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.

De pe Read/Write Web am aflat despre un document foarte serios despre web semantic. Studiul are 400 de pagini si analizeaza toate tehnologiile “semantice”. Un rezumat de 30 de pagini poate fi descarcat “aproape” gratuit de pe site-ul celor de la Project 10x.

Foarte interesanta este diagrama dezvoltarii web-ului din prespectiva tehnologiilor semantice si nu numai. (Nota: in stanga sus trebuie sa fie 3 Semantic Web). Diagrama apare pe Read/Write Web.

Ne-am intors dupa un weekend spectaculos in Oxford (La Multi Ani inca o data sarbatoritilor!) in care am dormit la Travelodge. De la Oxford, prin amabilitatea ambasadei noastre, am adus acasa si “4, 3, 2″ pe DVD. Abia astept sa-l vedem, mai ales ca a mai luat un premiu

Un nou termen bantuie blogosfera: SCOBLEiZED. Asta defineste ceea ce i s-a intamplat lui Robert Scoble, un mare blogger, care a incercat sa foloseasca un script automat de export al datelor prietenilor sai din Facebook. Scriptul e produs de Plaxo, o alta comunitate/retea “sociala” (iubesc termenul asta, care implica existenta unor “asocial networks”…) si a dus la inchiderea contului lui Scoble de catre cei de la Facebook.

Dupa negocieri si angajamente totul e ca inainte. Sau aproapre, pentru ca acum se stie ca in Facebook informatia poate intra automat, nu-ti apartine chiar de sta in contul tau, si nu iese cu scriptul nici pana la usa de pe culoar.

Mai vorbim.