DISQUS

One of the things that really bothered me about the show is that every deal that was made was for control of the company and in most cases for what strikes me as an insanely small amount of money for that amount of control.

I've bought 3 iPods and can't fathom any reason to buy the boombox thing, but Jason Fried at 37signals points out some interestingly similar comments about the iPod in a recent post (http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/original_ipo...).

I think it's really interesting that they're experimenting with audio hardware at the same time the Mac Mini takes another step closer to being a home entertainment device. I'd assumed they were just looking for the PVR/media server aspect, but maybe they're getting closer and closer to front-to-back Apple-delivered experience in the living room. I have no idea how legitimate the rumours of the Apple TV are, but an existing Cinema Display is already a better television screen than my creaky old CRT.

Sure not every one needs to be rolled out, but what's the harm in doing so?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I pretty much completely agree that this is an entirely yawn-worthy and mostly pointless application, but still, why not? It's not like the internet's going to run out of bits as a result.

I am speculating quite heavily, but I think Google's following a Release Early Release Often philosophy. The problem is that it doesn't quite mesh with their position as a major software company. We expect to see complete, reasonable products from major companies, but this (and the other examples you list) isn't one, really.

The page creator is nothing special but it's a really early stage product. They're letting people bang at it early in the life cycle to find out what people actually want, and then maybe it becomes something good. I don't know.

I think the products have to do with Google's 20% time. The engineers are working on something that maybe might one day be useful, and they're encouraged to do so, so they get some space at google.com to take it a little further. I think it's a good thing that this giant corporation is willing to open the doors to a very early stage product.

I don't quite understand how it fits together with Blog*Spot though. They already have a free web page hosting service, why are they building something different?

That's fair, Mathew. I do appreciate that the conversation is important, but if someone is broadcasting high quality signal I'm still going to read and enjoy it. I would argue (but I'll give it a rest after this ;-) that blogging is far more about having a voice, not a conversation.

Mathew, I have to disagree. A blog is a log on the web, just that. Nothing about that inherently suggests comments or conversation. "Old school" blog conversations happened without comments, the conversation happened by people referencing each other directly in posts.

That hasn't actually been practical for some number of years, but comments on most blogs also aren't really a single conversation. They're people contributing, and having their say, but there's no serious back and forth, it's as if someone shouts a topic into a room and everyone chips in. You hear and respond to what's near you or what overpowers local chatter, but whether or not your response is heard or considered is another thing entirely.

That being said, I think that it's important for modern bloggers who want to be heard and considered to offer a way for responses to get to them. Comments as we know them know are typically easiest, but I don't think everyone should need to be a moderator of their own forum.

I agree that it's unfortunate when someone goes effectively one-way, but whether or not that's a blog is another thing entirely.