It's here, finally... iNet. It is the biggest, most disruptive idea in the world, whose time has come. It is for real, and is the future!
Here is a link to a presentation on iNet(click here)
It's also below in a mini format for instant reading:
Now, like it or hate it I want you all to send feedback, and also, more importantly, to circulate this! Yes, please do that....so that the maximum number of people can talk about this super disruptive idea....hey, the worst that they will do is send a flame right? But this thing has to be shared, like fire....yes it does. Do that!
email suggestions, rants, feedback at inetfounder@gmail.com
V
.jpg)
30 comments:
great idea!!!!!!! unlimited potential....
u have any venture capitalists backing you?
the most strange thing about iNet is that all it needs is a huge critical mass of PEOPLE, then everything else, money, resources, anything you can think of...is not a problem, the way forward is enough people in iNet, then everything else falls into place.
Vicki
vicki is a girl name
Funny the first comment asks about venture capitalists! Is this a open source project? Do I understand it right?
The first step is to set up a foundation that will protect the name and idea from commercial exploitation.
You need a clear mission statement and written plan so that every one can understand the concept. You have a start.
Is every thing going to based on Google or will it evolve onto it's own infrastructure?
I think Google is good but they are a commercial entity. They are obliged to make commercial decisions.
Go Vicki
Best Regards Dave
Uhh... free=$$$$????
Do the math.
You stole that idea.
It all sounds good, but the founder still wants to be the richest guy in the company. He wants to rule the iNet. Look out. If he can convince you, he will be more powerful than Gates, Murdoch, Jobs, blah blah.....
Wow! The internet is on computers now?
lrn2english kthxbai
Uhh, I don't think one person can just reinvent the internet, but even if you are just one person, you can at least add to the internet, which is what the creators of all those websites like Youtube and Facebook have done. We don't have to pay for them, so I don't see the point of trying to clomp them all together.
And where will all the money come from? People work for Google for salary, which provides motivation to work, which produces profit in the form of their applications backed by some sort of ad revenue. You can't function outside this structure because you're leaving it all in the hands of whoever happens to show up, and there's no guarantee they'll provide contributions or funds because they aren't bound by anything except "trust", something you can't assume in people you don't know.
While there are always "seeders", there are almost always more "leechers"
With due respect, this concept is nonsense.
Just using the buzzwords "virtual" and "open source" doesn't make an idea revolutionary, or even coherent.
The problem with "open source" is that it doesn't work very well as a commercial endeavor (which is pretty much what a "company" is). "Open source" relies upon crowd contribution based upon interest, or a feeling of duty. Self-interest rarely plays a part because the terms of the open source movement make it very difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to easily monetize your work. In fact, a good deal of the open source movement is very antagonistic towards any and all things commercial -- and what is a company if not "commercial?"
Second, "virtual." This is nothing new: virtual companies exist all over the place. My girlfriend works with a software design "company" that is one guy in the US who "employs" a bunch of programmers in Russia for about half what he'd have to pay American coders. He has no "office" or anything of the sort. It's a completely "virtual" company. As an idea it has its good points (low/zero real estate and facilities costs) and its bad points (from a community level, it discourages investing in local talent, which is often more expensive than offshoring). But regardless, it's hardly a novel idea.
Ultimately, I think that this is a "Ginger" type situation -- just like Kaminsky did (much more masterfully) with the Segway, you're attempting to play up the mystery of your product (if you could call it a product), fluffing it up with all kinds of exciting buzzwords. But at the core, there's simply nothing there.
With undue respect to Tom you argument is spurious. Apache servers, Ubuntu and Linux are open source as is Open Office and HTML code. There are a several models for people making money around all of these OS 'products'.
Open source has nothing to do with people getting paid to do work or not it is about the 'product' being transparent and re-usable by the users.
Why come in with your American enthusiasm for knocking everything down before you know anything about what is going on here.
Oh, so your girlfriend work for someone who employs Russian programmers. Do I detect some sour grapes here? Nothing to do with the fact they are good at what they do I suppose?
What is your problem? why not let someone explore in words some ideas of what might be if...? Maybe something will grow out of it if you let it...
thanks Dave, and Tom...... it's not your fault if this appears fluffy and simple. I've intentionally 'dumbed' down the presentation... with simple buzzwords, simple situations, no fancy long jargon at all, and using a language that an average Joe can understand, to let him know a bit of the concept. The presentation was a 40 slide one, but you could have fallen asleep by the 10th slide had i not done so. You did read it, didn't you? Who reads a 40 slide presentation these days? But MANY are reading this one, just because it's worded carefully and is made simple. That way more people comment about it. The underlying idea, though simple, needs polishing, I agree....!
cheers!
V
So when/how do you plan on starting this thing up?
Moron!Bigger than google when you are using gmail?wtf! Inet its already there its called Internet boy.
Yes, it's paradoxical to use google/gmail and try to be bigger than it, i know.
The idea is to build upon Web 2.0, using it as a platform. Like for example, when netscape browser came, it was on a platform of windows 95 too....yet it posed a threat to windows at that time.....!
I'll give another small example of what i mean by iNet: lets say we all join iNet and first decide to build a mobile phone where calls are free, across the world, as it would work on an internet connection. (this is a supposed product idea), how can iNet help? lets say we have Chinese mobile instrument makers with us on iNet, they configure and provide us the hardware. We have some tech people to provide software expertise, we have mobile software like google android, we have web gurus who tweak the software and networks for the phone to work, we have some distributors joined in iNet to make that phone available as a test run in a few countries......get the drift?
Yes, I get your drift I think. But as someone pointed out; who is the Mr Big here? You have to look at the self interest of everyone involved and your own. Very few people are completely altruistic.
So is it a free 'connections' service? or is it a rent-a-coder type service? When I look at your example I see lots of difeent people wanting different outcomes.
You have to be able to answer the 'What's in it for me? question.
IMHO
One thing that unsettles is the name itself. Anyone remember Skynet?
Maybe a new name should be first for discussion...
So let me guess... you got rejected for a job at Google. Get over it.
ok so there is collaboration. using other companies' (google's really) products, in an attempt to subvert all the other, real, corporations that currently exist, thinking that some magical outcome is going to happen?
You don't have venture capital because you don't have a product or a business, and you don't have a product or a business because there is no plan.
Sounds like you smoked a lot of weed and thought 'holy shit just think if all those people in the world that use all these other sites, started using mine!'.
and then you wrote it down, and when you saw it the next day, you thought .. hmm that's a neat idea, and i remember feeling very euphoric at the time, so i know it's an amazing idea. And then you made a slideshow with google docs. and then you trolled the internet dropping links and flighty speech about the evolution of the internet.
all you've done is SETI@Home, but you're replacing computers with real people. problem is, people won't care after a while, and your idea will sputter and die. There are no incentives for anyone to use it. there are no products that require it. there are no current businesses that can benefit from it.
EPIC FAIL
really nice take Joe....! Great insight.
lol.
more smug than George Clooney
you're right! Your shit really _does_ smell of roses.
This honestly doesn't make much sense. I agree that it is all buzzwords and all fluff with very little substance. It reminds me of a lot of vapor ware sales pitches.
Web 2.0 isn't anything different than Web 1.0. It's a buzzword. All it implies is that user generated content is much easier to produce and view.
Web 3.0 (iNet) is supposed to make collaboration easier with tools that someone else created to make collaboration easier? Again, it doesn't make much sense.
I get what you are trying to do, but it has already been done to an extent. You are looking for a "one website to rule them all" approach. I believe they are now referred to as Portals.
This is not a new concept, just a remix of the same old ideas with a flashy new interface. If you are going to pitch this idea, then pitch it with real concepts, methods of execution, a mission, and real terminology.
You say that that type of pitch might be boring. Well this type of pitch is a waste of time unless you know nothing of the web. And if that is your target audience, then your idea won't get off the ground.
Absolutely fantastic idea.
I would happily pay for an open source version of anything google. Especially my gmail.
@Tom, please read a book called "Wikinomics", it may help you get an idea how this is very valid.
communism is doomed to fail.
... what exactly are you proposing? From the other comments, they seem to think you want a single web-site/online-app to handle everyone's business. Is that it? You make no sense - sure, you can get loads of people using online free apps, but what do they do with it? What do they sell/create/provide? You're talking about nothingness. Where do these people get income from? WHAT IS THE BUSINESS???
The article provokes rants but I'll remain within the realm of logic. First and foremost the premise on which the article is based is flawed. Creativity is one of the products of existence, not the necessity for existence. Hence a system based upon creativity alone will never lift off.
Since the person behind the " concept" is aware of google it makes things easier to explain. Google exists today because of its dominance in online advertising space which is a result of its "proprietary" search algorithm. This alone makes it possible to sustain all the beta products. For any company in dominant position in Tech, the core concept has always solved some vexing issue. This is why they exist.
Google helps solve problem of finding content online , Microsoft makes software that makes computers easy to use. The point is - You have no concept of what you are solving. Think it over and I hope you will see the light.
If you do realize that you have identified a genuine problem and have found a solution .... you will incorporate a company around it.
As far as non-commercialness of open source is concerned it is better to check facts. Mozilla's main revenue source is Google. Most open source applications that are long standing have funding from industry - not so much for the code but for the talented developers
"If you do realize that you have identified a genuine problem and have found a solution .... you will incorporate a company around it."
Beautifully put.
The concept as put forth by V appears to be the classic "Solution looking for a problem".
This can work, but it's rare that it will.
Whether or not you create a business or company to solve a concrete and identifiable problem depends primarily on your position, however.
There are many, many FOSS (free open source software) projects out there which have been designed to solve problems - and they do them very well indeed.
"As far as non-commercialness of open source is concerned it is better to check facts. Mozilla's main revenue source is Google. Most open source applications that are long standing have funding from industry - not so much for the code but for the talented developers"
This is more complicated.
Certainly FOSS doesn't imply or require there to be no economic benefit or turnover for the project in question; open source code is like a public good, and may therefore be useful to many corporations. On the one hand, they lose the ability to have exclusive access to code, but on the other, open source code has many (debatable) benefits over closed source, and is probably cheaper than simply outsourcing to another developer.
Back on topic, I think you'll find that organised movement (such as that described loosely by V) is more created through the necessity, rather than the motivator for the solution.
For example, should google act irresponsibly with the "property" they currently provide, if that property is significant enough to enough people, a group of open source developers, designers and testers will form. Organisational structure similar to that of the "iNet" concept will spring up around that particular project, simply because it is necessary to succeed.
Google treads carefully - they are often very particular in the way they'll act or "speak", in order to avoid upsetting the reactionary and aggressive open source community, and so far that has almost acted as a regulatory control over them. In order to encourage the adoption of their new browser for example, they've made the underlying code open source - providing an almost immediate functionally identical alternative, should they offend the FOSS activists, which in turn requires that they do not.
It's a truly strange industry at the moment and, truth be told, I suspect the ideas presented in V's "iNet" presentation are not actually needed at this point.
Never fear though - in one form or another, the concept is already in use, and it can scale up if need be. He doesn't need to move this along - it happens naturally.
what is missing from this 'amazing' idea is a lack organization. just having a ton of people doing something doesnt give you a stable product or outcome. With no direction or standards set for the people doing the work. Creating an a usable network like this would require large amounts coordination between all of the world wide hackers that are going to rebuild the internet for you. And if anything is certain about the internet, its that the people on the internet do not like being told how or what to do.
Ok sorry about the double post, but now that I've gone through and ready all of Vicki's comments, I've come to realize something. Vicki knows none of the real facts behind how the internet developed what it is now. Or the history behind the companies he mentioned. or even how the networks the networks that we now have actually work. Never trust anyone to lead you to the future if they don't understand the past.
Its a genuis stoner idea though.
Post a Comment