[EM] Delegable proxy/cascade and killer apps

[Michael Allan]

Raph Frank wrote:
> True, it was just an approx.
> 
> P(N) > N+1
> 
> is probably more accurate :p, but gives less info.

Oh you mathematicians, your equations evaporate!
 
> Maybe, it would work better if it was a sum or some kind.  The value
> function is unlikely to be equal for everyone.

Except that a given individual (i) is motivated by her own value
expectation Vi, and her own cost expectation Ci.  Those are the
quantities that push N to N+1, at every increment.  Allowing for
individual variance, then, there's no relevance to a sum (Vi across
all i), nor to a mean.

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the tail of a probability
distribution.  Or maybe it can only be modelled by a simulation, not
by a formula.  But that's OK - I'll just run it in reality, and see
what happens.

> > So the network effect V(N) may have no bearing on critical mass (Nc).
> > Nc may simply be zero.
> 
> True.  In a situation where one person publishes and there are many
> readers.  The value to each reader doesn't depend on how many others.
> 
> However, that isn't a peer to peer system.

In that sense maybe Napster wasn't P2P.  I remember reading that the
quantity of servers (those publishing files) was relatively small.
Most users were just clients, downloading files without contributing
any of their own.  They just wanted the music.  Their rationale was
directed to that end (teleological).

I imagine that the servers, on the other hand, were show offs.  At
least in part they had a desire to showcase their personal record
collections and to express their musical tastes.  To that extent,
their rationale was dramaturgical.  (Note to myself: improve
Votorola's UI with this in mind.  "Wear your politics on your
sleeve.")

Still Napster *was* P2P.  Among the mass "audience" of freeloaders,
every now and again, one of them would feel motivated to publish his
own collection.  He would then become a peer in the network (both
client and server).  So the mass audience was not entirely dead
weight, it was a source of new peers.

> True.  I think that V(0) for you system is very low as it is a
> communication system.
> 
> However, maybe V(10) would be high enough so that lots of people would
> consider it worth their while.

I think that's the ballpark.  I just need to demonstrate V to the
first few users.  But they'll be test users, so C is going to be
substantial.

> Right.  OTOH, you still need to ask what is in it for individuals.
> Most people will stand back and let others do the work.  The global
> benefit is all well and good, but there also needs to be a short term
> benefit.
> 
> (Hence my comment on the free rider effect).
 
We're sunk if V(0) depends on short term benefit.  We've got nothing
short term to offer.  And we're asking a lot (high material C).  The
initial users will have to test the code.

I imagine the biggest thing on offer (for N = 0 to 9) is the distant
promise of what it's designed to do.  We have to express that promise,
and hold it out as worth reaching for (which it is!).

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/