Thanks for your insight Kari, as always adding a lot of value. I don't believe the Apple has won this battle either, for the following reasons:

a. Apple, as much as other companies, appears to be moving away from Hardware; it's big sellers today are the tiniest computers imaginable, and I think Apple has seen itself as an iPod-selling company (iPod being a vehicle for tons of other services) for the last decade, perhaps longer in S. Jobs' eyes.

b. I mentioned in my post that I believe hardware costs will eventually fall in the "tiny computing" space, to the point that the competition will catch up; all it takes is for some competition to stay in the game; the economics clearly didn't make sense for HP.

c. for now, table computing, which everyone claims as their basis for saying that Apple's won (even though I aware they reign in other computer sales also), is not actually a market in my view. Sure, eventually we will evolve our work-habits to no longer needing a mouse and keyboard, but as it stands, iPad is either an expensive toy, or applicable to niche markets like Nurses and boardroom CEOs. The real area of focus to me is a & b, and there should be competition in that space, if not now, eventually.

It was my primary thought :) But whatever gets entrepreneurs to talk about their development processes, and certainly a lot was shared at this conference, adds value. Whether there's a systematic approach, I don't know.

And truth be told, I don't care about commoditization. We are a planet of 6+billion people after all. I care about not having the resources to be authentic.

Thanks Kari, I knew you'd have an insight into this area. What are your thoughts, if any, on a parallel between independent software publishing, which seems to have received a boom these last few years, and independent music business?

Just to comment (as I hope comments add value), the definition of principle is: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption (src: Webster). The definition of value is: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged (src: Webster).

Both play an important part in so-called 'silo' vs. 'networked' organisations. I don't think that you can assume that there are differences at such a fundamental level.

A networked organisation, the way I understand from your posts, is an evolutionary mode of operating a company. Ok, it makes sense in our networked state of being today. It enables a more decentralised method of existence and communication. But it does not change, in any way, the fundamental principle of profit vs. loss. The value may be adapted to something that accepts a more decentralised modus operandi (e.g. we benefit from connections with our customers or from connections with our partners), but the principle is a principle. So your title and premise is, in my opinion, wrong.

I think that your posts should be more about the technological solutions than the philosophy, or the philosophy has be made very specifically about the connectivity that is enabled and what new thinking it brings forth.

Hi Kari, a longer reply from my computer this time.

Regarding the transformation of new media into old media, several factors: 1. the recession & decline in old media advertising, which lead to more new-media advertising. That automatically leads to the same business-model. 2. old media's business-model is a well-established and there is actually very little wrong with it. However, new media has the advantage of lower distribution cost, though with a higher risk of a. ad-blocking and b. copy-paste-newspapers, to name just a few risks that should also include lower barriers to entry.

Regarding premium, Daring Fireball comes to mind. He and other bloggers are largely reliant on two revenue streams: sponsorships and The Deck, which is an ad-network. So I don't agree that premium news is not possible. However, having heard an interview with the much more holistically themed blogger, Jason Kottke (Kottke.org), I believe that John Gruber's Daring Fireball is much better positioned to receive ad-revenues, because he has a very niche focus on a niche with a lot of money playing in it.

The problem with Ars is I think to do with that their running costs are high (they have an excellent staff) and they cannot afford to take the kind of risks that indy-bloggers can. The latter is better positioned for a premium model online, than a newspaper-type site.
My recent post Is “Great artists steal” still a good mantra for Blogging?