From: Tom Whore (tomwhore@inetarena.com)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 07:52:09 PST
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 fielding@ebuilt.com wrote:
--]Crikey.
--]
--]Adam, you've posted many great bits in the recent past, so don't
--]take this personally, but this 2XInternet buzzword-fest SUCKS.
--]Not in a small way, either.
--]
--]Pardon me while I point out the obvious fallacies...
OK first off Name Foul
2x?? Come on, Thats 2 strikes agsinst the idea right from the get go? Who
wants that.
Second off
--]> > Metered. All interactions on the 2X Internet will be metered, analyzed,
--]> > and charged to customers. Due to the infrastructure needed and the
--]> > complexity of the interactions, business models based on free
--]> > interactions will be cast aside in favor of a fee for service model.
--]
--]Because that is clearly what the customers want. Right?
--]
--]Will the customers in the audience who want to be charged by the packet
--]for Internet access please raise their hands? Thank you.
--]
--]But wait, in the first paragraph he claimed that the 2XInternet would
--]"cost less" than the Web. How is it going to cost less when he just
--]claimed that it will become user-pay? Oh, yeah... he thinks it will
--]cost the big corporates less money than running big Web servers.
Yea, I can see the horde of bargin hunting AOL/Juno/Netzero useres
chomping at the bit to be Charged for clicking thru to a Recipe phile
site.
Transactional based service is not the dealio for the current system and
will damn sure better not be for the "next" one. IF the last few years
have shown us anything is that the motion of the users traffic TO
something tangible equates into potential income.
THe failing of the Boom Dot Bust of 00 was that for all the tech and hype
most of the buffolo were being herded off a cliff rather than into the
slaughter house. Profits were unrealised and expectations not met simpoly
because folks were too full of themselves for putting html tags around
years old ideas and assuming the customer would stand mezmerized while
opening thier wallets to all takers.
2X does even less. IN the 2X scheme the cosumer would now be paying for
the privaledge of getting nothing, but since the back end is all complex
and hyped they wont mind.
Was this guy asleep for the last 4 years?
--]> > How the 2X Internet will fix the Web
This is great. The WEb has not even hit its potential , in fact even
understood its own potential, and here we have the next JC on a pogo Stck
Christ doing it one better.
--]
--]So everything this guy has claimed is bogus. Please tell me that there
--]is some value in the "two way Web", because this crap just dissuaded me
--]from any interest in the technology. I know you guys can do better.
Two way web, well thats got some potential. What is outlined here though
in the guise of the ready-to-hype name 2x is a narrowing slide of
transactions into the pockets of a fee. Its not anything that will "help"
scale or grow the web, it simply helps to scale the income stream of those
who control the name 2x
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.doesntexist.com===---]
\ /
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 11 2001 - 07:57:23 PST