Wikinomics-Chapter 7

Chapter 7: Platforms for Participation

It took me until the middle of this chapter to figure out exactly what “platforms” are. From what I understand, they provide a foundation upon which collaboration is placed. The main examples used (eBay, Amazon, and Google) don’t really seem like platforms for collaboration to me though. But maybe that’s because I’m looking at this as a consumer, not a developer. Also, the Amazon success story sounds really great, but I feel that capitalism is still at work and collaboration is still an ideal. Was Amazon operating the same way before they were raking in the big bucks? Probably not. I think that once organizations have established themselves as very successful, it’s much easier to participate in novel business practices because they already have financial security.

The People Finder that was formed in the aftermath of Katrina was really inspiring. Normally, the system would have taken a lot of capital to develop. But it is amazing what can get done when it has to. Why aren’t great things like this happening every day? No sense of urgency? People aren’t motivated to things unless they’re going to get something out of it?

As far as government information being available to the public, I think it’s long overdue. I’m not sure what the status of information is now, but I’m sure it’s not where it should be. The area where I have experience is legal research. LexisNexis and Westlaw have taken every statute, every case, etc. from every jurisdiction and organized it all in a way that it is (somewhat) easy to find what you are looking for. You can search by issue, by statute by case, by party name, etc. The catch is that they charge hundreds of dollars per search. (as law students, we get free access to both). Anything that is “public” information should be available (and easily searched) for free.

I just checked out Scorecard and although the data for Leon County is a little old…. It is still a good start.

Follow Up on Ch. 6

An article on Slate about the less than up to date laws...


Actually, it's a series and this article is on point too. I think Lessig (quoted in the article) is the law professor quoted in Wikinomics also.

Tolerated Use: The Copyright Problem

In case you don't feel like reading the whole article, this quote sums it up:

"The formal result of that is what we have today: a copyright law that covers almost everything we do in the digital world.

But the paradox is that the current law is so expansive and extreme that the very firms that first sought it cannot even make use of it. Nor would they want to. In a well-functioning political system, the copyright law might be reformed in a grand negotiation between all interested parties, with the long-term goal of separating out the harmful infringement from the harmless. But in 21^st-century America, that's not a result our political system is capable of reaching."

Wikinomics Chapter 6

Chapter 6- New Alexandrians

While reading this chapter, I kept thinking to myself, where does this fit in? What does this chapter have to do with anything and why did they put it here? Supposedly the New Alexandrians are organizations, individuals, and the like who fathom the importance of “openness.”

An example is the Human Genome Project. It would make sense that the aggregate of the knowledge of millions of scientists and researchers working together would be more effective and efficient than if they were working independently. In the case of this project, it was true. However, Chapter 6 offers evidence that pharmaceutical developments are not advancing at the rate that they should be (or we would expect them to be.) The authors try to explain how software open sourcing is much easier than scientific research. But, shouldn’t they be using software to do the scientific research?

In my notes, I wrote down that competition does not equal innovation. I’m not sure what that means, but what I think I had in mind was that this is the same problem all over again: incentives are not aligned. Pharmaceutical companies are not out to save the world or eradicate every disease. These companies make products to keep you alive enough to sell you more products that solve problems you did not even know you had. Have you ever listened to/read the side effects of sleeping pills like Lunesta, etc.? Seriously, I’d rather lay awake all night than have to deal with memory loss, dizziness, lightheadedness, changes in behavior and thinking, withdrawal, Etc. But, I digress. So, although there is competition, pharmaceutical companies can be profitable without saving the world. University partnerships might be a step in the right direction.

Finally, the last point I have written down is: is law keeping up with society? I would have to say-negative. But has it ever? No. As far as IP rights, there are public policy, ethical, and legal arguments. But seeing as how it’s taken this long to get IP protection where it is now, I don’t think the courts (or congress) are going to rush into any scaling back efforts. So where does that leave us? In the grey area, as usual.

Wikinomics-Chapter 5

Chapter 5- Prosumers

Prosumers seem like the next logical step from customer customization such as NikeID products, etc. What better way to guarantee the success of a product than to let customer design it themselves. This chapter compares “hacking” and “creating.” Two sides of the same coin. Whatever you call it, it’s going to happen. The key is to turn it into a positive (creating) and capitalize on it. (ie, Lego)

Secondlife:

At first I thought it was ridiculous. Now, after reading and learning, I’m tempted to try it out. Stories like that of “Anshe Chung” (who has made a lot of money in secondlife) make me think, why am I not getting in before this thing takes off and making money? On the other side, my “first life” takes up a lot of my time. The thing about these communities is that it’s kind of like a black hole for time. But maybe that’s what some people are looking for, an escape from their first life. Aside from interesting income tax conundrums, it will be fascinating to see where second life ends up. (That is, where the “prosumers” take it)

YouTube:

YouTube offers a great video library. It’s been going on for a few years, but I always thought that people who had videos on their MySpace and Facebook pages were ridiculous. It was too overwhelming. But I recently discovered the greatness of YouTube when I wanted to share a certain segment of the “Gingervitis” South Park Episode with my sister. While this mass compilation of videos is an awesome tool, there are many concerns. For example, the UF “Don’t taser me, bro” incident. While the kid clearly knew what he was doing, the UF police looked like morons. I don’t have a problem with that, but if you are UF, it gives a whole new meaning to negative press. And on an individual level, my friend always jokes that he can never run for office because there are too many YouTube videos of him singing bad karaoke. While funny, it is also true.

In conclusion, Prosumers… True? False? Good? Bad? Innovative? What does the instant gratification generation do when they get what they want? They want more

Wikinomics Chapter 4

Ideagoras are places (websites) where companies can “post” problems/issues and receive solutions. Although they do end up paying, the process is much cheaper than investing millions in R&D. To me, it seems more beneficial to firms than open source products because it allows matching problems with solutions. Once again, I see major conflicts stemming from IP Rights disputes. The authors point out that it is harder to transfer ideas and technology. With EBay, tangible property is being bought, but with sites such as innocentive.com and yet2.com, it allows for some ambiguity. I just skimmed the innocentive.com FAQ and it appears that the “solver” must transfer ownership of IP rights over to the “seeker” before accepting the cash reward. Rewards typically range from $10,000 to $100,000. If you came up with something really great, couldn’t you make more than $100,000 by patenting or copyrighting it yourself? I guess there’s always that option before you sign it away. Ideagoras seem great for businesses for certain types of “problems.” It would not be wise to place too much in the hands of an innovator who doesn’t even work for your company.

I’m not sure what type of requirements there are for submitting a solution, but ideagoras coud potentially give rise to very diverse solutions. A grad student in India or a Russian chemist could submit solutions, thus making the world that much smaller. On the flip side, firms in other countries could try to utilize this resource to get ahead. Citizens from other countries could potentially benefit and contribute to our economy without even being physically present.

In the last part of the chapter, the book talks about competing without innovation (ex: Dell v. HP). I think it is only a matter of time before firms will not be able to compete without innovating. Products and services are being updated way too fast for a firm to stand still. In today’s economy, if companies don’t improve their product, consumers will still desire the next step and find a way to implement it themselves.

Wikinomics Chapter 3

Peer Pioneers:

This chapter delves into peer pioneers and gives more examples.
One point that is made is that in favor of these open source communities is that the contributors are individuals, not employees of a specific company. I think this argument goes both ways though. While it is a lot cheaper for companies to use open source than pay their employees to create something, there is no guarantee that they are going to get the exact product that they need. There is problem with incentives may be unaligned. The communities are not profit driven while companies are. When a company embraces this new way of doing things, it gives up control which is unsettling to many managers. Also, as IBM learned, employees have to learn to play by the ‘community’ rules where a sort of organic hierarchy emerges.

On the other side, the great thing about open source is that through constantly improving, it eases the implementation and testing part challenges of introducing new software. Bugs are eradicated almost immediately.

An interesting discord exists between the commons and private sector. (socialism v. capitalism??) I think that open source is a new sort of commons. Generally, it is a small number of people working for the good of all of society. It is interesting to me because the problems with commons typically are that of social loafing, free riders, etc. I’m not sure if the problem is magnified here or if it can be avoided by redefining who is included in the ‘commons.’ Perhaps this is merely more evidence of the technology revolution. Do we have to decide between what’s best for the commons (or society in general) or keeping or economy going (by promoting capitalism)? Are we making ourselves obsolete by allowing open source to find solutions for everyone? Or are the old encyclopedia salesman going to be able to find a new job since wikipedia has put them out of business? The authors seem to think that it is possible in the pharmaceutical industry to increase the overall welfare of society while still keeping it competitive.

After this chapter, I understand more of the benefits and advantage to open sourcing and “peer” productions. Applying this to the business context, for me it underlines how important it is to be flexible and to constantly keep getting better. Because the moment you become complacent because you think you’re ahead with your amazing product, the competition is going to be coming up with something better. And everyone is a competitor. If any end user sees a way to improve upon your product or make something better, it is now possible for them to compete on a large scale. (ex: the guy who started UnderArmour, Google, Etc.)