Source de l’article

The major problem of content provider today is to make money. Wheter it be in music industry, hollywood market or so many other, they all complain of the fall of their revenues.
But if we analyze the market today, and almost provider, we could see a reorganization of firm which make service provider bigger than content provider. And the balance of power make discussion more difficult : content providers don’t accept to be dominate, and it is understandable ! Imagine you were leader on a market, would you accept conditions of a news participant ! Sure you don’t, and you would try to make life harder for this new one… and on the other hand, competing against innovation and new society organization…

Let’s take the exemple of the Kindle. The new version release few days ago is bigger to improve the reading of newspaper. Tomorrow, the Kindle could be the efficient way to read books and newspapers on mobility. Amazon is introducing in the reading industry a value of the internet society : mobility. Working on this side, it tries to dominate some old competitors. On the other side, this business is based on two types of revenues : fees and advertising. Books are based on fees since ever, and the model isn’t quite changed with the kindle : you continue to buy your book once in a while over the air. But for newspapers it is quite different. First because advertising is the dominant business model in both industry (news, and internet), and internet is much more relevant because you can count your reader… and you can only estimate your newspapers readers. As said in the article, “the newspaper business can’t transform itself overnight from an advertising-based business to a fee-based business.” But they don’t have to ! and advertisment has simply to be transfer to the service provider… the client is no more the reader… but Amazon ! Which would have to sell some ad space. And we come back to the problem of domination and power struggle – it is quite difficil to accept to “give” your production to another…

Source de l’article

“There’s something ironic about Allen, cofounder of a software empire, funding an exhaustive atlas of our neural hardware. (He established the institute with a donation of $100 million.) For decades, many cognitive scientists insisted that the physical brain was largely irrelevant to the study of the mind. It didn’t matter whether the human operating system was running on a real cortex or a set of silicon microchips—the software was everything. Given Allen’s background—this was the man who helped develop MS-DOS 1.0, after all—he might have been expected to ally with the software crowd in the belief that the 1s and 0s were more important than the anatomical details. Instead, Allen decided that our operating system could run only on one very particular kind of computer. “There are so many intricacies to our brain that won’t be understood unless we start to look at the system as a whole,” he says. “All these different details don’t operate in isolation. But how do they work together to create such a powerful machine?”

According to this paragraph and to the rest of the article, it appears that scientist simply could not imagine the atlas map of the brain because they separate the “hardware” of the brain, from the “software” of thoughts. Even based on past scientific discoveries, there is now a strong metafor between our human body and network or technics. And it is no more the body which serve to explain the technics but technics that fit on human… The disruptive idea of Allen imagine another human body, different of simple machines.