Sarmale si mici

Iarasi nu am scris nimic de o buna bucata de vreme. Nu inseamna ca nu s-a intamplat nimic, ci doar ca nu am avut chef sa scriu. Promit ca revin cu ceva impresii de la Paris, de la Eric Andersen si altele.

Acum pe scurt, o revelatie:

Romania si Marea Britanie sunt identice din perspectiva alegerilor locale. Indiferent de cine iese, nimic - sau aproape nimic - nu se va schimba in serviciile primariei.

Atat ca de aici inainte, diferenta este colosala

Via Alex Barnett am aflat despre un excelent articol din luna martie din Wired ce descrie fenomenul economiei FREE.

In articol se prezinta mai multe modele de gratuitate - o taxonomie a culturii FREE. Mi-e lene sa traduc asa incat:

• “Freemium”
  What’s free: Web software and services, some content. Free to whom: users of the basic version.
• Cross-subsidies
  What’s free: any product that entices you to pay for something else. Free to whom: everyone willing to pay eventually, one way or another.
• Zero marginal cost
  What’s free: things that can be distributed without an appreciable cost to anyone. Free to whom: everyone.
• Labor exchange
  What’s free: Web sites and services. Free to whom: all users, since the act of using these sites and services actually creates something of value.
• Gift economy
  What’s free: the whole enchilada, be it open source software or user-generated content. Free to whom: everyone.

Tot Alex barnett povesteste despre o discutie legata de asta in emisiunea lui Charlie Rose

(Nota: Charlie Rose este gazda unui talk show ce trateaza in general probleme serioase din societate si care e produs si distribuit de PBS, reteaua americana de televiziuni publice. Televiziunea publica in america e ruda saraca a retelelor comerciale. De asta probabil ca auzim foarte rar de Thirteen sau WGBH Boston, iar majoritatea programelor sunt produse - in parteneriat cu - de BBC)

The interview also moves to the topic of the Yahoo! and Microsoft merger. Rose asks: “Why is it that Yahoo! can’t recruit the people at Google - through some extraordinary salary offers - that would let Yahoo! replicate what Google has?”

Anderson’s answer (paraphrased): “There is a basic philosophical difference between Google and Yahoo! Google is a Machine company. Google believes that data, machines and the Algorithms will drive the company’s growth. Yahoo! is a people company - it believes content created by people and the conections made between them with its drive growth.”

“And what about Microsoft?“, Rose asks. Anderson responds (again, paraphrasing) - “Microsoft is a pre-web software company that philosophically wants to be somewhere in between Google and Yahoo!” An oversimplified analysis, surely (hey, it’s a TV interview answer), but I think the Anderson’s conclusion is pretty accurate at its heart.

In cazul unui subiect mare, agregatorii de stiri aduna foarte multe referinte. Subiectul esecului negocierilor dintre Microsoft si yahoo a adunat in prima zi peste 2000 pe Google News.

• O lista a acestora e publicata aici