Intangibles - Means to an End, or an End? Part 1

Marcelo Horones posted a slideshow on slideshare called How to be billionaire in the hyperconnected world. It's customized to the web 2.0 business entrepreneur that wants to make billions, but is still worth scrolling through (don't be intimidated by the 75 slides. More than half are less than half a second). It's a great study in, among other things, creating conditions that enable collaboration and economy in a virtual environment.

Of interest is his take on intangibles, and their place within the value network of one of these billionaire producing applications. He positions the intangible "Share Something" and "Community" offering - or value delivered without expectation of currency in exchange, but rather awareness in exchange - as a means to an end. The end seems to invariably be audience, or hits. It all makes sense. Leverage intangibles in return for intangibles, and ultimately currency will result.

My only question is: can't we hope for more in our end result than the currency? Even if it is a business. Are our goals and end results still so limited. If a business has no greater ambition than money, what kind of people do they expect to attract? The types that can effectively produce the "altruistic" component? It is specified that "money will not make happiness" and does encourage sharing, but that end goal is so important.

I'll follow this up soon with the why that end goal is so important, and why I think we need to think bigger than money.

One thing that can't wait that I do take issue with: "The more sophisticated the technology, the better the offerings". I'd argue that simplicity is golden.