Comments for Kirill Bolgarov's blog

Comment on The last drop. by Kirill Bolgarov

Kirill Bolgarov — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:13:52 +0000

Probably my terminology is not genuine, that’s why some misunderstanding happens… What you called evolution-type innovation I call simply evolution, which is, in my regard, always innovative but usually too slow to compete with retrograde business dominating nowadays. Take wireless telephony and data transmition. SHouldn’t we all be already using 3g if not the retrograde mobile operators, wishing to monetize the existing licenses to the end with surrogates like edge or evdo? So I think innovative business should be much more aggressive…
What I wanted to say in my post is that until the global mentality doesn’t change from “consuming” to “innovating”, we will hardly see real changes in the world (not only tech wise or business wise). And that change will, most likely happen as a consequence of total implementation of inexhaustible power sources which (most likely again ;)) will be the consequence of oil exhaustion.

Comment on The last drop. by Alexander van Elsas

Alexander van Elsas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:53:19 +0000

Hi Kirill, innovation leads to change in several ways. One is fuelled by the “last oil barrel” fear. If there is no oil left we will change, no matter what. See all “green” innovation projects that fall into that category. Typically hard to fund, until someone like Al Gore puts it high upon the agenda and creates urgency. Then there is the slow change, or evolution model. There is something out there that needs improvement, so we innovate it, evolving it into something better. Yet another way of thinking about innovation is the “disruptive” version. Often triggered by one market leader becoming too big. Small companies come with a disruptive concept or technology to which the large company has no response. This type is described by Christensen in his excellent book called “innovators dillema”. The this with this discruptive change is that it is oftend fuelled by user needs. The technology that disrupts simply addresses these needs better than the market leader does. There is always a business model thinkable that addresses user needs better than the previous one, so…….

Comment on Who’s the TRUE owner of Facebook, MySpace et al? Is it Google vs the rest? by Kirill Bolgarov

Kirill Bolgarov — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:52:11 +0000

@Jordan,
Thanks for the great comment. Regarding Flock - neither have I found this feature (though I wasnt looking very carefully), but they did claim it, so I thought its worth being written about…

As for the OpenSocial v Facebook (so far it is exactly this way), I’m getting together my thoughts and writing a post, should be here by american morning (i’m in GMT+3).
In a few words - you are right, in the nearest perspective the user will hardly any sufficient difference at all, but in a longer prospect things should be changing.

Comment on Who’s the TRUE owner of Facebook, MySpace et al? Is it Google vs the rest? by Jordan Mitchell

Jordan Mitchell — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:41:20 +0000

I downloaded and used Flock. It didn’t show you your friends who were on the same site as you, it just showed your friends. It didn’t seem to have any browser-context involved in its ranking … yet.

At this point, I don’t think OpenSocial benefits users at all. It seems like it may only benefit developers (the “write once, run everywhere” value prop). Not that this doesn’t eventually benefit users, but in and of itself, OpenSocial won’t result in any near-term user migration, in my opinion.