Disqus - Friends of techwinter

Re: VoIP on the Nokia N900

danlane — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:40:42 -0000

If you jailbreak your iPhone there is a nice SIP client called SIPhon.

The handset on my desk is a SNOM 820 :)

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:41:22 -0000

So newspapers fail to convert readers who come in through search. Is
that Google's fault, or the Internet's fault, or is it the fault of
the newspaper for not knowing (or caring) how to engage and convert
and retain readers? Better to focus on charging an ever-shrinking
number of devoted readers ever-increasing sums for the same old
content. Great strategy.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:18:28 -0000

Obviously he still has promotional power -- all kinds of it. So I'll be interested to see what happens to his business when he removes Google and virtually all of social media from that equation. Should be a fascinating test case.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:36:03 -0000

Yes, I can see how Rupert would see things that way -- and so he is willing
to potentially endanger the long-term online growth (if not survival) of
some of his key media properties because he wants to take down Google so
they don't someday decide to compete with him. Classic.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:27 -0000

I didn't say that's all they should care about, Mark -- I said that when it
comes to search, all they should care about is that readers can find their
content, not whether Google or Microsoft or Yahoo is on top.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:14:01 -0000

I don't see how it's a net benefit to News Corp. -- or any other major media
outlet, for that matter -- if they all pull out of Google and no one
benefits directly, but Google is somehow negatively impacted. The only
companies I can think of that benefit in that scenario are Microsoft and
Yahoo, but why should Murdoch or anyone else celebrate that? All they care
about (or should care about) is that people can find their content. So my
two things would be:

1. News Corp. pulls out of the index and nothing happens, in which case why
did they bother?

2. they pull out of the index and they lose all kinds of traffic and
mind-share and attention and promotional value through link-sharing, blogs,
etc. -- but they don't notice until it's too late, and by that point
re-entering the index doesn't help.

That sounds like a sucker bet to me.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:03:48 -0000

Strikes me as a great approach, George -- the same way many blogs have
"landing page" boxes that promote their RSS feed, related posts, etc.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:41:56 -0000

Fair enough, Mark -- although I think that the theoretical Fox News audience is more fungible than either you or Ian (or Rupert) want to admit. In any case, what you have described is a recipe for maintaining a certain audience, not increasing it.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:36:47 -0000

I think news is more of a commodity than either you or Rupert wants to admit, Ian.

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:53:18 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Mark; always a pleasure to hear from you.
Don't read too much into the "crusty old billionaire" crack -- I was
just yanking your chain a little :-)

As far as the whole business model thing is concerned, please read my
response to Ian -- I am not some kind of business naïf, or Internet
triumphalist. And I don't think advertising is the key to making
content pay online, in part because of the factors you describe.

But the fact remains that in order to prove value, or even
successfully create it, we have to use tools like Twitter and Facebook
and yes, even Google -- not cut them off and put roadblocks in their
way. People sharing our content is one of the best marketing tools we
have available; why would we make that even harder than we do already?

You should be thanking me for saying that you're right about the power
of Twitter etc. But you don't explain how that jibes with Rupert's
Google-blocking and pay-walling - which is understandable, because it
doesn't.

Go Mavs!

Re: Your readers are paying you — with attention

mathewi — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:52:13 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Ian. I get the monetization piece -- that's
obviously where the "economy" part of "attention economy" come in. I'm not
some kind of Internet utopian who thinks money will magically fall from the
sky. But how do people know that your content is valuable to them if they
can't see it or read it or share it with others? That's part of what
generates the value in the first place.

Like the commenter on my Nieman post, I find it intensely frustrating not to
be able to share a link with someone because of a pay wall. So not only
does that frustrate me, a dedicated user or customer of that content site,
but it frustrates every *potential* user or customer as well. How is that a
good strategy?

My point is that social recommendation networks and other tools of "social
media" are a crucial part of how media entities gain attention -- which is a
pretty scarce commodity. To use your store analogy, how are people supposed
to know that they want to buy your content or services if your windows are
boarded up and you don't let anyone inside the store without charging them?

Re: A superfast RSS subscribe (Scripting News)

edwink — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:30:43 -0000

(There are previews of feedly available for chrome and safari)

Re: A Glass Cage of Emotion

Stuartfoster — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:36:54 -0000

I think it depends entirely on your audience. If your audience loves toilet paper? Presumably they will be passionate about it (or at least pretend to be).

I'm not saying that you should up and destroy your corporate communications department. I am saying that I'd like to see a wider range of voices there though.

Re: Why DRM Alone Can Not Save Second Life

plagiarismtoday — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:24:37 -0000

First off, I am very sorry for the time it has taken me to write back. As you may know, I run a haunted house every October and that has pulled me away from my email for much of the month. I'm struggling to get caught back up now but am very sorry for the delay!

On that note though, I just want to re-emphasize that, even if SecureVend works perfectly, it is only part of the solution. New business models, cooperation with LL and legal avenues are all part of the solution.

I'm just trying to discourage everyone from looking for a single silvery bullet. I know it is so tempting to see something like this and see it as a savior. But it's only part of the answer, though potentially a big part...

Hope this helps!

Re: Classic Post: Analysis on The Lane Hartwell “Bubble” Controversy

plagiarismtoday — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:09:02 -0000

While I agree that Lane stepping up was a good thing, I think she overplayed her hand by ignoring a fair use issue in the work and filing for a takedown of the video even as she was supposedly working with the group. Granted, we the public don't know the full details, but it seems, especially in hindsight, that both sides made some poor judgments.

Re: How to Email a DMCA to Google

plagiarismtoday — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:52:57 -0000

Thanks for the update, I must have missed this article when I updated it elsewhere on the site.

Re: The Firebowl Controversy

plagiarismtoday — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:40:06 -0000

I dont' think it is quite that simple. The similarities in the design go beyond what would lead me to believe he was just going after every single firebowl maker. Otherwise, every hibachi maker in the world would be in trouble (at least theoretically).

There are similarities in the designs that go well beyond the fact they are both firebowls nor do I think he could achieve that. The definition for substantially similar would prevent that as it is important to note, as mentioned above, the copyright only applies to the decorative elements of the bowl not needed for its function.

In short, one would be free, even with a victory by Unger, to create firebowls with very different decorations. For example, I don't think Unger would ever have a case if you decorated your bowl with Christmas trees.

It's also not true that copyrights never expires. They expires 70 years after the death of the author or 95 years after creation in case of works of corporate authorship. Yes, that is much longer than patents and, yes, recent copyright extensions have kept works out of the public domain that would have fallen into it, but copyrights do expire and there are many works in the public domain currently.

The real question in this case is how similar are the new bowls to Unger's and was the intent to mimic his designs. Those are things we will have to learn later.

Re: Qvaq - a Micro-Forum Service

svartling — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:31:12 -0000

Cool mail address you got.... I think this is spam but anyways... Where do you think? Maybe from their homepage?

Re: Rotnem Philosophy

Stuartfoster — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:52:43 -0000

Agreed. So annoying. The people in the article sounded like complete neophytes though.

Re: Rotnem Philosophy

Stuartfoster — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:38:09 -0000

I blow things up so well though ;)

Agree to disagree Sonny. We can't all kick ass. I just want to highlight the people that do.

To be honest? Every organization should have had their shit together years ago. Unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on viewpoint) they didn't. If you are going to put yourself out there? You are going to get scrutinized. Don't have the presence? Unless you can show me 2-3 examples of awesome client work that you are doing I'm going to be suspicious.

Walk the walk.

Re: Rotnem Philosophy

Stuartfoster — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:06:48 -0000

Fantastic question Kyle.

I'm prolific...but haven't seen an immediate impact on my bottom line.

Re: Rotnem Philosophy

Stuartfoster — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:57:57 -0000

I think it's completely dependent on the organization in question.

I know my shit in social. I may have tons to learn still (admittedly) but at least within this arena I have the tools and strategy to compete with the big guns.

I learn tons from talking to older executives. They probably learn tons from me. I'd feel comfortable having a a reporter check out my legitimacy. I wouldn't if I was one of the first two individuals.

Re: Rotnem Philosophy

Stuartfoster — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:55:15 -0000

Note: I don't have anything against the concept. Just the way it was thrust into the public eye with very little forethought. I even called out someone who I thought was doing social right (and WAS a kid) Amanda Mooney.

I think your issue is more with the Valleywag article then my post here.

Re: The Next Great Experiment

Stuartfoster — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:58:12 -0000

Peter. Thanks man. You made my afternoon (Seriously! I looked up the IP figured out it was Hill. Laughed my ass off. Rinse, repeat.)

Re: The Next Great Experiment

Stuartfoster — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:24 -0000

Just fill out the content form on the TNGG site Josh :)