3 ms·

>the endless sea of video chat experts websites wasn't enough This is what annoys me about the current "innovation" worshiping cult. Everybody just takes a alr

>the endless sea of video chat experts websites wasn't enough This is what annoys me about the current "innovation" worshiping cult. Everybody just takes a already existent idea and changes just a simple variable. "Uber/Airbnb of X" style of thinking should just be put to rest forever. This is obviously happening because our current way of thinking is a mistake in itself. Everything should be modular and Jef Raskin was a proponent of this idea unfortunately nobody took him seriously enough. I should be able to use a search application that lists to me every available expert, click the link, and then have a modular app skype/whatsapp/telegram blend in my workspace or open and be able to chat with that said expert. Speaking of search engines every website should index they're own content and those indexes be categorized in blocks and linked to a central repository that then can be coupled with searching algorithms and users should be able to connect to that central repository and query it like a public library of the internet. Goodbye Google!! Another thing if find annoying is paywalls. What if I go to Netflix and I just want to watch a just a specific movie or episodes without having to pay a membership fee. Let's say that Netflix has "Pirates of the Caribbean" and just want to click that video and stream it for 0.9 cents with not login in features and my ISP provider to add that payment to my utility bill. No Paypal/ApplePay/Google Wallet! Is it that hard to innovate in those way?

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
The reason people don't do that is because VCs can't fund that. Disintermediating or removing the middle man means "you can't make money from this". Well your shares don't have value anyway, you as an individual might make some money though. VCs tried to fund a bunch of dreamers decentralizing and modularizing everything in their blockchain apps. Many organizations conduct ICOs or token sales so they are able to secure funding in their one-time revenue event, and bring the product to the world. Is it a panacea? Nah. It is very Machiavellian and we'll see this evolve very quickly into something more efficient. But we aren't stuck in the limitations that require companies to become the same toll-taking middlemen as before.
- sysdyne 9y ago
  I believe the current system is already over saturated and the online players Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Tencent, Alibaba, Facebook and Microsoft are already encroaching on each others territories. Also a lot of the companies already posses powerful network effects and product synergies that make the entry of newcomers almost impossible. I'm force to remember every time I see a new VC investment that the purpose of VC is not to make the next tech giant like a Microsoft but to rapidly make a exit. I'm really sad by the current investment in tech but perhaps the real investments in disease treatment/space exploration are being ignored by the mass media.
travisjungroth 9y ago
You want a lot of people to do a lot of work that benefits you and pay them little to nothing.
- sysdyne 9y ago
  Streaming a movie for 0.9 cent is something I would hardly call a steal seeing how Netflix fee is 9 usd/month and a streamed video isn't something you can rewatch. Also a lot of websites make money out of ads and your personal data but image that build in payment system that I described could be used to pay for my facebook use. All those annoying ads and data collection goes away. Facebook/Linkin/twitter are storing systems that present data in a certain way along with a address booking system. Since they are all storing system that means that they are similar in cost with G Drive that costs 100GB/3 usd/month. 3 usd per month to use Facebook without data collection and ads!? Where do I sign up?
  - travisjungroth 9y ago
    Do you mean 0.9 cents or 0.9 dollars (90 cents)? One is equivalent to a tenth of a Netflix subscription, the other a thousandth. If you're talking about the higher amount, I misunderstood you. But why doesn't it "just work"? Why isn't the internet more simple? It comes down to two things: this way is more profitable, and stuff is hard. I don't believe that these companies have a personal data fetish. They have a money fetish. If they believed they could make more money by charging every user a flat rate and keeping their data secret, they'd do it. And I'm pretty sure they're right. If simple pricing and privacy was the better option, it would have won by now. There is no shortage of people who want to try a new twist on things in the tech world. As for the second item, the hardness. Indexing data is hard. There isn't enough value for every given website to do it. So, Google does the work for them and also extracts the value. You want a video site to charge your ISP. So they'll have to integrate with every ISP? That's quite a task. Maybe a company will come in and help with that. They'll integrate with every ISP and then allow every movie streamer to use them as a service. And perhaps to simplify things, they'll charge the thing you use to pay your ISP bill (credit card) instead of adding to the bill. Cut out a middle man. Maybe they'll even let you use any credit card you choose and hide them from the merchants you're purchasing from. Of course, this is a good idea, so they'll have competition. Oh shit. Now you have all those payment processing companies you're tired of. It's hard.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

The reason people don't do that is because VCs can't fund that. Disintermediating or removing the middle man means "you can't make money from this". Well your shares don't have value anyway, you as an individual might make some money though. VCs tried to fund a bunch of dreamers decentralizing and modularizing everything in their blockchain apps. Many organizations conduct ICOs or token sales so they are able to secure funding in their one-time revenue event, and bring the product to the world. Is it a panacea? Nah. It is very Machiavellian and we'll see this evolve very quickly into something more efficient. But we aren't stuck in the limitations that require companies to become the same toll-taking middlemen as before.

sysdyne 9y ago
I believe the current system is already over saturated and the online players Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Tencent, Alibaba, Facebook and Microsoft are already encroaching on each others territories. Also a lot of the companies already posses powerful network effects and product synergies that make the entry of newcomers almost impossible. I'm force to remember every time I see a new VC investment that the purpose of VC is not to make the next tech giant like a Microsoft but to rapidly make a exit. I'm really sad by the current investment in tech but perhaps the real investments in disease treatment/space exploration are being ignored by the mass media.

travisjungroth 9y ago

You want a lot of people to do a lot of work that benefits you and pay them little to nothing.

sysdyne 9y ago
Streaming a movie for 0.9 cent is something I would hardly call a steal seeing how Netflix fee is 9 usd/month and a streamed video isn't something you can rewatch. Also a lot of websites make money out of ads and your personal data but image that build in payment system that I described could be used to pay for my facebook use. All those annoying ads and data collection goes away. Facebook/Linkin/twitter are storing systems that present data in a certain way along with a address booking system. Since they are all storing system that means that they are similar in cost with G Drive that costs 100GB/3 usd/month. 3 usd per month to use Facebook without data collection and ads!? Where do I sign up?
- travisjungroth 9y ago
  Do you mean 0.9 cents or 0.9 dollars (90 cents)? One is equivalent to a tenth of a Netflix subscription, the other a thousandth. If you're talking about the higher amount, I misunderstood you. But why doesn't it "just work"? Why isn't the internet more simple? It comes down to two things: this way is more profitable, and stuff is hard. I don't believe that these companies have a personal data fetish. They have a money fetish. If they believed they could make more money by charging every user a flat rate and keeping their data secret, they'd do it. And I'm pretty sure they're right. If simple pricing and privacy was the better option, it would have won by now. There is no shortage of people who want to try a new twist on things in the tech world. As for the second item, the hardness. Indexing data is hard. There isn't enough value for every given website to do it. So, Google does the work for them and also extracts the value. You want a video site to charge your ISP. So they'll have to integrate with every ISP? That's quite a task. Maybe a company will come in and help with that. They'll integrate with every ISP and then allow every movie streamer to use them as a service. And perhaps to simplify things, they'll charge the thing you use to pay your ISP bill (credit card) instead of adding to the bill. Cut out a middle man. Maybe they'll even let you use any credit card you choose and hide them from the merchants you're purchasing from. Of course, this is a good idea, so they'll have competition. Oh shit. Now you have all those payment processing companies you're tired of. It's hard.