Symbiosis of Human Interaction?

Skip to first unread message

Bala Pillai

May 2, 2007, 11:20:26 PM5/2/07
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Maloney ( ) <>
Date: May 3, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: RE: Symbiosis of Human Interaction?

Hi Cindy –

Sorry, I fundamentally disagree again with your sweeping statement
there is '…only so much to go around...'

It is just not so.

The economics of abundance is extremely difficult or impossible for
even the most highly trained experts and thought leaders to
understand. (It probably makes it even more difficult that they are
highly trained!)

'…only so much to go around…' is the classic principle of scarcity
economics. For our Internet epoch its focus is on finite tangibles
like natural resources, or in your notion, 'customers' is entirely
wrong-headed. Orthogonal.

For example, today there is a certain popular nonsense concerning
'attention economics' or 'attention management' (command and control)
as if it is a scarce, finite resource that needs to be control and
optimized. To see this how utterly ridiculous this is, all one needs
to do is visit eBay's headquarters reception in SJ. There you will see
displays of thousands of Pez dispensers. The collection was among the
reason the company was founded – to fundamentally release enormous,
unlimited amounts of digital attention. It's abundant, non-scarce –
believe it, there is far more than enough attention '…to go around…'

Heidi and Alvin Toffler are advancing the notion of a focus on
non-scarce intangibles doubling national GDP in a generation
(~25-years). Many, like me, agree strongly. It's what makes value
networks, value networks analysis and its absolute focus on abundant
co-creation of value and intangibles so essential, so critical to
individuals, business, organizations, civil societies, the environment
and the future.




P.S. Not trying to 'bash' (?) anyone or anything, just trying to raise
the bar to a more elevated, future-focused discourse. The recent rash
of retrogressive comments on KM, glaring portalitis naiveté and
degenerating ideas around community & collaboration have been
disappointing and, well, a bit unnerving…

[] On Behalf Of Cindy Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:34 AM

Subject: RE: Symbiosis of Human Interaction?

Thanks John for the perspectives

But that is not what I was saying

I was simply saying there is the reality of customers – markets and
only so much to go around – I was not discussing how one gets there.

The dangers of emails – ladders of inference thinking.

I appreciate the bashing but it was not really necessary – clarifying
questions are good in developing effective collaborative
conversations. Love u dearly….for the perspectives…but missed the
insights and the deeper meaning and I failed miserably to communicate
effectively – so accept the bashing.


[] On Behalf Of John Maloney ( )
Sent: May 2, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: Symbiosis of Human Interaction?

Hi – Sorry, that is zero-sum thinking, the World's Deadliest Disease.
Who, exactly, did MySpace take your precious 'market share' away from?
There are legions of other breakthrough examples. Why do you
marginalize value innovation networks and business ecosystems? For
background see:

Look, this is harmful old-school thinking. It is CRAZY to think
anybody is 'going after' the shrink-wrapped, jewel-cased, bloat-ware
model. It is already in sharp decline. Fast moving, mobile, portable,
hosted, peer and composite apps are rising sharply. (Spend a lot of
$$$ and a few painful weeks upgrading Vista Ultimate and Office07 and
you will know why the party is over.)

Setting strategy to pursue competition per se is really dumb.

Ascribed business 'reality' is very harmful to competitiveness and growth.

Emergent business innovation inhabits value networks.



[] On Behalf Of Cindy Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:24 AM
Subject: RE: Symbiosis of Human Interaction?

The reality is that customers have to buy something and hence market
share is taken away from others as a result….so until this shifts – a
business reality remains in income statements


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages