Revision as of 23:48, 21 February 2015

"Most networking and ‘sharing economy’ apps are platforms. The user signs up and joins a centralised platform from a single provider and connects to others on the same platform.

We view platforms as isolated silos that push entrepreneurs to compete rather than collaborate, waste effort writing the same boilerplate code rather than innovate, follow a risky strategy that ultimately degrades user experience and rights, and benefits financial investors over other stakeholders.

Building a platform obliges entrepreneurs to follow a ‘speed-to-market’ strategy - become the dominant player with the largest user-base as fast as possible before a competitor gets there first. The more users, the more people there are with whom to connect, trade and share, the more attractive the platform appears to further users. Platform builders dream of runaway ‘viral growth’ when their platform gains enough gravity to pull in users with little direct marketing effort.

Unfortunately, growing rapidly is expensive and providers can’t initially charge for the service lest they scare users away. It almost always involves large amounts of investor cash who will want a financial return at a later date and stiff competition from rivals offering similar services.

If a platform survives and becomes the dominant player an uneasy relationship forms with the users. To keep investors happy the provider must now monetise by upping fees, or selling ads and user-data. Monetisation degrades the user’s experience and risks an exodus to a cheaper, shinier competitor. Users might get a useful service but give up rights to their data and control of their online experience.

At the same time, it can be difficult for different platforms working on similar ideas to collaborate, even if the platforms are open-source. If someone starts a similar platform you might worry that they will take all the users.

If someone makes an app that uses the same protocols then they’ve just added to the ecosystem, and made your app more valuable."

Discussion

Dante :

What leads people to generating engagements amongst each other ? How are Social Contracts generated ? How can technology, such as Linked Data and Open Data be used to facilitate Resource Allocation in forms of Emergent Management , enabling increased Situational Awareness ?

I see money as a social contract, as metadata produced out of a debt contract. I see potential in enabling a directed graphed approach to blend a variety of metadata, generating our own layers of metadata , developing an understanding of their interdependencies and externalities. Contextualize needs and offers, suggestions and intentions ( Netention - Slides )

I imagine an emergent approach to governance and finance, which could enable a transfer of resources into communal shareholding dynamics , in support of the Commons , reducing hoarding , artificial scarcity, infinite accumulation of property.

Such tools are still in development ( various softwares , many open source : rhizi, metamaps, netention, nrp, ... ) with ideally open api's to facilitate cross platform usage of linked data.

More Information

( archived versions - 1 , 2 )

Platform Cooperativism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:48, 21 February 2015

Contents

Description

Examples

Ongoing projects and code

Related Coop Models

The Age of Platforms - Loomio Open App

Discussion

Related topics

More Information

Navigation menu

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 * [[Open Cooperatives]]
 * [[Data Cooperatives]]
+==The Age of Platforms - Loomio Open App==
+Excerpted from [[Enspiral]]'s [[Loomio]]'s [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cB0xpEyWDM4TTXBkggpd-IWB4B-HF9WRbGIutYNb5bk/edit Communicating Open App] :
+"Most networking and ‘sharing economy’ apps are platforms. The user signs up and joins a centralised platform from a single provider and connects to others on the same platform.
+We view platforms as isolated silos that push entrepreneurs to compete rather than collaborate, waste effort writing the same boilerplate code rather than innovate, follow a risky strategy that ultimately degrades user experience and rights, and benefits financial investors over other stakeholders.
+Building a platform obliges entrepreneurs to follow a ‘speed-to-market’ strategy - become the dominant player with the largest user-base as fast as possible before a competitor gets there first. The more users, the more people there are with whom to connect, trade and share, the more attractive the platform appears to further users. Platform builders dream of runaway ‘viral growth’ when their platform gains enough gravity to pull in users with little direct marketing effort.
+Unfortunately, growing rapidly is expensive and providers can’t initially charge for the service lest they scare users away. It almost always involves large amounts of investor cash who will want a financial return at a later date and stiff competition from rivals offering similar services.
+If a platform survives and becomes the dominant player an uneasy relationship forms with the users. To keep investors happy the provider must now monetise by upping fees, or selling ads and user-data. Monetisation degrades the user’s experience and risks an exodus to a cheaper, shinier competitor. Users might get a useful service but give up rights to their data and control of their online experience.
+At the same time, it can be difficult for different platforms working on similar ideas to collaborate, even if the platforms are open-source. If someone starts a similar platform you might worry that they will take all the users.
+If someone makes an app that uses the same protocols then they’ve just added to the ecosystem, and made your app more valuable."
 =Discussion=