is hugely threatening to the current workforces so is bitterly rejected, etc etc (heck, Machiavelli had all this stuff written down - it ain't new news)
I think where strategists typically do go wrong is not going far enough, or wide enough in looking for the pressure points that drive changes. The other major criticism I have of much strategy work I've seen is that its not dynamic, i.e. it doesn't think through the "what happens after X happens".
You know - the "I know, we'll sell subprime mortgages cheap to get market share" (or similar...). Great idea, but what about when everyone else is doing it too.....you have to reset the strategy as the original assumptions have changed, but did Bear Sterns or Northern Rock?
(Or all the BlogZines for that matter ;-)
1 reply
Neekolas
Let's talk about the dynamic side of this. If we take Umair's theory about the edgeconomy as a given, how will big firms react, and how will that affect the firms truly on the edge?
OK. It's safe to say that after Newsweek runs a few articles on the same theme, the first step will involve companies, from Monsanto to Hewlett Packard, hiring teams of watered-down Umairs to help them do all of the superficial steps (turn 1 giant call center into 10 large call centers, CEO blogs, removing layers of middle management, etc). This will postpone the 'macropacalypse' for a few years.
Then what? The strategic rot that plagues these companies is still there, focusing on lock-in, trade secrets, and using IP and copyright as barriers entry. Are we to really believe that these firms are going to watch one-anothers demise idly? Just look at the list of the top 10 online retailers. Last I checked, half of them were retail giants, the dinosaurs that were allegedly going to be left in the dust in the first bubble. These firms, and many new ones, are going to take these edge principles and create decentralized monoliths. It's the only way to stay in the game.
Corporations don't have DNA, they have programming, and that can change. Management gets fired, customers revolt, and just like the emergence of popular rock & roll or hip-hop: the fringes quickly become the mainstream. So, what happens when you have firms that take edge principles and apply them on a massive scale? Will these decentralized monoliths be customers or competitors of the true edgeconomy? Will they just swallow up smaller edge firms like to create conglomerates? Will a lack of openness and transparency ultimately kill the large firm? Those are questions for someone else to answer.
OK. It's safe to say that after Newsweek runs a few articles on the same theme, the first step will involve companies, from Monsanto to Hewlett Packard, hiring teams of watered-down Umairs to help them do all of the superficial steps (turn 1 giant call center into 10 large call centers, CEO blogs, removing layers of middle management, etc). This will postpone the 'macropacalypse' for a few years.
Then what? The strategic rot that plagues these companies is still there, focusing on lock-in, trade secrets, and using IP and copyright as barriers entry. Are we to really believe that these firms are going to watch one-anothers demise idly? Just look at the list of the top 10 online retailers. Last I checked, half of them were retail giants, the dinosaurs that were allegedly going to be left in the dust in the first bubble. These firms, and many new ones, are going to take these edge principles and create decentralized monoliths. It's the only way to stay in the game.
Corporations don't have DNA, they have programming, and that can change. Management gets fired, customers revolt, and just like the emergence of popular rock & roll or hip-hop: the fringes quickly become the mainstream. So, what happens when you have firms that take edge principles and apply them on a massive scale? Will these decentralized monoliths be customers or competitors of the true edgeconomy? Will they just swallow up smaller edge firms like to create conglomerates? Will a lack of openness and transparency ultimately kill the large firm? Those are questions for someone else to answer.
5 months ago
in Seesmic and Twhirl: Why all the fuss? on Mathew's comments
Matthew, I find it interesting because imho it implies that Seesmic is possibly running out of road as a pure videoblog, and has to do morph into something different. And that is interesting.....thoughts here:
http://www.broadstuff.com/archives/829-Buying-T...
http://www.broadstuff.com/archives/829-Buying-T...
1 reply
Roger Kondrat
I am with Alan, except my focus is on the purpose of the buy. Conversation on that at my site.
Flow is silent autism?
I am going to need to noodle on that one