About the sale of Waze, and a content
the day before Yesterday it became known that Google purchased Israeli company Waze is very popular in some countries operator "social" navigation. The amount of the transaction is $1.3 billion. Sincerely happy for the founders of the company, I want to talk about the less pleasant tendencies.
Waze has long gone to great players, hanging thingies and unnecessary functionality, often at the cost of deteriorating the stability of the navigation. And finally, the number thingies reached a critical value for sale. Google congratulations on your purchase! Waiting for information about traffic jams on G+ and [likely] the closure of the application in its current form. Bit of a pity, of course, but not the end of the world. Much more regrettable the continuing trade of its not content. Although there is not regret — anger! As in the story of Mark TWAIN in which the hero, a satirical have used all possible sources of jokes for their work, Internet parasites climb their bottoms elephant in a China shop any more or less significant party.
It is already rather tired, honestly. The provision of infrastructure and organization of communication is certainly very important and necessary thing. For example, a medical conference of neurosurgeons cannot take place without organizers, decorators, cleaners, technicians to configure the microphones and waiters for the reception. But when the demons of the cleaners and techniques suddenly start dispose conference? You would be crazy if you say that the owner of the projector for presentations has the right to publish, sell, or prohibit shows it works at will and discretion. But in the digital world it has become in order! LJ, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and so on. — home projectors — otherwise monetize, and manage rework someone else's content!
Begun because all is not well. Initially, there was symbiosis. The author of the content received certain services to, say, search, aggregation or hosting. The service provider did for aggregation through advertising or derivatives useful services. The interests of authors and suppliers do not intersect: I write lyrics, and LJ gives me a platform for publishing and discussing my text. I pay for the service or get it for free — it depends on the business model of the provider, which I by and large is not important: I run my business or a hobby, and Facebook/Google/Twitter is engaged in.
Aggregators then little by little began to inflate his virtual blunt market value by multiplying the number of aggregated future profit potential. Generators of content turned into logins in the tens and hundreds of millions of logins. I stopped being a author and became a faceless "active account". At the peak of the inflation taking place began to be called "social network" for bashful disguise complete substitution of concepts: the crowd that filled the sense of place of its meetings, be it a bench in the Park or a trendy café (read the website), became count of online the owners of the place, considering that due to a bloated market valuation that is place gives meaning to the party! Your cats and photos are secondary, and Instagram is primary. For trivial content like likes and statuses the user is not a person, and only one appendage and a mouse clicking frenzy for display advertising and collect advertising feedback.
It is interesting to note that some parties occasionally showed aggregators "Hu from Hu". Mirage "billions of dollars" of business immediately dissipated, and the eyes appeared dirty benches and bare walls (i.e., no unnecessary server rack). But this rarely happened because people are by nature inert, plus the vast majority of their own content not interesting and not dhorn. And the main thing – as soon as the service provider continues to supply, what have I to do with his bombast? Let them earn, let out on a stock exchange, investors may rubs, and if it is necessary to call the authors of active accounts on charts in the business plan, so for God's sake.
Unfortunately, the leading and guiding role of the content aggregators do not stopped at one content. Started aggregation of the second order: the absorption of different services. From a business point of view a logical step, otherwise, why inflate the market value of the service, if not for sales and mergers? But with the sales come the redundancy and inconsistency of the new service of the General strategy of the buyer. As a result, the service will convert or close down, thus hitting on authors and denying them a platform. And nobody asks, as they become meaningless accounts somewhere in the previous step.
For example, the Internet giant buys another messenger. Buys for well-organized and feel in each other's company, user base, and nothing more. Speaking of our "bench" terminology, roughly lifts bench and carries it to the other end of the Park. There he already has three of its own bench, so he's definitely the fourth will begin to alter and integrate into your previous. Maybe "bought" users painlessly climb on the other benches-the messengers, but maybe not, does not matter. It is important that the decision about the shock (and to a greater or lesser extent, the destruction of) the usual and the company took... the bench!
I would argue that under capitalism workers are not the owners of production, to which I answer, that the aggregators have no ownership of the means of production! With the same success your rights to the content I can say the telcos or the developers of HTML.
But back to Waze. The idea of a startup were simple and ingenious, as all is simple: give drivers an opportunity a) to build and correct the maps and b) to inform each other about events on the road. I talk to drivers about their traffic, and they tell me about their. Together we create a fairly true picture of the condition of the roads at any given time. I repeat once again: we create the picture. We observe, we analyze, we reportwhen (and could, as before, to call the radio station, dealing with traffic announcements). We draw them a map: I personally diligently marked out the house and has fixed a lot of map errors. By the way, the first discontent Waze was a few years ago, the community created maps, which the company did not want to open in public access. Dissatisfied in the end stopped because the service was so needed, and vezouze were so positive, such nyashki.
Speaking all the time, "we", I however, have no claim to a share in the business of Waze and not belittle the significance of their work. They contain a platform, they have developed client applications for many operating systems, they are algorithms and coordination. Waze has every right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There is a classical symbiosis, in which good and content generators, consumers and the aggregator. But then came metaregister, which is less concerned that all around good!
Google Waze in its current form nafig not needed. It has its own Maps and navigation. He has a fixed idea "zabluzhdenii" all around, and that will not work – closed. In the best case will take noteworthy achievements, will pull a little time, and then – farewell, a favorite bench? But let me, after all we so long and carefully settled in!
I understand that to write a critical article is much easier than to refuse the proposed billion-a-third dollars, and in the name of symbiosis. What is happening to blame. So there were stars that leverage today is in aggregators. I can only wish them burst quickly under its own weight, to return them to the logical place of the suppliers is important and necessary services, but not managers information created by mankind. In my virtual spherical universe collected/created by the community, the content should not and can not be resold. He is asset start-UPS, which I, nevertheless, wanted and wish you every success.
Article based on information from habrahabr.ru
Waze has long gone to great players, hanging thingies and unnecessary functionality, often at the cost of deteriorating the stability of the navigation. And finally, the number thingies reached a critical value for sale. Google congratulations on your purchase! Waiting for information about traffic jams on G+ and [likely] the closure of the application in its current form. Bit of a pity, of course, but not the end of the world. Much more regrettable the continuing trade of its not content. Although there is not regret — anger! As in the story of Mark TWAIN in which the hero, a satirical have used all possible sources of jokes for their work, Internet parasites climb their bottoms elephant in a China shop any more or less significant party.
It is already rather tired, honestly. The provision of infrastructure and organization of communication is certainly very important and necessary thing. For example, a medical conference of neurosurgeons cannot take place without organizers, decorators, cleaners, technicians to configure the microphones and waiters for the reception. But when the demons of the cleaners and techniques suddenly start dispose conference? You would be crazy if you say that the owner of the projector for presentations has the right to publish, sell, or prohibit shows it works at will and discretion. But in the digital world it has become in order! LJ, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and so on. — home projectors — otherwise monetize, and manage rework someone else's content!
Begun because all is not well. Initially, there was symbiosis. The author of the content received certain services to, say, search, aggregation or hosting. The service provider did for aggregation through advertising or derivatives useful services. The interests of authors and suppliers do not intersect: I write lyrics, and LJ gives me a platform for publishing and discussing my text. I pay for the service or get it for free — it depends on the business model of the provider, which I by and large is not important: I run my business or a hobby, and Facebook/Google/Twitter is engaged in.
Aggregators then little by little began to inflate his virtual blunt market value by multiplying the number of aggregated future profit potential. Generators of content turned into logins in the tens and hundreds of millions of logins. I stopped being a author and became a faceless "active account". At the peak of the inflation taking place began to be called "social network" for bashful disguise complete substitution of concepts: the crowd that filled the sense of place of its meetings, be it a bench in the Park or a trendy café (read the website), became count of online the owners of the place, considering that due to a bloated market valuation that is place gives meaning to the party! Your cats and photos are secondary, and Instagram is primary. For trivial content like likes and statuses the user is not a person, and only one appendage and a mouse clicking frenzy for display advertising and collect advertising feedback.
It is interesting to note that some parties occasionally showed aggregators "Hu from Hu". Mirage "billions of dollars" of business immediately dissipated, and the eyes appeared dirty benches and bare walls (i.e., no unnecessary server rack). But this rarely happened because people are by nature inert, plus the vast majority of their own content not interesting and not dhorn. And the main thing – as soon as the service provider continues to supply, what have I to do with his bombast? Let them earn, let out on a stock exchange, investors may rubs, and if it is necessary to call the authors of active accounts on charts in the business plan, so for God's sake.
Unfortunately, the leading and guiding role of the content aggregators do not stopped at one content. Started aggregation of the second order: the absorption of different services. From a business point of view a logical step, otherwise, why inflate the market value of the service, if not for sales and mergers? But with the sales come the redundancy and inconsistency of the new service of the General strategy of the buyer. As a result, the service will convert or close down, thus hitting on authors and denying them a platform. And nobody asks, as they become meaningless accounts somewhere in the previous step.
For example, the Internet giant buys another messenger. Buys for well-organized and feel in each other's company, user base, and nothing more. Speaking of our "bench" terminology, roughly lifts bench and carries it to the other end of the Park. There he already has three of its own bench, so he's definitely the fourth will begin to alter and integrate into your previous. Maybe "bought" users painlessly climb on the other benches-the messengers, but maybe not, does not matter. It is important that the decision about the shock (and to a greater or lesser extent, the destruction of) the usual and the company took... the bench!
I would argue that under capitalism workers are not the owners of production, to which I answer, that the aggregators have no ownership of the means of production! With the same success your rights to the content I can say the telcos or the developers of HTML.
But back to Waze. The idea of a startup were simple and ingenious, as all is simple: give drivers an opportunity a) to build and correct the maps and b) to inform each other about events on the road. I talk to drivers about their traffic, and they tell me about their. Together we create a fairly true picture of the condition of the roads at any given time. I repeat once again: we create the picture. We observe, we analyze, we reportwhen (and could, as before, to call the radio station, dealing with traffic announcements). We draw them a map: I personally diligently marked out the house and has fixed a lot of map errors. By the way, the first discontent Waze was a few years ago, the community created maps, which the company did not want to open in public access. Dissatisfied in the end stopped because the service was so needed, and vezouze were so positive, such nyashki.
Speaking all the time, "we", I however, have no claim to a share in the business of Waze and not belittle the significance of their work. They contain a platform, they have developed client applications for many operating systems, they are algorithms and coordination. Waze has every right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There is a classical symbiosis, in which good and content generators, consumers and the aggregator. But then came metaregister, which is less concerned that all around good!
Google Waze in its current form nafig not needed. It has its own Maps and navigation. He has a fixed idea "zabluzhdenii" all around, and that will not work – closed. In the best case will take noteworthy achievements, will pull a little time, and then – farewell, a favorite bench? But let me, after all we so long and carefully settled in!
I understand that to write a critical article is much easier than to refuse the proposed billion-a-third dollars, and in the name of symbiosis. What is happening to blame. So there were stars that leverage today is in aggregators. I can only wish them burst quickly under its own weight, to return them to the logical place of the suppliers is important and necessary services, but not managers information created by mankind. In my virtual spherical universe collected/created by the community, the content should not and can not be resold. He is asset start-UPS, which I, nevertheless, wanted and wish you every success.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий