Disqus - Latest Comments for Paul Montgomery

Re: We don't "get it"

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:06:24 -0000

Oh, is that all Joel was complaining about? Thank goodness, I thought it might have been something important.

I think most of the people building 2.0 companies would actually find that they are on Joel's side if they read this thread.

Re: We don't "get it"

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:06:24 -0000

Oh, is that all Joel was complaining about? Thank goodness, I thought it might have been something important.

I think most of the people building 2.0 companies would actually find that they are on Joel's side if they read this thread.

Re: SquidWho - When A Product Becomes A Platform

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:34:11 -0000

Yes Fred, but what about when a product becomes a platform for spammers? SquidWho looks to me like a goldmine for SEO operatives to increase their linklove for free. For instance, this person spams his own Jessica Alba eBay auction items:
http://ebaysquidoo.blogspot.com/2007/09/using-s...

I distrust applications that look like they haven't had much effort put into them, and SquidWho looks like a very quickly developed application which has very little worth.

Re: Google misses - but will it matter?

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:46:32 -0000

Even assuming that a majority of analysts are craven weasels (just kidding, guys)

So you should apologise to the weasels. Being compared to stock analysts is a major insult.

Re: Hey Dave — you have to let go of RSS

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:38:49 -0000

But it's not a democracy.

Re: The RSS soap opera (updated)

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:08:04 -0000

Tim, for example,

Who is this Tim of which you speak? The name's Paul, or m0nty.

Re: There’s good Dave, and there’s bad Dave…

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:11:34 -0000

"Enemies" is a strong word, as is "kills". Dave hasn't done anything to these companies that wasn't concerned with the RSS Advisory Board, and I don't think he has a problem with them in any other sense.

Re: Dave’s dark side returns to the forefront

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:58:50 -0000

You've given very short shrift to Dave's side of the story, Mathew. I don't think either side is spotless in this instance, especially if what Dave says it true about Rogers taking public what they had agreed would be a private matter between lawyers. Did you consider at any point that Rogers might not be a saint?

Re: Social network space a tad crowded?

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 12 May 2006 02:48:06 -0000

I'm looking forward to seeing a 10x10 matrix of favicons. In fact, I don't know why nobody has made a Web 2.0 favicon matrix in the manner of the logo lists, it would look hilarious.

Re: Were Techmeme and Sphere too greedy?

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:53:55 -0000

I think Techmeme is worth more than $5 million. But the fact that Yahoo is now out of the market for Techmeme maybe knocks their valuation down some - and by extension the other News 2.0 players.

Re: Valleywag Crosses the Line

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:31:04 -0000

Why not wait until after the conference to pass judgment on whether Hammer is a worthwhile speaker? Who knows, he might be entertaining and/or insightful. Stranger things have happened.

Re: Solis takes a good picture

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:27:23 -0000

Apres means after, Dunc. ;)

Re: 2005/10/31/humans-vs-algorithms-who-should-edit-web-20/

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:46:28 -0000

Careful Pete, appeasement won't buy you any favours when the robot invaders come for your blood. :P

I agree that Wink is a fine model. You may be wondering why we have a robot, Ned, as our mascot. Robots are fine when they are designed to be strictly under the control of human masters. Ned is wholly subservient to the needs of his overlords (i.e. future users of Tinfinger). The problems come when you design robots to act independently to create objects of economic worth (like Web pages) without any involvement by humans. That can only lead to Skynet.

And Chris, I'm stoked that you have been thinking about the subject. There needs to be much more of that.

Re: 2005/10/31/humans-vs-algorithms-who-should-edit-web-20/

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:04:42 -0000

When not working, Ned is locked in an abandoned tin mine and has to scavenge scrap metal for himself, as is only proper.

Re: 2005/11/13/does-podcasting-need-better-measurement/

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:27:05 -0000

It's an entertaining argument, but none of it matters. Kind of like going back in time and watching a T-Rex fight an allosaurus, while the tiny mammals get busy out-surviving both of them. The people who are doing it, not talking about it, wil be the ones testing the concepts in the market, and that's all that really counts. I'd respect Cameron Reilly's opinion on this far more than Dave or Mitch.

Re: 2005/12/06/shoutwire-distributed-news-editing-a-digg-clone/

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:57:04 -0000

FOR GREAT JUSTICE OF CROWDS

Re: 2005/12/06/shoutwire-distributed-news-editing-a-digg-clone/

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:05:54 -0000

Zoominfo covers significantly different areas to Tinfinger, with almost no crossover. It is an example of a social networking site, whereas we will be an attention networking site. More on the difference here:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/...

Their major customers are corporates, whereas we're consumer-focused. Their index seems to cover the whole Web, whereas we only index from a whitelist of sites. Their users "use ZoomInfo to fill jobs, find alumni and friends, locate former colleagues, research companies, network and more", whereas I don't think any of those functions will be core to the Tinfinger experience.

The only similarity is that we use names as keywords. Beyond that, everything is different. That's not a criticism of Zoominfo, just an observation.

Re: 2005/12/08/on-business-models-for-web-20/

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:18:30 -0000

More on productisation here:
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-all-a...

The sort of thing I was thinking about is in the second last paragraph of that piece: [A company attempts] "to devise its own products that do not use the IP of other sites, but relate to the same things that the other sites are covering, with the assumption that your users are familiar with that content because they have visited those other sites (probably through your links or mashup code)."

Maybe productisation is the wrong word. What I am talking about is creating new, independently legally defensible IP which is nonetheless dependent on consumers' broad knowledge of IP belonging to some other entity. I guess it's one of those concepts that is best explained by example, but I don't want to give away Tinfinger's game just yet.

Re: 2005/12/08/on-business-models-for-web-20/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:03:18 -0000

Yes, that's it. I'll expand further in my next blog post.

Re: 2005/12/08/on-business-models-for-web-20/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:50:15 -0000

Well, I decided to podcast about it instead.

Re: 2006/01/23/the-emergence-of-news-20/

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:50:47 -0000

Debbie and Michael, you'll be happy to know I added NowPublic. Good luck with it, it looks great.

Re: 2006/01/27/nowpublic-share-the-news/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:25:02 -0000

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't "framing" illegal if you have commercial content in the framer's frame? Not that NP has AdSense in their frame, but it's dangerous at any rate.

Re: 2006/03/10/cloudee-new-memetracker/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:31:49 -0000

"And besides, GYM doesnâ€™t really interest me."

A-fucking-men!

Re: 2006/03/10/cloudee-new-memetracker/

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:20:50 -0000

At least they are doing something about revenue, TED. A lot of memetrackers are shooting themselves in the foot by going so long without ads on their pages that their userbase would object if they were added.

Re: 2006/03/14/gabbly-isnt-as-bad-as-3bubbles/

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:15:02 -0000

I fail to see how it sucks less that 3Bubbles in any meaningful way.

Re: 2006/04/07/informcom-still-failing/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:27:16 -0000

Alexa may be unreliable but bloody hell, those are some damning curves.

Re: 2006/05/09/the-indiekarma-experiment/

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:39:44 -0000

"Will enough users join the IndieKarma system to make it more profitable than the occasional click on a Google ad?"

$0.01 per visitor equals $10 CPM. No one would be getting $10 CPM from AdSense on their blog unless it's about something like mesothelioma, I'm guessing. The numbers favour indieKarma in that regard. I think it would be a worthwhile adjunct, not a replacement.

Re: 2006/05/09/the-indiekarma-experiment/

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:36:52 -0000

So work out something where if you pay, you see no ads, but if you don't pay, you see ads. Win-win.

Re: 2006/05/10/my-week-in-the-ether/

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:56:44 -0000

Geez, no wonder you're never available on Skype any more...

Re: 2006/06/01/gnoos-launches-aussie-blog-search/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:01:02 -0000

It's unfortunate that the Ask.com product got all the headlines in the last couple of days and Gnoos seems to have been largely ignored. Good to see you pumping Ben up a bit, Pete.

Re: 2006/09/15/go2web2net-social-site-directory/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:34:51 -0000

I would like to assure all and sundry that I did not pay a red cent to get Tinfinger at top left position.

Re: 2007/01/11/moob/

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:16:46 -0000

I daresay Moob would not be so gauche as to "make" a move. Their style would be to "bust" moves. :D

Re: 2007/01/28/mashable-relaunches/

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:40:25 -0000

Is it a boy or is it a girl?

Re: 2007/02/12/shoutlife/

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:13:40 -0000

So... you're into skinny blondes then, Pete? :P

Re: 2007/03/18/mashable-france-will-revolutionize-the-french-blogosphere/

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:12:19 -0000

I don't know about Australia. I don't think the market's big enough.

Re: 2007/05/18/joosts-deal-plans-hidden-in-pdf-presentation/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 18 May 2007 15:45:10 -0000

Very nice pickup. Geek cred points to you, Pete!

Re: 2007/09/16/squidwho/

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:52:06 -0000

You would think that Seth Godin would have learnt from the Squidoo Slap in June. People are already using SquidWho to spam affiliate links:

http://ebaysquidoo.blogspot.com/2007/09/using-s...

Re: 2007/09/16/squidwho/

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:05:34 -0000

Your definition of spam is rather strict, Seth. Spam is also the word used to describe the manufactured marketing pitches that you seem to welcome on Squidoo. People might go to a "search engine" like Squidoo/who expecting to see relevant, original content, but instead they get endless links to Amazon/eBay affiliate ads, interspersed in some cases with pitches for the authors' external sites. I'd call that spam. So does Google, evidently.

Re: 2007/09/28/youtube-adsense/

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:56:42 -0000

Wait, so there is a problem with YouTube - i.e. Google - showing video AdSense ads next to copyrighted videos, but there is apparently no problem with Google showing text/image AdSense ads next to copyrighted videos, nor with Google showing text/image AdSense ads next to copyrighted text or images. That makes zero sense.

Re: 2007/10/19/mozilla-instabird/

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:07:09 -0000

I wonder if they'll add support for Twitter, Pownce or Jaiku.

Re: Is Web 2.0 a Bubble?

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:23:28 -0000

If I had US$200m, my shopping list would be as follows, in order of preference depending on prices:

1. Adbrite
2. one of the blog software providers
3. Podshow and/or The Podcast Network, possibly Audible
4. digg/delicious or something similar
5. one night with Jessica Alba

Re: Yes, Richard, Jason is nuts (blogs still trump bookmarks)

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:26:31 -0000

Manual trackback:
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com/2005/11/clone-mem...

Re: Clone the Memeorandum API, Paul says

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:22:36 -0000

If my post came across as in any way disrespectful of Gabe, I am sorry. That was not my intention, I have the utmost respect for him.

I do not "think" the Memeorandum algorithm is "fairly simplistic". I don't know how complex is it, and I stated that clearly. That's why I asked the question. To find out. I know Gabe watches my blog because he pops up in the comments a lot, so I was hoping to get some sort of answer to the question. Understandably he dodged the question, as is only prudent for him to protect his intellectual property.

As to your questions... "For instance, do you know how he filters out noise?" - he has a carefully maintained whitelist, that's pretty simple. "What happens if I link to a political blog? Why doesn’t that show up on Memeorandum?" - he has separate lists for www. and tech., that's also pretty straightforward. I don't know that that is the way he does it, but that seems to me to be the most efficient method. Tinfinger will be trying that out to see if it works, in any case.

Some questions still remain: if the Memeorandum algorithm is so complex, can a "personalised" version of it be possible? Is it possible to expose the algorithm and allow users to fiddle with the operands and put weightings on the individual variables? Or will the only workable solution be a bunch of abstracted sliders, as in Yahoo Mindset or MSN Result Ranking?

I'm not a compiler writer, I never worked for Intel. I am, to use a popular word these days, an "amateur" when it comes to programming. However, I'm a quick learner, and I'm collecting data to pass on to my business partner Tai (a real programmer). I expected Gabe not to give up all his secrets, but I was hoping other people would pick up the meme and speculate openly, as you have Robert (thanks mate!). I'm learning. That was the purpose of my post.

Re: Clone the Memeorandum API, Paul says

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:20:48 -0000

Bruno, I don't think I'm showing anyone any disrespect. I am an amateur in comparison to such esteemed company, yes, but this isn't the priesthood we're talking about - programmers do not deserve (and most would not want) to be treated with undue deference. I don't know about you, but I learn far more from robust conversation than by plaintively asking for divine providence. I would never attack people, but I make no apologies in attacking problems.

BTW I don't know you either, Bruno, and you didn't link to your blog.

Re: New blog of the day…Phil Sim

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:28:51 -0000

Another anti-Aussie tirade! We're starting to think you don't like Australians, Robert.

Re: The borg’s coffee sucks, new employee says

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:09:04 -0000

Maybe instead of the borg, Microsoft can be likened to King Kong: a huge gorilla that was scary in the past, and just got a makeover in a vain attempt to make it relevant for today. Unfortunately, the only opponents it can win against are dinosaurs. Put half a dozen little biplanes against it and it goes down like a sack of spuds.

:D

Re: The borg’s coffee sucks, new employee says

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:26:38 -0000

Re Bill's blog: hah, a Web page written in Notes! How 1997. It even qualifies as uglier than the average Notes-produced page, which is saying something.

Re: The anti-RSS hype

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:32:52 -0000

Just like all publicity is good publicity, all feedback is good feedback. Obviously there is a market opportunity there for someone to create an RSS something-or-other that is attractive to the Slashdot crowd.

Re: Google domains going after Outlook? MSN did that months ago…

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:04:45 -0000

If anything, there has been a gradual turning of sentiment against Google recently, with cheerleading by Dave Winer and other A-list bloggers about all sorts of silly Big Brother scenarios.

AdSense clients are not employees of Google. If anything, Google is their employee, since Google gets money from something happening on the client's site. How about that?

Re: Googlepark is caught in spaghetti code

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 05:45:39 -0000

This is <a href="http://tinfinger.blogspot.com/2006/02/worst-thing-microsoft-ever-released.html
">the worst thing Microsoft ever released.

Re: Steve Rubel is testing memetrackers

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:31:37 -0000

Personally, I don't want to see the word "naked" associated with Christopher Coulter.

Re: The John Dvorakification of the blogosphere (I’m signing off of Memeorandum)

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:42:47 -0000

The first rule of Memeorandum is: blog about Memeorandum. Blog about it constantly and incessantly. Make it the subject of a goodly portion of your posts. Complain about how everyone is whoring for Memeo linkbait in a post which is certifiable linkbait. Attack established bloggers for extra linkbait juice, with bonus points if you attack them for them attacking something else. Make broad generalisations, preferably in a passive-aggressive manner which insults everyone reading the article, with special jackpots available if you question their intelligence.

After all this, claim the high moral ground.

Re: The John Dvorakification of the blogosphere (I’m signing off of Memeorandum)

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:27:42 -0000

Gabe, if you had implemented permalinked memes like I asked then Jake's search would be much easier. :D

Re: Steve says “I shoulda been there”; gives me a “reality check”

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:05:51 -0000

Why would BillG want to meet Steve Gillmor? I couldn't see any possible reason that BillG would gain from that conversation. Steve wouldn't have anything interesting or new to say to him.

Re: Steve says “I shoulda been there”; gives me a “reality check”

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:23:00 -0000

I can't see BillG getting bitter about that, Christopher. So he lost a billion. Larry and Sergey lost a couple of billion on paper last week, it's not that big a deal when you have enough billions to spare. Microsoft ended up smashifying Netscape into thin paste, so he had the last laugh there.

Re: The irritant of the non-credible journalists

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:13:31 -0000

I thought the conversation was supposed to be naked. That means all the naughty bits are on display, no matter how unsightly.

Re: Bad news gets worse

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:34:51 -0000

Chin up, Scobles young and old. Celebrate her life. I went through the same thing with my grandmother last year, to whom I was very close. She wouldn't want me to be sad on her account, and I'm sure the same applies to you. Laugh about the good times.

Re: Why I don’t write about video games

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:00:29 -0000

Robert, you have demonstrated why you don't write about video games: you have nothing to say other than gushing fanboiism for the 360. Which is fine, you can't be good at everything. It's not your fault that you haven't done enough homework on the PS3 or Wii to say word one about them... that's not your job.

It is your brother's job, though. Presumably your brother would have seen these figures: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/09/us-hardware-s...
They make it hard to justify saying that Microsoft is a chance of "winning" at the moment, given how the lowly PS2 is outselling them in the US after a recent price drop and the release of Kingdom Hearts II, with Sony also leading the handheld market with PSP. And that's in Microsoft's strongest market.

Re: Why I don’t write about video games

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:58:59 -0000

I distrust anything someone attributes to "influentials". That's usually code for "me and whoever I know because we're so cool", and it's bunk. As is anecdotal evidence. Give me cold hard sales figures.

We know the Wii launch lineup, and we know Sony has a history of getting dev support for killer titles (although not necessarily at launch). As your brother referenced at the start of his article, this is Sony's market, and it's Sony's to lose. Microsoft is either a distant second or an awful third, depending on whether you use the metric of popularity or profitability.

Re: Other cool things from nofoo

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:35:47 -0000

Where's the backchannel? I need to heckle via IRC.

Re: B5 Media gets funding

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:59:12 -0000

Would you need $15 million? ZDnet doesn't pay that much, surely.

Re: Big gadget sites don’t link to blogs (I went overboard, read updates)

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:29:15 -0000

I blogged about this a couple of days ago. Most MSM sources have always refused to link, but I think there is a growing backlash against links among bloggers which I would guess is partially caused by Techmeme and its clones, due to the hierarchical power structure that the Techmeme algorithm has engendered.

Re: We need better statistics…

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 13 May 2007 20:32:44 -0000

Don't lump in Hitwise with the others. Hitwise's methodology is not based on toolbars or surveys or log books, it's raw numbers they get from deep inside ISP networks. I'd trust Hitwise far more.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Paul Montgomery — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:22:17 -0000

Tom: the key point there is what "clarifying" means.

I mean really, you don't see each new pope writing a new chapter of the Bible, do you? That would just be rude. Sure, popes release a "clarification" every now and again in Latin, but it's not gospel (to coin a phrase).

Rogers Cadenshead is not called Rogers Godhead. Just saying, is all. ;)

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:12:16 -0000

Tom: "Paul: Actually Pope’s do write new doctrine based on (and presumably inspired by) the bible which constitute new commandments to the church."

Yes, but how many Catholics take any notice of what the pope says? Similarly, how many RSS users and implementers are going to take any notice of the RSSAB's clarifications?

Re: Campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:35:39 -0000

I'd rather see a campaign to get Google et al to take Wikipedia out of their search results entirely, as Shelley Powers suggested. That has more chance of making a difference.

Re: How to Fix RSS

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:33:27 -0000

I agree there should be an industry-standard way of linking to and explaining how to use RSS and Atom feeds, plus OPML feeds for that matter. That you link to Feedburner suggests that Feedburner has solved part of the problem already, by inserting instructions at the top of the associated CSS file. Now if the industry could band together to work out a reader-agnostic, simplified CSS header for all the various XML feed flavours (cross-language too), then we'd have something.

Re: News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:15:53 -0000

I'm guessing, like Information Architect Tokyo, that brand was just about the only determinant for Ma Publishing 2.0's decision. No offence, especially since the test was for one sitting only - a more accurate survey would last at least a week.

I hear there is virtually no one working on Newsbot these days since Microsoft has thrown every able body onto the search team in an effort to fight Google. Even zombie services can get traction if they have a MSM brand. Also, maybe it's just today, but around half of the stories are taken from MSNBC... a hint of favouritism?

Re: News 2.0 My Mother Can Use

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:22:25 -0000

That point about focus was the subject of my follow-up, Scott, so I'm with you on that one.

Re: Bubble 2.0 Is a Bubble in Media

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:58:33 -0000

The word "attention" is being misused a lot these days. Umair uses it extensively as a synonym for "marketing" in that PowerPoint.

Another thing that is being misused is the old chestnut about there being too much information in the world for any one person to take. I was hearing that one 25 years ago. BOOO-ring.

Having said that, once you wade through all the graphs Umair does start making some novel points in his slide show, even if he does use neologisms where old words would suffice. Overall, I'd give it a 37, but I couldn't dance to it.

Re: Bubble 2.0 Is a Bubble in Media

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:48:58 -0000

Look at it this way, Scott. 25 years ago there was already too much information in the mass media for one person to consume in completion. The main barrier for choice back then which has been solved now is distribution, but the same thing applied to the first Internet boom and there weren't distribution problems then either, so that's obviously not the central issue.

The central flaw in Umair's analysis is that maybe the majority of people WANT blockbusters. It may seem to media economists that everyone should have a highly sophisticated strategy for consuming media in reconstituted microchunks through smart aggregators, just as they do, but a significant portion of the populace may not want to invest a lot of their precious time figuring out this Media 2.0 environment and will instead stick to a few trusted sources. Those sources may change over time, and the Media 2.0 phase may just be a repositioning of who owns the hit channels - or what channels the usual owners change to.

Related to that flaw is the distinct possibility that the supply side is in a temporary state of innovation, which will be snuffed out because the small startups have no way to gain easy IPO-level scale to compete with GEMAYA since Sarbanes-Oxley, and thus all th eplayers will either get bought out or out-executed. That's most likely going to be the way it happens, if it happens.

I'm not saying that that is definitely how it's going to be, but it's got as much if not more of a chance to be the real future as Umair's vision, mainly because inertia is on its side. As 3D was wont to say: inertia creeps, moving up slowly. (Sorry for the lyricism, I have a bad head cold and brain fuzzy no worky worky.)

Re: Bubble 2.0 Is a Bubble in Media

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:51:08 -0000

Ah, and I see Kedrosky said it before me.

Re: Bubble 2.0 Is a Bubble in Media

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:52:57 -0000

AAAAAACHOOO. Dammit.

Re: Rebooting My Brain

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:38:09 -0000

ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

Re: Google and Its Watchers Don’t Get Print Advertising

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:47:51 -0000

Good point.

Re: It’s All About the FILTER

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:06:54 -0000

Hey Mathew, I told him he was wrong too! There's plenty of "I told you so" to go around.

Re: The Ideological Polarization of 2.0

Paul Montgomery — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:16:57 -0000

Dammit Scott, you stole my bit. I've been saying for years that everyone is a troll.

Re: Those Who Pay More Will Get an Enhanced Experience

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:33:14 -0000

That's true Scott, but isn't net neutrality about actually getting that enhanced experience you paid for?

The issue is not whether consumers should have to pay for better Internet access, it is that if net neutrality gets nobbled by the carriers, this better access you've just paid for as a consumer is then dependent on the backdoor deals the carriers impose. So you might have paid for that shithot 5Mbps line, but because YouTube refuses to pay the carrier ransom, your connection to youtube.com is shaped down to dialup speeds.

You brought up some analogies, and those are always fraught with danger, but if you want to go there... the situation is like paying for a big T-bone steak at a restaurant and then being told that because of supply issues you'll have to make do with week-old meatloaf.

Re: Those Who Pay More Will Get an Enhanced Experience

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:15:16 -0000

In essence: if you are one of those people for whom an everlasting faith in the divine wisdom of laissez-faire free market ideology consumes all rational thought, your foolishness is exposed when you start talking about telecom.

Re: Those Who Pay More Will Get an Enhanced Experience

Paul Montgomery — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:58:21 -0000

Scott, I did read your post. I was not making an ad hominem attack on you, I was talking in general terms.

However, you have trotted out some laissez-faire cliches like "If your ISP is providing less for the same price, then switch. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a FREE MARKET" which, as billg says, is useless rhetoric in relation to telecom because most consumers don't have real choice in broadband. This conflicts with your statement supporting a government-mandated solution. Do you like free markets in telecom, or not?

Those who pay more do not always get an enhanced experience. In Australia we pay more not just because we live in scattered population centres far away from net hubs and thus our infrastructure costs are unavoidably higher. We also pay because Telstra controls the local market, and recently we have had to pay even more to offset Telstra's disastrous investments in Asia, which lost billions of dollars, to keep their profits at high levels to satisfy mum & dad swing voters who bought privatised Telstra stock. Our local government is too scared to attack Telstra's monopoly for fear of tanking the stock price, not just because of the voters but because they want to flog off the 51% of the company they still own. Thus we get ludicrous market outcomes like Telstra selling retail ADSL to consumers for less than they charge wholesale to other ISPs. Now maybe you understand why I detest overly simplistic free-market attitudes to telecom problems.

Also, competition is not always the singular determinant of market health. Sure, it would be good for competition if every house had FTTH from 6 different providers so that you had 6 different plugs to choose from. However, the expense of building 6 separate billion-dollar national FTTH networks would be wasted expenditure that would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

I get the feeling we're actually in violent agreement on this one, but I need to hear that you don't sleep with a copy of Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations under your pillow. :D

Re: Google Is A Very 1.0 Shopping Engine

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:27:34 -0000

Um... isn't Froogle the G comparison shopping engine? Try a
Froogle search for gourmet coffee. Is that 2.0 enough for you?

Re: More Evidence That Media 2.0 May Be Less Profitable Than Media 1.0

Paul Montgomery — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:06:33 -0000

Bollocks, Scott. The new business model is not about the media players getting their control back, it's giving control to the users of the medium: advertisers get better tools to track ROI from their advertisements, and the audience only see the ads that are relevant to their interests. These things are only made possible by having networks within networks, as long as information flows freely between those networks.

I agree that it will be less profitable than the old way. But does that mean it will be any less successful? On the contrary. That is because it is only less profitable per unit of advertising. The model which can support every advertiser from the hits down the last thousandth-percentile on the long tail can make up in volume what the 1.0 model had to do with a smaller hits-based advertiser base.

Re: More Evidence That Media 2.0 May Be Less Profitable Than Media 1.0

Paul Montgomery — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:15:08 -0000

Scott, we don't disagree that 2.0 is less profitable. However, your attack on Google is unwarranted. Media 1.0 had many different huge providers sharing from a larger pie. 2.0 at the moment has one company dominating a smaller pie. Google's profit is larger than any of the 1.0 media giants individually, even though it may not be larger than the totality of their profit. Does that mean Google's position is precarious? Hell no.

In fact, Google's upside is not in the long tail, they've already cornered that market (which is still growing, btw). It's in the short rump. I'm sure you've seen the studies saying that advertising on the Net is lagging the audience shift from TV. Many of those fat contracts with the TV stations will get transferred to the Google system - for less money than TV charged, but what does Google care? 100-X per cent of a cubic assload is still a lot.

Re: We don't "get it"

Paul Montgomery — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:06:24 -0000

Oh, is that all Joel was complaining about? Thank goodness, I thought it might have been something important.

I think most of the people building 2.0 companies would actually find that they are on Joel's side if they read this thread.