ZevGordoni's avatar

ZevGordoni

79 Watchers13 Deviations
39K
Pageviews

Yoga? by Krakhan


sad boy by avivi


This was MyWeekThroughArt. How was yours?


Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In

What is dA?

4 min read
One of the questions on my mind lately is how do you classify deviantART? Well...let's start with some facts we can all agree on. dA has over 20 million registered members and over 60 million monthly unique users - amazing! The content on the site is artistic in nature: digital art, photography, painting, anime, writing of all kinds and many more genres. deviantART also has some of the most passionate members of any social network/community that I've ever seen. dA is International - people from all over the globe come here to be entertained, interact with one another, meet new people, draw on MURO, submit their work and to comment and critique others. But there's more: artists can get discovered, or even make money from selling their digital art online through "premium content", or physically through our prints program. With all of these things going on, is it fair to put dA into a category? Can't we just say that dA is dA and leave it at that?? Well, I suppose we could but human nature has an unmistakable need to want to fit things into neat categories and duly classify them. So let's do that!

But before we get started, let's start with the following definitions:

Social Network:

A social networking service is an online service, platform, or site that focuses on facilitating the building of social networks or social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life connections. A social network service consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services. Most social network services are web-based and provide means for users to interact over the Internet, such as e-mail and instant messaging. Online community services are sometimes considered as a social network service, though in a broader sense, social network service usually means an individual-centered service whereas online community services are group-centered. Social networking sites allow users to share ideas, activities, events, and interests within their individual networks.

Community:

An online community is a virtual community that exists online and whose members enable its existence through taking part in membership ritual. An online community can take the form of an information system where anyone can post content, such as a Bulletin board system or one where only a restricted number of people can initiate posts, such as Weblogs. Online communities have also become a supplemental form of communication between people who know each other primarily in real life. Many means are used in social software separately or in combination, including text-based chat rooms and forums that use voice, video text or avatars. Significant socio-technical change may have resulted from the proliferation of such Internet-based social networks.

Wow! This is hard...there are elements of both at play within dA...let's take stock:

Based on the above definition of a Social Network dA has the following components:

-Building of social relationships between those that share common interests, activities and backgrounds
-Individual representation by way of a personalized profile
-Email
-Instant Messaging
-Individual centered (and group centered)

Based on the above definition of Community dA has the following components:

-Membership based (although not obligatory)
-Anyone can post content
-Communication between people that know each other in real life (devmeets etc..)
-Chat rooms, Forums, Groups
-Use of avatars


Interesting...how do you decide? It seems as though dA has components of both an online social network and an online community. So which is it? Well, I would argue two things: a) deviantART is a vertical social network. This essentially means that dA is a social network that specifically caters to artists and art enthusiasts. b) dA is a very unique web property - one which encapsulates the marriage of a social network and online community better than anything else out there.

Do you agree? Please leave comments or vote on the poll I've created below!

Artwork by karudoll
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In


Are you interested in what's going on behind the scenes of the tech world? You know, the business end of it. Well, I am. I often wonder what folks in investment banks, acquiring companies and involved financiers are thinking when they buy a tech company. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for the outlandish sums paid - at least not a clear profit and loss or transparent explanation based on sound and prudent economic principals. 

There are so many examples that can be highlighted, but here are a couple:

Instagram:

In case you've been hibernating or hiding under a rock over the past few months you're probably aware that Instragram was sold for 1 billion dollars...yes, you read correctly...1 billion dollars! But why? They must have been bringing in at least one to two hundred million dollars of revenue per year (at least projected), right? Wrong. Instagram did not have a monetization engine. In fact, as far as I know they did not really even have a monetization strategy. But why would FB pay for a photo sharing site that doesn't make any money? If you're afraid to ask this question because you feel silly and surely the bankers involved must know something, don't. It really is that simple. Buying a company that does not make ANY money for an unreasonable price is not logical. Period.

Then why...

1. Facebook has a lot of money so they can do it.
2. As CEO, Zuck can make arbitrary decisions like: "which hoodie should I wear today and should I buy Instagram for 500 million or a billion"? hmmm..
3. Rumor has it that Google was courting Instagram and FB could not afford to give G+ a one up feature advantage.
4. FB has an underdeveloped mobile strategy and they were worried that Instagram would become a dominant mobile social network and eventually cannibalize their traffic
5. An extension of point 4: with a looming IPO and criticism of its mobile strategy, FB thought that making a robust investment in mobile would assuage wall street and convince investors it was a good buy.


Motorolla Mobility:

Google is famous (or maybe synonymous?) for using its deep pockets to buy pretty much whatever they like. What do they like? Well I think it depends what mood they're in as they seem to average roughly 15+ acquisitions per year. Here are some of the more famous ones: Doubleclick for $3.1 billion all cash), YouTube for $1.65 billion (all stock) and most recently Motorolla mobility for 12.5 billion...and as an FYI, as of June, Google had $39.1 billion dollars of cash reserves (in other words money in the bank). This means that the acquisition is worth 30% of their total savings. It would sort of be like one of us spending our nest egg to buy that condo, co-op, or house..

Then why...

1. Google has placed BIG bets on mobile as they see it being the future. Fact: in the developing world mobile is a first screen experience as they tend to lack the infrastructure to have broadband widely available at affordable rates.
2. Apple recently outbid Google to win $2.6 billion worth of valuable patents. It is believed that Motorolla mobility has its fare share of patents as well.
3. Android has been a success as in the aggregate; it has more marketshare than any other smartphone globally and this will only increase as Google floods the market with lower cost Android handsets that will catapult the growth of new users in India, China, Indonesia etc..to upgrade from their feature phones
4.. An extension of point 3: Apple, Apple, Apple! Google and Apple once close friends (in fact Eric Schmidt used to be on Apple's board of Directors), are now fierce competitors. Google started with a great idea: make Android software free to handset manufacturers to increase its market penetration. Guess what, it worked! So what's in it for Google? Well, the more people that user Android powered phones the more Google can brand itself through useful pre downloaded apps like Maps. But more importantly, more people search on Google and therefore click on more ads thereby making Google no. 1 in mobile advertising. Guess what? That worked too! Google earned $750 million in mobile ads in 2011 giving it 51% of the total market. But guess what? Apple made $100 billion dollars last year! And much of that was from selling iPhones. Moral of the story: there are super high profit margins in selling mobile phone hardware and Apple is owning that market. Maybe Google wants to shift strategy all of a sudden?

So reader, I ask you: was Instragram worth a billion? Was MM worth over 12 billion? You tell me. Comments welcome.

-DBO


Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Featured

MyWeekThroughArt by ZevGordoni, journal

What is dA? by ZevGordoni, journal

how valuable is technology? by ZevGordoni, journal