View Full Version : ONLY YOUR MONEY: OYM Business loyalty defined

06-16-2013, 08:46 PM
This would be an attempt to define a business structure that was loyal to the interests of its actual customers and an understanding that stakeholders at the base of the pyramid should come way before the others or in the case of media systems have exclusive attention.


1. Use the ad free Netflix subscription model to supply sponsor free search, content and services
(Unlimited access to everything for one generic price.)

2. Make sure you only take money from your end customers. They don't want their money diverted or
diluted- serve only one master. End customers as the public are similarly situated and have a similar
huge problem. This is the Only-Your-Money problem and principle. Under sponsorship it's like having to rely
on an interpreter for life but always having that interpreter act out of an opposing self-interest.
Money is coercive speech and customers don't want their own coercive speech coerced, they want
to be heard. As citizens they need systems that provide them with a voice, its existential.

3. Preserve privacy in absolute terms, never canalize attention or engage in product placement etc.
on the service because that is serving more than one master and violates the principle of the end
user (as the only master) having total control over the end user interface. Global usage trending
indicators are fine (if a given end user wants them) but otherwise only straight honest search lists or
results. Never premium anything, never product differentiation these are attempts to split the
interest served- never. No modal elements anywhere.

4. Crucial and at the heart of the whole thing is sponsor & ad free search (provide it). Whether it's
Amazon or the net itself or search in general, all are the same process: connecting people with what
they want. This means search should be an honest straight forward process probably in large part
based on the answers other users have already found to similar search terms.

5. The best vehicle for this solution is possibly and strangely a non-profit. It's probably not necessary to
scream it's a non-profit especially because it will provide revenue for for-profit firms but right down
to not having board members on other for-profit boards the firm should be hyper-focused on the
only-one master solution. Crowd funding and private bonds issued by people who support the
charter but attach no strings can be sources of funding. Government grants as well but no strings!

a. The service cannot be free because again this is shifting masters. The service can be almost free-
even at $10 a month if such a firm had as many customers as MS it would have much more revenue
than Microsoft. Again, grants at start up might (as long as they perfectly align with existing intents)
and can be quickly paid off- but regularly taking money from a municipality isn't because
municipalities will try to exert influence on behalf of their powerful private interests- multiple
masters problem again.

b. The proverbial apple will come along when people realize that this solves all sorts of problems and gets buyers and sellers on the same side and makes for higher quality, lower price, more profitable products in every market it touches. That it improves customer loyalty and buyer seller relations in so many ways. People will be stunned to see that the service actually pays firms when customers look at their high quality product information (on the per second basis) and how it puts bigger and smaller firms on a more level playing field. But all this must not allow the service to be tempted into letting outside firms pay or make the service free. This again is the multiple masters problem and will turn everything into an infomercial in no time.

6. Consistent with the "only your money," principle (money is coercive speech) is the idea that the default for end user is total privacy. That only the end user will ever reach out and hand out their private information to an entity on the net- its manual. This is never sold. Everything is firewalled and black boxed to the max. It's fine to make aggregated customer data (data that cannot be disaggregated) available to everyone including firms as a further incentive to them to fully list their products and services but even here its opt-in for the end users. This doesn't mean that end users can't benefit from an improved ad free, sponsor free shopping experience based on internal analytics (if the customer opts in) or that the customer might even opt for the radical step of stating personal preferences to improve those analytics to the point of enabling radical stuff like automatic shopping for staple and novelty items, but never make the service free or discount it with this stuff because its the sponsor problem all over again.

7. Such a service could make room for real time wikipaedia type services or real news instead of
propaganda because it frees people from the grip of sponsorship.

8. Do an honest EULA. A contract binds both parties.

9. Do not engage in negotiations for content and services, do not do licensing or deal with agency
nonsense. Automate all of this stuff and provide free tools and services for creative work on the
system out of the subscription. When end users repeatedly return to a piece of content and agree
that it should be paid it is paid. Also, insist on permanently listing, where content is to be withdrawn
only for defect or privacy problems etc. No silly premium or temporary listing games for access to
listed content. One level playing field and one price generic paid out per instant of attention as
something is looked at less the overhead for serving that content. The pay out per instant on a game
may be less than on print but the draw or volume may be higher. Never engage in exclusivity,
nothing will be exclusive the service or lock anyone in because that is censorship not in the public's

10. A new simple customizable browser with tor like features. Use open standards like
HTML 5. The system will be set up to strip ads and all sponsorship and protect privacy. Take my
money, well that just my money, but take my time...

11. Support indie to the max. Having no middle men fits the OYM concept perfectly as does "only
enough to prime the pump" What doesn't serve is the "all the market will bear" motto
of middle men publishers. Still, people who actually do the work deserve all the OYM principle will
allow. And while indie people may be subscribers themselves they can never give more
than the OYM subscription flat rate preserving the principle.

12, Don't let OYM be redefined or diluted always seek to pursue it in ever more effective ways.
Unlike useless and unnecessary Wall Street style shareholders subscribing customers are a gift that
keeps giving and they are deserving of undivided loyalty.

13. Don't use advertising, it may be tempting to fight fire with fire but the metaphysic of advertising is that its not in line with OYM. Word of mouth and the power of the concept should be enough.

14. Such a business would be able to lose revenue without radical consequences. It wouldn't be taking any investment revenue, because again that would be taking money from a source other than end customers diluting their voice. A loss of money might come from a loss of subscribers. Which might adjust the pay out rate on content and services. But the crucial thing is that such a business can do things in the interest of end users that involve a reductions in revenue without all the blame. For contrast a company like Microsoft can't and its offerings become ever diluted as its revenue lust competes with its product quality and this holds even takes over a market and it hollows out products until they have no quality. It holds in present capitalist nations where the inflation bias (meant to spread opportunity or credit) creates a psychology where reduction in GDP isn't really an option. So for instance once a government allows fraud and no value added practices to puff up GDP (to for instances look competitive on a GDP basis) it can't just wipe out it out over night without pandemonium over negative numbers. It couldn't for instance convert a usurious US health care industry with its massive conflicts of interest to single payer without a huge hold in its GDP. Back to a firm like Microsoft. To be competitive now against leaner competitors it needs to shrink revenue but it can't. The type of business being suggested has no such limitation. Making it more likely to make better decisions and be a more stable longer lasting business.

15. Spread the platform, make thousands of competitors. Don't patent in a way that works against OYM for the global group of end users. Embrace indie everything as these firms and their content are the seeds that will allow us the finally flush the publishing and advertising industries down the toilet.

The No(s)!

No taking money from people other than end customers (during start up private bonds* and crowd sourcing ok)
No investment outside the firm (because no taking money from other sources)
No taking government money
No share holders, no listing the company on any kind of exchange.
No board members who sit on for-profit boards
No advertising
No product placement
No attempting to canalize attention, no channels
No sponsorship
No sponsored search
No selling people's information
No opt out, only opt in for everything
No making content free (that means money from source other than end users)
No ad or sponsor driven search, drive it off trending etc.
No premium anything
No packages- its all one price for everything all the time
No negotiating the generic pay out rate, content listing/hosting isautomated and pricing applied by formula
No accepting temporary content its permanent.
No shutting end user accounts without trying to contact people first and giving some time lee way.
No spying on end users, athough opt-in basis internal analytics and awareness of customer prference allowable
No providing charging for restricting access to analytics by the outside world- but none of it can be disaggregated
No adjusting the charter core principles.
No accepting officers or board members who don't have a track record of dedication to charter principles.
No deviation from the principle of only listening to the end users money and money influence only flowing in one direction
No discrimination against indie developers or any content of any merit
No region lock
No screwing with the end user interface- end user retains total control
No modal anything, absolute minimum coercion in all all interfacing.
No keeping your job as a company officer for breaking the no(s) all of which are in the charter
No opt in on ads and sponsorship, system won't support fraud and corruption
No free service or content, its all paid no matter what, can't reverse direction of revenue influence.

*Private bond holders are not trying to exert influence of favors only taking money from those who believe in the charter.

The Yes(s) or the actual customer experience.

Every where all the time access on anything to what may start out more indie but will eventually be a complete universe content& services
Ad/sponsor free experience, ad free trending, add free search, secure (tor like) add free browser.
Total privacy always
Opt in default on everything
Total end user control over user interfaces, no canalizing attention
Easy family accounts without a linear scaling of price
Flat rate generic price protection- no games no gimmicks- written into charter
Price protection in the sense of no BS will ever be part of it, its formula driven and will factor wages against inflation etc.
Toughness and longevity of service, there is no Wall Street idiocy or short term share holder think in the mix
Total end customer focus- its the only place the firm gets money from post start up and start up excludes outside influence
Charter protection- written to exclude tampering and summarily remove any manager or board member who tries
Total clarity of purpose (its a distribution service- serves experiences and services for a flat generic fee)
No games like region lock, doesn't serve end user interests
Safe predictable level playing field for developers, in the interest of serving end users
Possibility of individual end users opting into and leveraging internal analytics and expressions of preference- auto shop etc.
Use of such a service can improve quality, selection, access as it rids the content/service industries of malicious actors like the RIAA
A way of magnifying the voices and power of end users and preserving the internet and improving broken political representation.
Stability of convenience of the system.
The possibility that OnLive demonstrated of a faster virtual browsing experience.
The natural speed smoothness and quality that comes from a cloud experience.
The piece of mind of knowing they are using a system that won't abuse hardware ownership shifting to the server side.

Stability of knowing that the firm isn't playing with BS investments i.e., not going to play stupid Wall Street style manager compensation
games and even retirement benefits for managers would be limited to T bills or state & municipal bonds per th
e charter etc., because of the rule of never taking money/risk/influence from sources other than end users- so there would be no
betting or risk allowed. Here manager here are some nice municipal bonds for your retirement or even better- nothing already getting
mid level manager salary, invest yourself. Nothing special for board members either.

06-16-2013, 08:55 PM
#Moved your thread because it does not seem to have anything to do with OnLive in itself.

06-16-2013, 09:09 PM
#Moved your thread because it does not seem to have anything to do with OnLive in itself.

Or indeed, anything even remotely close to OUYA.

Have reread several times. Still have no clue what he's talking about. :confused:

06-16-2013, 09:18 PM
Still have no clue what he's talking about. :confused:

Me neither, hee-hee :stupid:

06-16-2013, 10:31 PM
Its so simple its hard to see but OUYA got ganked by it at E3. E3 apparently barred OUYA and then blocked them with a truck so they couldn't be seen from an adjacent parking lot. That's called sponsorship. That's the way it works. Its censorship in practice. Comes out of the difficulty of focusing on two things at once or having two or more masters. Its just like MS with XB1 getting away with censoring indie developers because they might cost sponsor/publishers money. Bigger companies were able to pay to collude to keep smaller companies out. We used to have rules against that but the same process filters politicians before they can even run for office.

The solution for developers is to work with distribution companies that align themselves with the end user's best interests especially in terms access, quality and diversity. Those companies don't really exist yet. OnLive came close, and there are some firms like Netflix (obviously works and unleashed a wave of documentaries that sponsored media wouldn't support) and even offerings like Zune Music which was sponsor free. Still there is no consolidated offering yet and the crucial sponsor free search is missing but such a company would naturally be indie friendly.

The problem with OUYA as presently formulated is its a sponsor box (I was wrong, platform wont' support ads but doesnt ban individual developers from using them but expects they wont- happily it appears I was wrong but we will see.) Publishing (as a form of sponsorship in practice) makes its money from restricting access. And the sponsors have a kind of capital union that looks after all their interests, especially those of the ad agency gate keepers. Those gate keeper stir up paranoia get buyers and sellers at odds with each other (DRM paranoia) scare up excess ad dollars from businesses. Indie content would compete with ads and infomercial fake content anyway.

What is the purpose of OUYA? Is it to serve ads or help developers. Both cannot be done at the same time. The only way you help developers is by looking after the real interests of end users. Indie developers and end users, because of broken systems and approaches are both at the bottom of the pyramid. This is so backwards because all the money comes from end user and most creativity is outside the big corporate world.

06-16-2013, 10:31 PM
Duplicate, but my prior post had a pretty egregious error.

Ouya founder said no ads on the platform but cant stop them in the games. So my calling Ouya a sponsor box was at the very least
based on outdated information, but we will see. Apologies.