Skip navigation

Kevin Slavin é foda!!

Kevin Slavin argues that we’re living in a world designed for — and increasingly controlled by — algorithms. In this riveting talk from TEDGlobal, he shows how these complex computer programs determine: espionage tactics, stock prices, movie scripts, and architecture. And he warns that we are writing code we can’t understand, with implications we can’t control.

Do Keid, um maluco que eu me amarro.

E não é que a American Express tá propondo uma puta ruptura no mercado de compras coletivas?

O AmEx usa o puta banco de dados (empresas de cartões de crédito podem prever com dois anos de antecedência o divórcio baseado nos gastos do casal) que tem a disposição para oferecer ao mercado uma capacidade de segmentação fodástica. E o melhor: sem cobrar taxas exorbitantes como o Groupon e outros sites de compra coletiva, o que torna a matemática financeira dos sites de compra muito frágil. O AmEx ficasó com a tradicional taxa de transação do cartão de crédito.

The offers work much like the recent foursquare and American Express deal: you link an American Express card to your Facebook account, select an offer to load it on your card and then pay using your AMEX. If you meet the offer criteria, you get the discount as a statement credit. This offers a significant benefit to retailers: no staff training required. Training has long been the bane of promotions and is often executed poorly. I recently spent 30 minutes at Radio Shack trying to redeem a foursquare offer. That’s a terrible experience for the consumer and the merchant.

For merchants, it also provides additional benefits over Groupon, Google Offers and LivingSocial. Ironically, the daily deals model is currently about as targeted as media that were available when AMEX was founded more than 160 years ago. For the most part, it’s at the region level (although it is moving towards a more geographically targeted approach). AMEX can do much better. This allows merchants to reach just the customers who are within their trade area, instead of offering deep discounts to deal seekers who come from 45 miles away and would never return at full price.

In the future, I would look for AMEX to integrate this platform with transaction history data and its popular Membership Rewards program. With transaction history, merchants could better target cardmembers. Instead of sending out an offer to anyone in the city who wants a cheap massage, the offer could be sent to people within 5 miles who have shown a history of buying spa services and spend a lot of money each year. Membership Rewards integration could allow consumers to redeem points at any merchant on the American Express network, similar to the way in which consumers can redeem points for Amazon purchases.

The AMEX platform illustrates a big difference in business model. Groupon and other daily deal providers need to make their money on a one time deal with the merchant. As a result, in my opinion they’re doing a lot of deals that are bad for businesses. AMEX is forgoing that upfront revenue to build a long term relationship with the merchant that pays off over time. AMEX wins in three ways: driving traffic onto its network for existing merchants over VISA and Mastercard, providing a clear differentiator to encourage new merchant accounts and encouraging new cardholders. And the biggest difference of all: AmEx doesn’t take a 50 percent cut of each deal like Groupon does. It takes zero percent of the actual deal, and makes money instead through normal payment transaction fees.

É assim que se faz jornalismo na Libéria. Lindo!

Via UoD

Economics writer Tim Harford studies complex systems — and finds a surprising link among the successful ones: they were built through trial and error.

Escroto de bom.

Via Brainstorm9

Do John Battelle. Irrepreensível.

Way back in the day, before all this Interweb stuff made news, we had a computer hardware and software industry that was both exciting and predictable. I was a cub reporter in those days, covering an upstart company (Apple) as it did battle with two dug-in monopolists: IBM in hardware, and Microsoft in software. IBM was clearly on its way down (losing share to legions of hardware upstarts in Asia and the US), but Microsoft was an obvious – and seemingly unbeatable – winner.

Underdog Apple had a cult following (I was part of it), and its products were clearly better, but it didn’t seem to matter. Quality wasn’t winning, and as a young journalist that fact irritated me. But that’s only an orthogonal part of the story I want to tell today.

Back in the late 1980s, Steve Jobs wasn’t running Apple, but his DNA was very clearly still in the company (for those who don’t obsessively follow Apple, Jobs and Woz founded the company, then Steve’s board brought in John Sculley to run it in 1983. Sculley then fired Jobs from any operational role. Jobs returned to Apple’s helm in 1997.) Apple in the 80s and 90s was secretive, paranoid, full of extraordinary talent, and convinced it was being unfairly treated by Microsoft.

In the main, Apple’s fears were pretty well founded. And there was perhaps no greater battlefield to prove those fears than the battle for the hearts and minds of software developers. (Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has never really forgotten this lesson).

In the 1980s and 90s, developers were the most important class of value creator in the digital economy – they were the entrepreneurs and marketers leveraging the new platforms of Apple and Windows, building new businesses out of thin air. Borland, Oracle, Lotus, Intuit – I could list scores, if not hundreds, of successful developers from that time. Many still exist today.

As a reporter, developers were often my best sources, because Apple and Microsoft would show them early versions of hardware and operating systems. Developers would then talk to me about those new products, and I’d get my scoops. That was how the information ecosystem worked, and everyone knew it. Developers had a ton of power – they made the products which drove sales on the Windows and Apple platforms, and if they felt slighted, they could always go to the press and apply pressure as needed.

Fast forward to now, and substitute the Internet platforms of today (the open HTML web, Apple’s iOS, Facebook’s Platform, Android, and to a lesser extent Twitter and Google’s Chrome) for the ones of my fading yesteryear. How do they stack up?

Not so well, I’m afraid. While the early Internet was a paradise for a certain kind of developer – anyone who knew HTML and could figure out a way to create value on the nascent web – what’s emerged in the past five years of the new mobile web is not a very promising foundation for the creation of lasting value. I’m speaking, in the main, about the “app economy” – a fractured ecosystem lacking a strong economic and technological true north.

Of course, Apple’s current cult of followers would argue that there *is* a True North: iOS. But I’m not seeing great new companies born on Apple’s platform, as they were back 20 years ago. Angry Birds aside, am I missing something here?

One could argue Facebook is such a platform, and declare Zynga proof that great companies have been created thanks to Facebook’s platform. But last time I checked, Zynga was one company, not scores of them.

Android is Google’s answer (as is Chrome, to a confusing extent), but so far, Android seems to be taking the same route as iOS in economic terms – make an app, hope for a hit, where a hit is defined in tens of thousands of dollars in revenue (not exactly a business). And Twitter still has work to do before it becomes a true platform for economic value creation (though promising signs are in the air).

The HTML or open web is still the best and most robust platform for development of true value, to my mind. And hundreds, if not thousands, of developers and entrepreneurs have succeeded by leveraging it. But it lacks what that early Apple and Windows ecosystem had: a true software business, one that provided differentiating value such that consumers (and enterprises) would pay significant dollars to use that software. This may sound counterintuitive for an advertising-driven entrepreneur such as myself to state, but it’s time we had a robust paid software ecosystem on the web. There’s certainly room for both.

I think it’s coming. The table is set, so to speak. As consumers we’re getting used to paying for apps on our phones and tablets. And as consumers, we’re getting frustrated with the lack of value most of those apps provide us. As with Windows back in the day, quality isn’t winning right now. On the web, we’re wanting more robust solutions to problems that are only beginning to surface – I’d pay five bucks a month to someone if they’d solve my social presence problem, for example: I just can’t keep up with Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Tumblr, StumbleUpon, and newer services like Percolate. I’d probably also pay for someone to solve the deals space for me – it’s too confusing and I know I am missing out on serious savings. Same for music and media (an area of early and promising development), professional services of many stripes, and on and on.

But for such a quality software ecosystem to unfold, we need, as developers, a clearer sense of a platform roadmap, and some certainty as to what portions of the economic pie are open for competition. This is particularly true for the consumer space (enterprise is used to paying for value, and is already doing so at places like Salesforce and LinkedIn). Clearly, you shouldn’t develop a photo app for Twitter, or a music or communications solution for Facebook. And you’d simply be crazy to create a contacts manager for Apple products, even if the one they have is godawful once you pass about 1000 records.

Or would you be? Perhaps the solution is to create at a level above all of these services – software that lives above the level of a single platform, so to speak. Software in the cloud (passe as it might be, Mr. Benioff).

Isn’t that what the web is supposed to be? Isn’t that the promise of the cloud?

It is, but for that to work, all those platforms have to be willing to share data and APIs. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen in the next few years. But happen it will, I predict, because happen it must. Change will be forced downward, from consumers back into the platforms that, for now, are mostly closed to value creation. Mark my words….I hope they’re right.

Did you know 3-D printers could make complex objects with moving parts like gears and crescent wrenches? I had no idea…this is kind of mind-blowing. The guy at the beginning likens the technology to Star Trek’s replicator.

Gostou? Então toma uma aulinha de 50 minutos da Singularity University.

Na página do youtube deste vídeo tem um comentário fodástico que faz jus ao título do post:

Our system of capitalism will eventually be irrelevant and counter productive (if not already) since we are approaching potentials which we can create abundance, sustainability, efficiency and well being for all the worlds people. Removing scarcity and the aberrant effects it causes such as theft. Abundance, sustainability, and efficiency are enemies of our economic structure for they are inverse to the mechanics required to perpetuate consumption.

Via Kottke

“And creative, keep in mind, is strategy, design, and technology fused together”

Do Jonathan Nelson, que ganhou um bom perfil da Adweek.

One reason the online brand advertising industry hasn’t been able to catch up offline brand advertising – despite how much time consumers spend on line these days – is that many ad-buyers are trained to believe that if Web users aren’t clicking on their banner ads, then their banner ads are being ignored.

This is stupid because people are very unlikely to click on banner ads. The people who do tend to be poorer and less educated.

A company called Solve Media – which places ads in CAPTCHAs – has put together showing just how rare clicks on banner ads actually are.

Via Business Insider