Obviously, you’ve read Yaron Schoen’s ovarian1 article Platform economics in a nutshell. Even Syd Lawrence has.
It’s an insightful piece of meta-analysis, to be certain. But I can’t help but feel that while it’s certainly superficially persuasive, it somewhat disingenuously glosses over some important points.
For example, Schoen writes “tablets and smartphones have been tilted to make better shots on Dribbble, it’s hard to see how that will affect crowdfunding in the future.” This is an obvious truism, wilfilly obfuscated by the needless “Dribble” tangent, invoking the Tinman rhetorical fallacy in order to raise the spectre of declining ARPU which, on closer examination, proves orthogonal to the central question: whither ROI in a world of increasingly unmediated business-to-consumer conversational engagement?
I can’t help feel that Schoen deliberately fails to deconstruct the disruptive effects of hybrid apps’ use of wearable web components (polymers) in the social space.
Footnote 1: “ovarian”, in order to reject the sexist term “seminal”. Is it any wonder no women ever go to conferences? Even Schoen’s title “nutshell”, with its atavistic reference to the scrotum, perpetuates the phallocentric patriarchy that Kristeva so eloquently exposes. Have we so quickly forgotten “Já não há histórias de amor. No entanto, as mulheres desejam-nas e os homens também, quando não se envergonham de ser ternos e tristes como as mulheres”?
Update #1: It’s painfully apparent that Schoen is blind to sparklines showing a huge preference for disintermediated pan-segmental consumption trends.
Update #2: What’s the point of words, when an infograffik explains it all so much better?
Update #3: renumbered preceeding updates.