Calling for a Green Peace Web2.0 Internet
Calling for a 
Web2.0 Internet!
Web2.0 Internet!BrainDump the Road Map for This Post:
I started in thinking about this early when people talked about rumor that yahoo would buy digg. Yet my viewpoint there, was 100miles away from anything about the “GreenPeace”, but presented my opinion on the possibility and a slight analysis about Web2.0 service suite competition between the Big Band S. It should be concluded into the thinking on the competition field.
The day after the upper post, Steve Rubel, brought me a wide sight of the web2.0 companies, though I'm not sure whether he owns the authorship of figure. We played a guess game there about who will flop or be dumbest web2.0 company in the up coming 2006. I thought it should be interested peoples, so I made a digg about the game. Well, maybe I did not topiced the title cool enough, I got seldom fellows. And Luckly, I collected some comments from Steve. I noticed that people judged their forecast by focusing on the technique used by the website, such CSS, XHTML, Ajax, and Table, JAVA Script. I'm not a professional web developer in honest. I run biz myself, and I believe deeply that technique is never the best to protect your alive in the business battlefield, and you’re given no permission to win in the game by owning a lofty technology. Why geniuses fall? A reason for that is they force again the trend in which there’re even more geniuses. Today, we are living on a planet contain with more than 6 billion human lives, indeed, Einstein is not regarded as singularity resource. I'm not talking about technic is nothing but shit, contrarily technic is much important for the first step. But then you have to run with the trend, what google had done these days must proved me more........I'm sorry for being too much for this, one more sentence for concluding my points here. I respect the guys who being so brave to try to be Achilles then fight with Arthur's knight team, and will pray for their success heartily.
Yes, I know you may begin feel no hope that I will circle back to the title. I deduced “conformation”, the sharp of the web2.0 Internet from that day. I had told you how I wrote my blog previously. And posts from Mike and jzawodn leaded me to the checkpoint. Surprise you, but I have to say: today’s Internet maybe the largest garbage and ridiculous being in the world. It's nothing but a monster that licking up resources as cetacean and murdering human creations. I like Mike's cute style:
Because despite what you might read, blogging by today's standards, with today's technology is just a terrible mess.Look no further than the industry of vendors and service providers that support bloggers. By my estimate, which is a conservative one, there has to be a separate blog "management" tool for every finger I have, plus a few toes too. Case in point, there are tools to:
- Manage your feed
- Manage your comments
- Manage your advertising
- Manage your spam
- Manage your stats
- Manage your tags
- Manage your pings
- Manage your video
- Manage your audio
- Manage your photos
- Manage your posts
- Manage your IP
According the marketing theory, in the long run, every market becomes a two-brand race. The battle usually winds up between two major players, usually the old reliable and the newcomer. In a maturing industry, third place is a difficult position to be in. The customer believes that marketing is a battle of products. The kind of thinking keeps two brands on top. They must be the best, they’re the leaders. Then means there nearly be no chance for the ranked 17th provider to win in the calendar service market. Internet is the big market, and you can not divide it into pieces by geography as what you do in traditional market. Except for information is blocked factitiously that malfeasances in business competition appear, and that’s the only reason I think why Baidu.com could actually sweep Google in CHINA searching engine market. But Web2.0 is surely a world wild competition, so why they’re still here? And why they’re just wasting the Internet bandwidth, the GSR (A Model of Internet Core Routers Designed by Cisco) process, the Internet storage, the Internet domain/IP address, the funds, the human energy for paying attention on them one or twice; and the most valuable things they lost, their creative ideas in developing new service for Internet uses which means their opportunity cost; but they keep still? I think I have to explain the reason before a further discussion.
I hope I would make a curt explain from two totally separated theories, the Marketing and the Games. We look from the marketing first to look at why there’re still other search engine provider lives on degradation, even Google exist. Fist point, “If Google ranked the No.1, then who goes the second”? Give a surmise on what they’re thinking about. Whenever the leader is strong, there is an opportunity for a No.2 to turn the tables. In strength, there is weakness of the leader. The most effective way for competition must be discovering the essence of the leader and presenting the prospect with the opposite. For example, Google doesn’t provide mp3 search service officially, that’s why many people use Baidu.com instead of Google when want to search a mp3 song at here. Ok, try to protect our discussion away from debate of Copy Rights, least it’s a legal behavior in China. They try to be different not better. Some may present their products as the alternative to the leader. The first brand that captures the concept is often able to portray its competitors as “me too”. You always need a backup search engine for you right? No matter how strong is Google’s clustered server farm, remember the days before Google.CN is established? I pick Baidu.com up for sampling here because I really hate this site personally, for the duty ways it set Google up. If the Internet market would contain the maxims up to 2 or 3 search engine service providers, what they’re trying to be is the second. Yes, all of the strategies they performed on market are quite right; there isn’t yet an upcoming search engine be a alternative of Google significantly. But the time will come, when the younger brother is born, where will they go on else way?
If you think about in the game theory, the question goes to “Who Quite First”? A widely believed but ridicules alive philosophy for the dot com, the one who dead at the last, the one who had won all the passed. Competition between Web2.0 companies or between the company itself and their customers are just fix into Prisoner's dilemma then lead to Nash Equilibrium, which is a kind of optimal collective strategy in a game involving two or more players, where no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute Nash equilibrium. What we’re talking about is calling for a more efficient and optimized Internet resources allocation, that lead to Pareto Optimality. But I’m afraid in the Prisoner's dilemma, and in the prisoner's dilemma, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting. The unique or short term equilibrium for this game does not lead to a Pareto-optimal solution. That is, when two rational players both play defect even though the total reward (the sum of the reward received by the two players) would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating. This is the dilemma. So, who makes the break?
The answer gonna be “Everyone”, either be you or be the Web2.0 corp. We described the reason of Web2.0 companies’ strategy by separating into marketing and game theory (A subject being so close to economic). Now we keep the style to find the solution, sometimes I like to combine them both into one solution so that have a more consummate consideration. In the iterated prisoner's dilemma the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous non-cooperative play. Cooperation may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to cheat may then be overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome. As the number of iterations approaches infinity, the Nash equilibrium tends to the Pareto optimum. Here’s some suggestion from marketing rules for the crops.
“It’s better to be first than it is to be better.” Create a category you can be first in. It’s much easier to get into the mind first than to try to convince customers you have a better product than the one that did hit there first. First brands tend to retain their leadership as the names often become generic. Regardless of reality, people perceive first products into the mind as superior. “If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.” Launch a new product that answers the question “first what?” What category is this new product first in? If above can not be a strong push for them, which would be such obstinate as same as I supposed, it’s your turn now. Marketing constructed the modem economic theory, who is marketed for? That’s no one else but you.
Before executing the rights the market endow with us the consumer, review ourselves first. How many Email box does each of us have registered? How many of them you’re using on hold and how many you even forget the password, because you never use again? We post our blog, so how much bloggging space you have own? How many files you downloaded by BT or Edonkey but leave them alone, and one day you deleted them for disk clean up “uncarfully”? By my estimate, which is a conservative one, a web surfer who have touch the net since 3 to 5 years ago, probably just using less than 10% of the online service he or she has registered. That means the rest of 90% service won’t be the thing worthier than rubbish to you. Can we evolve a little further, when every single human being, who composes the Internet, has a proportion up to 90% junk data, then what this Internet will be? Well, so kind of you in calling it garbage, because I don’t think you still keep things that 90% of it is unusable. So what? They’re free. Cool, but you defected once, punish is coming, remember it I mentioned before in the part of prisoner's dilemma? Don’t think about how much you’re paying for the Internet right now, it’s an uncertainty variable control by ISPs, but focus on how many ways they have created to take charge on you these nearly years. Maybe not charged directly on you, but on you company which you’re working for and where your incoming source is. I like to talk about MPLS/VPN, QoS, OSPF with other because I’m really be professional on these topics. But I prefer there were not these kinds of layer 2 and layer 3 tag switching VPN, sequence algorism, and link state routing protocol exist ever. They come into our life, take back our money because our rapacity but none of our requirement. Green peace, is trying to rescue our earth when it’s in the disease is not curable, how about our new born but sicken visual world? Will another edition of “heal the world” be singed again? If you can not stop from lead a luxury life in your real life, I’m here to calling you lead a simple life in your visual life. Unsubscribe the service you never need if the sites provide, cherish every online service that designed by our talents. It’s the only way for you to pay less but enjoy more. It’s the only way you build your green peace Web2.0 Internet.
Version 0.23 finished.....
posted by Ceta Mac @ 5:08 PM
25 comments
