One of the classic, much-studied cases is that of John Humphrey Noyes and the Oneida Community, 1848-1881.
Ah... yes. The ol' Noyes/Oneida example from the shopworn canon of 19th-century personality cult case-studies. Is it even necessary to reference this classic, much-studied case by name? Is its relevance not simply assumed by all whenever the discussion turns to leadership and succession? Excuse me a moment [puff] [puff] while I take a drag [puff] [puff] off my calabash pipe and then savor the heady aroma of my own flatulence.
I don't believe that the author denies that there is a mutual benefit. He explicitly acknowledges this:
Search engines mainly build their business on other websites' content. The traditional analysis has been that search engines amply return the favor by directing traffic to these sites. While there's still some truth to that, the scenario is changing.
I understood his point to be that search engines, Google in particular, are now firmly entrenched between consumers and all but the largest suppliers. When one or two companies dominate an essential link in the supply chain, the possibility increases that the supplier(s) will extract (leech) fees which are disproportionate to their contribution. Sony BMG, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart have been accused of similar infractions. What irritates some is not that these companies don't provide valuable services -- they do -- but that they use a position of leverage to command fees that would (should) be greatly diminished by a more competitive market.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah... yes. The ol' Noyes/Oneida example from the shopworn canon of 19th-century personality cult case-studies. Is it even necessary to reference this classic, much-studied case by name? Is its relevance not simply assumed by all whenever the discussion turns to leadership and succession? Excuse me a moment [puff] [puff] while I take a drag [puff] [puff] off my calabash pipe and then savor the heady aroma of my own flatulence.
Search engines mainly build their business on other websites' content. The traditional analysis has been that search engines amply return the favor by directing traffic to these sites. While there's still some truth to that, the scenario is changing.
I understood his point to be that search engines, Google in particular, are now firmly entrenched between consumers and all but the largest suppliers. When one or two companies dominate an essential link in the supply chain, the possibility increases that the supplier(s) will extract (leech) fees which are disproportionate to their contribution. Sony BMG, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart have been accused of similar infractions. What irritates some is not that these companies don't provide valuable services -- they do -- but that they use a position of leverage to command fees that would (should) be greatly diminished by a more competitive market.