Blue Flower

Suite aux récents départs de nombreux streamers de la plateforme Twitch, celle-ci a décidé de conclure des "contrats d'exclusivité" avec ses plus gros représentants.


Image associée


2019 aura été une année particulièrement difficile pour la plateforme de streaming d'Amazon. Si Twitch ne semblait pas avoir de réel concurrent avant cette année, le départ de plusieurs streamers phares a finalement fait émerger la question : et si Twitch n'était pas invincible ?


En effet, Ninja, shroud, Disguised Toast, CouRage, King Gothalion et Ewok sont partis vers de nouveaux horizons. Certains s'en sont allés vers Mixer, d'autre vers YouTube ou encore Facebook... mais le constat est le même : la concurrence s'est réveillée et est prête à mettre la main au portefeuille pour acquérir des stars du streaming.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "facebook gaming mixer"

Évidement, Twitch n'a aucunement l'intention d'abandonner sa place de leader du marché. Si la plateforme d'Amazon est encore de loin la référence du streaming en occident, la communauté était néanmoins dans l'attente d'une réaction du géant face à la stratégie agressive de ses concurrents.

C'est dorénavant chose faite puis Twitch s'est assuré de conserver certains de ses talents les plus populaires pendant quelques années supplémentaires. En effet, la plateforme aurait signé un nouveau contrat sur plusieurs années avec DrLupo, LIRIK et TimTheTatman.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "drLupo"

Ces streamers figurent parmi les plus suivis sur Twitch, cumulant à eux trois plus de 10 millions de followers. Après le départ de grands noms comme Ninja, shroud et Disguised Toast, tous les regards s'étaient évidement tournés vers les autres diffuseurs les plus influents... dont ces 3 streamers.

Le 1er août 2019, "Ninja", le streamer aux 15 millions d'abonnés sur Twitch, annonçait son départ de la plateforme pour une somme encore inconnue. La nouvelle plateforme de streaming de Microsoft "Mixer" s'est, en effet, emparée de la star américaine et c'est elle qui diffusera en intégralité les prochains stream de la "star" américaine. Mais Microsoft ne s'est pas arrêté là : en effet, plusieurs autres gros streamer ont décidé de rejoindre Mixer au détriment de Twitch.


Résultat de recherche d'images pour "mixer twitch"

Microsoft a décidé de ne plus lâcher Twitch. Depuis la mi-2019, la multinationale a réussi à convaincre plusieurs streamers influents de rejoindre Mixer, sa plateforme concurrente de diffusion de jeux vidéo en direct.




Ninja :

Il a été le premier, et donc le plus marquant, à accepter de quitter Twitch pour partir chez Mixer, pour un montant inconnu. Il y a, en trois mois, gagné plus de 2 millions d’abonnés.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "ninja mixer"


Shroud :

Le 24 octobre 2019, c'était au tour du très célèbre "Shroud" de rejoindre la plateforme de Microsoft. Reconnu pour sa précision inégalable sur les FPS (First Person Shooter), le streamer aux 7 millions d'abonnés était une des figures de proue de Twitch.


Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Shroud Mixer"


Gothalion :

Peu de temps après l'annonce de Shroud, le 27 octobre, c'était au tour de Gothalion, alias Cory Michael, d'annoncer ce partenariat à sa communauté : il a cessé de streamer sur Twitch le même jour, et a déjà gagné 30 000 abonnés sur Mixer en moins de 24 heures. Il a beau être moins connu que les deux autres streamer, son départ chez un concurrent montre combien Mixer devient une alternative attractive pour les professionnels.


Résultat de recherche d'images pour "gothalion mixer"


First principles thinking, which is sometimes called reasoning from first principles, is one of the most effective strategies you can employ for breaking down complicated problems and generating original solutions. It also might be the single best approach to learn how to think for yourself.

The first principles approach has been used by many great thinkers including inventor Johannes Gutenberg, military strategist John Boyd, and the ancient philosopher Aristotle, but no one embodies the philosophy of first principles thinking more effectively than entrepreneur Elon Musk.

In 2002, Musk began his quest to send the first rocket to Mars—an idea that would eventually become the aerospace company SpaceX.

He ran into a major challenge right off the bat. After visiting a number of aerospace manufacturers around the world, Musk discovered the cost of purchasing a rocket was astronomical—up to $65 million. Given the high price, he began to rethink the problem.

“I tend to approach things from a physics framework,” Musk said in an interview. “Physics teaches you to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. So I said, okay, let’s look at the first principles. What is a rocket made of? Aerospace-grade aluminum alloys, plus some titanium, copper, and carbon fiber. Then I asked, what is the value of those materials on the commodity market? It turned out that the materials cost of a rocket was around two percent of the typical price.”

Instead of buying a finished rocket for tens of millions, Musk decided to create his own company, purchase the raw materials for cheap, and build the rockets himself. SpaceX was born.

Within a few years, SpaceX had cut the price of launching a rocket by nearly 10x while still making a profit. Musk used first principles thinking to break the situation down to the fundamentals, bypass the high prices of the aerospace industry, and create a more effective solution.

First principles thinking is the act of boiling a process down to the fundamental parts that you know are true and building up from there. Let's discuss how you can utilize first principles thinking in your life and work.

Defining First Principles Thinking

A first principle is a basic assumption that cannot be deduced any further. Over two thousand years ago, Aristotle defined a first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

First principles thinking is a fancy way of saying “think like a scientist.” Scientists don’t assume anything. They start with questions like, What are we absolutely sure is true? What has been proven?

In theory, first principles thinking requires you to dig deeper and deeper until you are left with only the foundational truths of a situation. Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and scientist, embraced this approach with a method now called Cartesian Doubt in which he would “systematically doubt everything he could possibly doubt until he was left with what he saw as purely indubitable truths.”

In practice, you don't have to simplify every problem down to the atomic level to get the benefits of first principles thinking. You just need to go one or two levels deeper than most people. Different solutions present themselves at different layers of abstraction. John Boyd, the famous fighter pilot and military strategist, created the following thought experiment which showcases how to use first principles thinking in a practical way.

Imagine you have three things:

  • A motorboat with a skier behind it
  • A military tank
  • A bicycle

Now, let's break these items down into their constituent parts:

  • Motorboat: motor, the hull of a boat, and a pair of skis.
  • Tank: metal treads, steel armor plates, and a gun.
  • Bicycle: handlebars, wheels, gears, and a seat.

What can you create from these individual parts? One option is to make a snowmobile by combining the handlebars and seat from the bike, the metal treads from the tank, and the motor and skis from the boat.

This is the process of first principles thinking in a nutshell. It is a cycle of breaking a situation down into the core pieces and then putting them all back together in a more effective way. Deconstruct then reconstruct.


How First Principles Drive Innovation

The snowmobile example also highlights another hallmark of first principles thinking, which is the combination of ideas from seemingly unrelated fields. A tank and a bicycle appear to have nothing in common, but pieces of a tank and a bicycle can be combined to develop innovations like a snowmobile.

Many of the most groundbreaking ideas in history have been a result of boiling things down to the first principles and then substituting a more effective solution for one of the key parts.

For instance, Johannes Gutenberg combined the technology of a screw press—a device used for making wine—with movable type, paper, and ink to create the printing press. Movable type had been used for centuries, but Gutenberg was the first person to consider the constituent parts of the process and adapt technology from an entirely different field to make printing far more efficient. The result was a world-changing innovation and the widespread distribution of information for the first time in history.

The best solution is not where everyone is already looking.

First principles thinking helps you to cobble together information from different disciplines to create new ideas and innovations. You start by getting to the facts. Once you have a foundation of facts, you can make a plan to improve each little piece. This process naturally leads to exploring widely for better substitutes.

The Challenge of Reasoning From First Principles

First principles thinking can be easy to describe, but quite difficult to practice. One of the primary obstacles to first principles thinking is our tendency to optimize form rather than function. The story of the suitcase provides a perfect example.

In ancient Rome, soldiers used leather messenger bags and satchels to carry food while riding across the countryside. At the same time, the Romans had many vehicles with wheels like chariots, carriages, and wagons. And yet, for thousands of years, nobody thought to combine the bag and the wheel. The first rolling suitcase wasn’t invented until 1970 when Bernard Sadow was hauling his luggage through an airport and saw a worker rolling a heavy machine on a wheeled skid.

Throughout the 1800s and 1900s, leather bags were specialized for particular uses—backpacks for school, rucksacks for hiking, suitcases for travel. Zippers were added to bags in 1938. Nylon backpacks were first sold in 1967. Despite these improvements, the form of the bag remained largely the same. Innovators spent all of their time making slight iterations on the same theme.

What looks like innovation is often an iteration of previous forms rather than an improvement of the core function. While everyone else was focused on how to build a better bag (form), Sadow considered how to store and move things more efficiently (function).


How to Think for Yourself

The human tendency for imitation is a common roadblock to first principles thinking. When most people envision the future, they project the current form forward rather than projecting the function forward and abandoning the form.

For instance, when criticizing technological progress some people ask, “Where are the flying cars?”

Here's the thing: We have flying cars. They're called airplanes. People who ask this question are so focused on form (a flying object that looks like a car) that they overlook the function (transportation by flight). This is what Elon Musk is referring to when he says that people often “live life by analogy.”

Be wary of the ideas you inherit. Old conventions and previous forms are often accepted without question and, once accepted, they set a boundary around creativity.

This difference is one of the key distinctions between continuous improvement and first principles thinking. Continuous improvement tends to occur within the boundary set by the original vision. By comparison, first principles thinking requires you to abandon your allegiance to previous forms and put the function front and center. What are you trying to accomplish? What is the functional outcome you are looking to achieve?

Optimize the function. Ignore the form. This is how you learn to think for yourself.

The Power of First Principles

Ironically, perhaps the best way to develop cutting-edge ideas is to start by breaking things down to the fundamentals. Even if you aren't trying to develop innovative ideas, understanding the first principles of your field is a smart use of your time. Without a firm grasp of the basics, there is little chance of mastering the details that make the difference at elite levels of competition.

Every innovation, including the most groundbreaking ones, requires a long period of iteration and improvement. The company at the beginning of this article, SpaceX, ran many simulations, made thousands of adjustments, and required multiple trials before they figured out how to build an affordable and reusable rocket.

First principles thinking does not remove the need for continuous improvement, but it does alter the direction of improvement. Without reasoning by first principles, you spend your time making small improvements to a bicycle rather than a snowmobile. First principles thinking sets you on a different trajectory.

If you want to enhance an existing process or belief, continuous improvement is a great option. If you want to learn how to think for yourself, reasoning from first principles is one of the best ways to do it.

La stratégie des réseaux sociaux contre les moteurs de recherche s'est faite ressentir dès 2015.


Facebook à déclaré la guerre à Google en créant son propre système de publicité. Google et Facebook vendent tous deux de l'impression, c’est-à-dire, l’affichage d’une publicité sur l’écran de l’internaute. Le terme d’impression est notamment utilisé pour la publicité display (bandeau, pavé, vidéo…).

Rising to fame in the 1950s, she was one of the greatest actresses of her era. In 1953, Hepburn became the first actress to win an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and a BAFTA Award for a single performance: her leading role in the romantic comedy Roman Holiday.

Even today, over half a century later, she remains one of just 15 people to earn an “EGOT” by winning all four major entertainment awards: Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony. By the 1960s, she was averaging more than one new film per year and, by everyone's estimation, she was on a trajectory to be a movie star for decades to come.

But then something funny happened: she stopped acting.

Despite being in her 30s and at the height of her popularity, Hepburn basically stopped appearing in films after 1967. She would perform in television shows or movies just five times during the rest of her life.

Instead, she switched careers. She spent the next 25 years working tirelessly for UNICEF, the arm of the United Nations that provides food and healthcare to children in war-torn countries. She performed volunteer work throughout Africa, South America, and Asia.

Hepburn's first act was on stage. Her next act was one of service. In December 1992, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts, which is the highest civilian award of the United States.

We will return to her story in a moment.

Audrey Hepburn in 1956. Photo by Bud Fraker.

Efficient vs. Effective

You get one, precious life. How do you decide the best way to spend your time? Productivity gurus will often suggest that you focus on being effective rather than being efficient.

Efficiency is about getting more things done. Effectiveness is about getting the right things done. Peter Drucker, the well-known management consultant, once encapsulated the idea by writing, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

In other words, making progress is not just about being productive. It's about being productive on the right things.

But how do you decide what the “right things” are? One of the most trusted approaches is to use the Pareto Principle, which is more commonly known as the 80/20 Rule.

The 80/20 Rule states that, in any particular domain, a small number of things account for the majority of the results. For example, 80 percent of the land in Italy is owned by 20 percent of the people. Or, 75 percent of NBA championships are won by 20 percent of the teams. The numbers don't have to add up to 100. The point is that the majority of the results are driven by a minority of causes.

The Upside of the 80/20 Rule

When applied to your life and work, the 80/20 Rule can help you separate “the vital few from the trivial many.” 

For example, business owners may discover the majority of revenue comes from a handful of important clients. The 80/20 Rule would recommend that the most effective course of action would be to focus exclusively on serving these clients (and on finding others like them) and either stop serving others or let the majority of customers gradually fade away because they account for a small portion of the bottom line.

This same strategy can be useful if you practice inversion and look at the sources of your problems. You may find that the majority of your complaints come from a handful of problem clients. The 80/20 Rule would suggest that you can clear out your backlog of customer service requests by firing these clients.

The 80/20 Rule is like a form of judo for life and work. By finding precisely the right area to apply pressure, you can get more results with less effort. It's a great strategy, and I have used it many times.

But there is a downside to this approach, as well, and it is often overlooked. To understand this pitfall, we return to Audrey Hepburn.

The Downside of the 80/20 Rule

Imagine it is 1967. Audrey Hepburn is in the prime of her career and trying to decide how to spend her time.

If she uses the 80/20 Rule as part of her decision-making process, she will discover a clear answer: do more romantic comedies.

Many of Hepburn's best films were romantic comedies like Roman HolidaySabrinaBreakfast at Tiffany's, and Charade. She starred in these four films between 1953 and 1963; by 1967, she was due for another one. They attracted large audiences, earned her awards, and were an obvious path to greater fame and fortune. Romantic comedies were effective for Audrey Hepburn.

In fact, even if we take into account her desire to help children through UNICEF, an 80/20 analysis might have revealed that starring in more romantic comedies was still the best option because she could have maximized her earning power and donated the additional earnings to UNICEF.

Of course, that's all well and good if she wanted to continue acting. But she didn't want to be an actress. She wanted to serve. And no reasonable analysis of the highest and best use of her time in 1967 would have suggested that volunteering for UNICEF was the most effective use of her time.

This is the downside of the 80/20 Rule: A new path will never look like the most effective option in the beginning.

Optimizing for Your Past or Your Future

Here's another example:

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, worked on Wall Street and climbed the corporate ladder to become senior vice-president of a hedge fund before leaving it all in 1994 to start the company.

If Bezos had applied the 80/20 Rule in 1993 in an attempt to discover the most effective areas to focus on in his career, it is virtually impossible to imagine that founding an internet company would have been on the list. At that point in time, there is no doubt that the most effective path—whether measured by financial gain, social status, or otherwise—would have been the one where he continued his career in finance.

The 80/20 Rule is calculated and determined by your recent effectiveness. Whatever seems like the “highest value” use of your time in any given moment will be dependent on your previous skills and current opportunities.

The 80/20 Rule will help you find the useful things in your past and get more of them in the future. But if you don’t want your future to be more of your past, then you need a different approach.

The downside of being effective is that you often optimize for your past rather than for your future.

Where to Go From Here

Here's the good news: given enough practice and enough time, the thing that previously seemed ineffective can become very effective. You get good at what you practice.

When Audrey Hepburn dialed down her acting career in 1967, volunteering didn't seem nearly as effective. But three decades later, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom—a remarkable feat she is unlikely to have accomplished by acting in more romantic comedies.

The process of learning a new skill or starting a new company or taking on a new adventure of any sort will often appear to be an ineffective use of time at first. Compared to the other things you already know how to do, the new thing will seem like a waste of time. It will never win the 80/20 analysis.