The Web Runs on Love, Not Greed

JS Kelly jskelly@jskelly.com
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:40:25 -0800 (PST)


On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Owen Byrne wrote:

> > ridiculous. this is only where the money is for the short-sighted. tv
> > floundered around for years before finding its 'business model' and even
> > once it was successful, many more models were waiting to be discovered.
> > the miniseries genre of the 70s/80s, home shopping networks, cable news
> > networks... these were all 'discovered' after tv had already become very
> > money-making indeed. saying that only britney spears pages can prove
> > profitable online is like saying only tiger beat can prove profitable
> > offline. 

> Several pretty good examples of crap there. Ok it won't be Britney Spears, 
> nor will it be the Carringtons, George Foreman's Grill, or Greta Von Susteran,
> but there will still be lots of crap (and all of the above will have lots of
> shelf life). 

the carringtons -- from dynasty? -- if yes, this was a soap opera, not a
miniseries. i was thinking more of roots, which was really an excellent
series. but i was naming different types of tv business models, not saying
anything about their quality. mtv and vh1 strike you as something that's
more useful/entertaining? no? well, it doesn't really matter.what i was
trying to say was, there are lots of business models still waiting to be
discovered for the net, and for other -- even well-established -- media as
well. and for the net, even more.
 
> > or make up some new ones. this is a new medium -- or at least, it could
> > be. guess it isn't possible to say that it is, as only a handful of sites
> > (still! after 10 years of popularization) actually do stuff online that
> > isn't a mere shadow of the offline world. and even those have more or less
> > been ruined. slashdot was one, ebay another, amazon another. all now suck,
> > but they are among the very, very few that actually did stuff you just
> > can't do offline. 
> > 
> Maybe they suck because its not sustainable to not suck. 

no, these were among the few that were profitable even before being
morphed into their current sucky incarnations. 

> You have to emulate the technology you're replacing before people even
> notice things you do better. 

i'm not sure what you mean? 

> And making up new mediums doesn't quite have a cachet that it did a
> couple of years ago. 

it's already made up -- we're on it. it's just not reaching its potential.
not by a long, long shot.

> Now its looking more like conquering the wild west circa 1880. Yep,
> there's still gold out there but no world-changing amounts. The rush is
> over. The gold isn't just lying around. Now you have to mine it - big
> machines, big labor, big bucks. 

after gold, land. then movies, computers.. and land again... also tourism. 
agriculture.  there's lots more to california than the gold rush of 1849 =)

> Amazon, e.g., given that the whole use of ink and paper to pass bits
> around the planet seems rather ludicrous, might see themselves <epic> as
> the scourge of tree-killers and paperists everywhere and mount a holy
> campaign that might ultimately strike fear into the hearts of the
> international tree-killing conspiracy , the smut magnates and
> propornganda vendors by finally overthrowing the vast tide, the fearful
> ageless hegemony of books and paperist thought.</epic> but first it
> actually has to get large enough and profitable enough to _survive_.
> Even before they take on the tree-killers, they will have to be big to
> get a segment of the tree-savers market (Adobe and Microsoft would
> probably want a slice, for starters). 

not sure what this is about.

> > > Its like we're building the Borg. Its not the technology, its not the
> > > human behaviour, its the integration of the technology and the human
> > > behaviour thats the real challenge. 
> 
> > i am not sure what you mean? besides, <geek-mode>the borg are primarily
> > non-human species</geek-mode>.
> > 
> Building a single human consciousness, baby. Isn't that the whole point?

gads, i hope not.

-jsk