the Problem is that Social-Networkings' platform do not match their Financial structure
<-- Next-->

new IsWith-Platform pdf.

facebook can only earn $2 per user in a year (that is less then 1 cent per a day), so could we find alternative to such business plan based upon adds and data mining while still providing scalable networking ?

The problem with the (hop-hip-hit-score of the) social-networkings nowadays is that those platforms are based financially on adds (so then whereto the focus goes?), whereas their worth is based on the number/activities/loyalty/income/etc of their members, but the members have no share in owning it.

This problem is not only of accurate valuation of the ads market and is to be considered regardless the question: Does the market is or is not in a state of bobble. It is a structural problem: The members make the value of the networking but do share ownership of it.

Well, the companies owning these platforms now try (so) hard to let you have "a say" in their networkings instead of simply letting you share owning it. It is now a fact that opensocial and facebook let developers to have internal (in facebock) API or cross platform (in opensocial) API, so that the developer having such dual API in all platforms of the market of social networking in all the internet would develop applications running in the platforms of the huge companies for better satisfying their members. Then these developments of source and applications would be open/close-source-licensed, so that you with your friends could make your own application in the platforms owned by those huge companies.

Well, there you could make your (growing) networking, but who would own it, who would set the rules, who would have there a say? For how long with cross platform API an open-source could be used in just those huge platforms? What is the profit of the members in facebook from its new-increasing-worth in the market (which is based on their number/activities/etc) ? maybe better interface with some/much more adds, but not much more.

Common Companies (ComCom) can be structured for achieving

  • the members in the networking becoming also the shareholders in the provider of the platform
  • the developers in open and/or close source becoming also the shareholders in the companies providing their source
  • the clients such companies being also their shareholders
  • in such companies still having location reserved for investors to come, but without letting them to take all
  • integrating such companies with transparency of their decentralization factor, which is the one matching with social-networking growth.


  1. We have the API for developers developing in all huge platforms!
  2. We now miss nothing for the members to make with the developers ComCom Networking!
  3. ComCom Networking running in the huge platforms would be own by the members and the developers.
  4. In ComCom networking the members could be focused on their profit from their long run cooperation.
  5. The next step in social networking market is the ComCom networking (allowing focus on the profit of their members).

All that is now made possible just by distinguishing between 2 types of shareholders, the Common and the Private.

@bring back@

By namzezamnamzezam, on 06 Nov 2007 18:33 history Tags:


~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing ublock.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License