Fundamentally, P2P in principle isn't new. The Internet itself was originally built on P2P principles. Pre-Internet bulletin boards (BBS's) worked in some variant of the P2P model. But more to the point, the way the Internet is structured is very much like P2P, on a server-to-server basis. For example, you are able to connect to a website, whether a local one or one in another continent, because these sites are connected to other sites and servers, which in turn are connected to other servers that eventually reach your own ISP and its servers and onto your computer, in a true peer-to-peer fashion. Many other tools we take for granted actually operate in a P2P manner: e-mail; Usenet newsgroups; IRC; the telephone; IP routing (the basis of the Internet); and many more. The difference here however, is that peer-to-peer is defined by the communication and collaboration between servers before they are accessed by the "clients," or users. The difference in today's definition of the concept is twofold. One is that nowadays, the concept centers more on "clients", or on individuals, connecting to EACH OTHER DIRECTLY instead of to websites or via servers. The connection of such clients may be completely distributive, like Gnutella and Freenet, or aided by a centralized directory like Napster, but in essence after the participants find each other (looking for songs, files, etc.), file transfer and related functions and transactions happen directly between the clients themselves. Secondly, the technology being developed today takes the concept of P2P to a whole new level not done before. WITHER THE BUSINESS MODEL? One of the ironies of P2P when you couple it with business models is that many P2P models can thrive WITHOUT the need for a business model. In fact, by their very nature, some P2P implementations are not well-suited to have a business model, being less about business models and more about a consumer-led revolution. Gnutella and Freenet are prime examples, even though if you ask me, (like ads in the client-software) one can ALWAYS find a way to squeeze a business model into any such thing. But that is up to its proponents and developers, and as they stand, people can benefit and businesses themselves can thrive, even though the operators, propagators and originators of the service itself don't have a financial angle. Besides, what you can "earn" from such things is a relative definition, obviously exemplified with financial gains, but in other cases are represented through other bases of fulfillment, like having your name (personal or your company's) tied to the development of such a P2P service that the windfall of goodwill one can garner is either tantamount to all the cash one can get from it, or even eventually translate to indirect revenue and earnings later on down the line. MISSTEPS IN CORNERING THE CONCEPT P2P obviously holds huge promise. Which is why it hasn't skipped past the radar of big corporations. Here's an example of missteps that can happen on the road to P2P when companies don't put into consideration how this is a relatively touchy terrain. Like the concept of "lock-in," the benefits of the companies that wield the mindshare over a P2P phenomenon-- which almost by definition has viral marketing tendencies built-in-- can indeed be tremendous, enabling it to reach out not only to adjacent markets, but whole new possibilities of strength and marketing prowess in its own existing market. This potential to gain a lopsided distribution of power is obviously not lost on any aggressive corporation, who are always on the lookout for new ways to commandeer a potential standard. Case in point is Intel, who tried to appropriate such a potential for its own benefit. Several weeks back the company organized a meeting for its peer-to-peer-computing working group, ideally to not only juice up flagging microprocessor sales but also to become a major player in an industry that could potentially usher in a new era of computing, creating billion-dollar markets. Unfortunately, the company's intentions were made bare, around how the company wanted the P2P group to be organized, which naturally was bent to Intel's favor; its top-down approach had designs that enabled the company to wield an inordinate quantity of what amounted to the likes of dictatorial power. The participants scratched its collective noggin for approximately .02 seconds before going into an angry fit, quickly moving to correct the situation, making it clear that they were not there to take orders from their host, pelting Intel with complaints. Someone even commented that this bit of intransigence to the P2P development domain that is currently a sort of "meritocracy of geeks" is akin to someone farting inside a filled elevator. The ensuing uproar resulted in Intel promising to return with a new proposal. It also made the kind of news that shows how big business sometimes gets too naked in its economic interests. A news angle that wasn't lost on many journalists who attended, most of whom were only too happy to report on the company's vainglorious flatulence. Comes to show that while there isn't any way to stop a company from taking advantage of such a promising concept, care must still be taken to do this tastefully. by Nicholas Mercader Nicholas is the editor of the business model insider. If you would like to get his free ezine, subscribe by sending an email to [email protected]