这是个很有意思的应用，基本上相当于 Twitter 的图片+位置版。对于一个没有买智能手机而又喜欢拍照片的人来说，Instagram 可能成为让它们掏钱买 iPhone 的杀手级应用。不过，人们是不是真的那么热衷于制造内容？我不算对社会化网络特别热衷的人，但也注册了 Tumblr，Posterous，Flickr，Twitter，Facebook……等一堆网站。不难看出，在记录和分享的功能方面，它们都有不小的交集。结果，除了 Twitter 以外，我都不太关心其他几个网站的更新了。其实普通人并没有那么多事情可记录。所以，我疑心这类网站如果在规模上没有达到一个临界点，并且提供方便的与其他网站的互操作功能，未来一两年内可能会死掉一批。
不过，Instagram 傍上了 iPhone 这么好的平台，而且互操作性也不错，所以也没那么容易挂掉，也可能搭配增强现实技术和图片出售平台实现盈利。对于用户来说，它提供了又一种随时随地记录的方式，比 Evernote 更社会化，比 Twitter 更多元，比 Facebook 更方便，所以在未来应该还会吸引更多的人举起 iPhone 拍照吧。
2010年11月15日星期一
2008年4月18日星期五
An evolution paradox
Fittest Males Don't Always Get the Girl
Here's an article from ScienceDaily discussing about a (seems simple) question: if males who are more aggressive and can win more fights and have more offspring, why human and many animals are not selected extremely aggressive nowadays?
The answer given in the article is that aggressiveness is not always the best strategy under all circumstances. Or rather, there is no "best" strategy. Yet the author noted that the female may not always choose the strongest male. Is the need for diversity "hard-wired"? Or is the female choice simply based on the availability and scarcity of males? In other words, does the diversity of environment drives species to diversify their possible strategies, or females mate with not-so-competent males just because they have no chance to get better ones?
Another explanation that I can offer to the lack of extremely aggressive behaviour in today's gene pool is that more aggressive individuals tend to have more fights and higher mortality in their most productive age. This of course is compatible with the two hypotheses above. This is an interesting question anyway.
Here's an article from ScienceDaily discussing about a (seems simple) question: if males who are more aggressive and can win more fights and have more offspring, why human and many animals are not selected extremely aggressive nowadays?
The answer given in the article is that aggressiveness is not always the best strategy under all circumstances. Or rather, there is no "best" strategy. Yet the author noted that the female may not always choose the strongest male. Is the need for diversity "hard-wired"? Or is the female choice simply based on the availability and scarcity of males? In other words, does the diversity of environment drives species to diversify their possible strategies, or females mate with not-so-competent males just because they have no chance to get better ones?
Another explanation that I can offer to the lack of extremely aggressive behaviour in today's gene pool is that more aggressive individuals tend to have more fights and higher mortality in their most productive age. This of course is compatible with the two hypotheses above. This is an interesting question anyway.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)