This was slightly messy & ranty reading, but then again, it was not intended to be published 🤡 Interesting views on platformization and accessibility (meaning: UX, developer experience, platform extensibility) within Amazon, Google and Facebook. And a jab at Amazon's working culture.
The main thesis being that by 2011; Amazon's developers had been forced to "eat their dog food" by Bezos, meaning that they had to collaborate between system teams internally as if they were external partners to each other; hence driving the "service-based approach" to full adoption.
This approach would be a prerequisite to building scalable platforms, something Google seemingly failed to do at that point, to the frustration of Steve.
Since it's 10 years old, some or most of it is probably dated. There are at least proper Google Docs API's & customisations possible now. It makes me wonder if this burning memo has had the desired effect!
You don't eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.
Good scouting! I'm not at all a programming guy but the distinction between product and platform was interesting.
This stood out to me:
Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone.
Now I'm thinking again about a more general / philosophical approach to what a platform is, something I thought about a few years ago, and I want to share that and throw a question out there:
(( disclaimer: this is quite freestyle ))
the more general approach: Imagine that a platform can be defined as that through which fundamental entities transfer, such as information and matter.
Some examples:
space is the platform through which objects move
the realm of the living (plants, animals) is the platform through which concentrated energy (in individual organisms) is transfered (by eating and dying).
the human mind(s together) form/s a platform through which information is transfered. Humans can do this in traditional ways (e.g. talking and soundwaves through air) or new ways (e.g. internet and reading text)
now let's introduce the idea that platforms can be in possession of humans (possession as a legal construct) or not. And then the rule applies that if a platform is in your possession, you can gain by it.
space in general (physical entity) is not in anyone's possession. If a bird flies from point A to point B, no one gains anything (do we?) except the bird maybe.
space more specifically as countries or something of the like are in fact in a human entity's possession, in the way that the human entity can gain by controlling what crosses borders (e.g. import taxes)
the realm of the living was not in possession of humans (think of neanderthals that just struggle to survive), but maybe now it is increasingly becoming so?
the connecting of human minds through which information is transfered:
soundwaves are not owned by anyone, but they do transfer information. No human is gaining anything.
the internet as a platform is in possession of different human entities. Those human entities gain if their platform gets used (what do they gain? Information (data), revenue through ads, ... ? )
side thought: Soundwaves are naturally occuring phenomena that did not need any artificially creating act of humans. Internet is a human artifact. Maybe this is the cause of what is in possession and what is not)
Now my (descriptive) thesis: platforms created by and in possession of humans like Facebook, start behaving more and more like natural platforms because they get integrated in all forms of transfer. (or all forms of transfer get integrated in them).
And then my evaluative / moral thesis/question: Is this right or wrong? Example: we now live in a world where having a smartphone (in possession of a certain company) that accesses certain platforms (in possession of human entities) is kind of necessary to function in contemporary society (other question: to what extent is that really needed? Like, does one need a smartphone?), so there is in fact not a real choice to be made, but at the same time some human entities are gaining by this constellation...
My moral concern is then that some human entity is gaining by other human activity, but those other humans have not choice but to make the original human entity gain. This does not seem fair to me.
Possible solution: decentralization of power / platforms
other side thought: platforms create relations. (According to Foucault) the underlying mechanism of power is 'relations'. So platforms imply the existence of power.
I'd be happy if someone would care to point out any/the inconsistencies in this thinking or if anyone would critique this. I think it's an interesting way to think about our contemporary reality that is increasingly shaped by platforms that are in possession of a human (entity/organization/...)
This is a bit of a train of thought but hey this ain't university and no one is grading me :^)
to mods: let me know if readup is not really the platform for this kind of scattered thinking!
Wow 🤯 I had to reread this to wrap my head around it, but I think it's a fair abstraction of what a "platform" is, though I can often substitute "platform" with the word "medium" as well.
Now my (descriptive) thesis: platforms created by and in possession of humans like Facebook, start behaving more and more like natural platforms because they get integrated in all forms of transfer. (or all forms of transfer get integrated in them).
This part isn't clear to me!
My moral concern is then that some human entity is gaining by other human activity, but those other humans have not choice but to make the original human entity gain. This does not seem fair to me.
Where you would be describing a platform monopoly. An example of this is the debate & lawsuit on Apple's 30% fee for selling apps or digital goods in their App Store. They own the only platform. There's no other way to transfer your app to an iDevice user. But whether this is fair or not, depends on how you look at it. Here's a nice Dutch article on this.
Possible solution: decentralization of power / platforms
When talking about digital platforms, the Fediverse would be a name for this decentralized solution approach.
to mods: let me know if readup is not really the platform for this kind of scattered thinking!
This was slightly messy & ranty reading, but then again, it was not intended to be published 🤡 Interesting views on platformization and accessibility (meaning: UX, developer experience, platform extensibility) within Amazon, Google and Facebook. And a jab at Amazon's working culture.
The main thesis being that by 2011; Amazon's developers had been forced to "eat their dog food" by Bezos, meaning that they had to collaborate between system teams internally as if they were external partners to each other; hence driving the "service-based approach" to full adoption.
This approach would be a prerequisite to building scalable platforms, something Google seemingly failed to do at that point, to the frustration of Steve.
Since it's 10 years old, some or most of it is probably dated. There are at least proper Google Docs API's & customisations possible now. It makes me wonder if this burning memo has had the desired effect!
Good scouting! I'm not at all a programming guy but the distinction between product and platform was interesting.
This stood out to me:
Now I'm thinking again about a more general / philosophical approach to what a platform is, something I thought about a few years ago, and I want to share that and throw a question out there: (( disclaimer: this is quite freestyle )) the more general approach: Imagine that a platform can be defined as that through which fundamental entities transfer, such as information and matter. Some examples:
now let's introduce the idea that platforms can be in possession of humans (possession as a legal construct) or not. And then the rule applies that if a platform is in your possession, you can gain by it.
side thought: Soundwaves are naturally occuring phenomena that did not need any artificially creating act of humans. Internet is a human artifact. Maybe this is the cause of what is in possession and what is not)
Now my (descriptive) thesis: platforms created by and in possession of humans like Facebook, start behaving more and more like natural platforms because they get integrated in all forms of transfer. (or all forms of transfer get integrated in them).
And then my evaluative / moral thesis/question: Is this right or wrong? Example: we now live in a world where having a smartphone (in possession of a certain company) that accesses certain platforms (in possession of human entities) is kind of necessary to function in contemporary society (other question: to what extent is that really needed? Like, does one need a smartphone?), so there is in fact not a real choice to be made, but at the same time some human entities are gaining by this constellation... My moral concern is then that some human entity is gaining by other human activity, but those other humans have not choice but to make the original human entity gain. This does not seem fair to me.
Possible solution: decentralization of power / platforms
other side thought: platforms create relations. (According to Foucault) the underlying mechanism of power is 'relations'. So platforms imply the existence of power.
I'd be happy if someone would care to point out any/the inconsistencies in this thinking or if anyone would critique this. I think it's an interesting way to think about our contemporary reality that is increasingly shaped by platforms that are in possession of a human (entity/organization/...)
This is a bit of a train of thought but hey this ain't university and no one is grading me :^) to mods: let me know if readup is not really the platform for this kind of scattered thinking!
Wow 🤯 I had to reread this to wrap my head around it, but I think it's a fair abstraction of what a "platform" is, though I can often substitute "platform" with the word "medium" as well.
This part isn't clear to me!
Where you would be describing a platform monopoly. An example of this is the debate & lawsuit on Apple's 30% fee for selling apps or digital goods in their App Store. They own the only platform. There's no other way to transfer your app to an iDevice user. But whether this is fair or not, depends on how you look at it. Here's a nice Dutch article on this.
When talking about digital platforms, the Fediverse would be a name for this decentralized solution approach.
Ah, there are no mods! The mod so far was just you, fully reading the article: Let's talk about moderation! - Bill Loundy on the Readup Blog.