[App & Photo Repository Joined the Deadpool- too bad, it was a glorious victory]
Well, OK. So my long lost cousin Bunny had a little somthing to do with it. Maybe no one will notice the fact that almost all of the Rubel photos are him and none of the Newsome photos are me.
A pretty cool little application. Go pick a fight!
Davis Freeberg, who shares my dislike of anything connected to Real Networks, lands some well deserved blows in this very interesting post.
He correctly points out the absurdity of Real’s obsession with Microsoft’s not even released yet Zune player and then sums up his version of what I have called the Real Player Syndrome in this flurry to the jaw:
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to uninstall their software from my computer. Everytime I swear off their Real player, some clip comes along which I need their proprietary software to use. It’s neat that Real wants to put an end to DRM that locks consumers into proprietary systems, but I’d like to see them address their own service before they complain about big bad Microsoft.”
Amen brother.
That’s why I will forego watching something rather than install what is, in my opinion, computer-hijacking bloatware.
Donna Bogatin at ZDNet has an interesting article today asking who’s making the real money in Web 2.0.
Is it really the application developers who spend countless hours and piles of money creating occasionally amazing products that they turn around and give us for free? No, at least not yet.
Or is it the VC community with a ton of money that needs to be invested somewhere, who are trying and mostly failing to recreate the once lucrative greater fool pipeline to sell these free products to rich fools like Yahoo or poor IPO-happy fools like you and me? No, at least not yet.
Or is it the thoughtful user who takes a free product, mixes in some hard work and self-promotion and becomes a new media star? Yep, at least so far.
If you don’t agree, ask yourself this: would you rather be a fledgling Web 2.0 developer, which is the functional equivalent of being in a pick-up basketball game and hoping to make it to the NBA, or would you rather be Mike Arrington or the guys at Techdirt, which is like being Bob Costas?
Would you rather be working on the 5,913th free online calendar application, or would you rather be the woman known as “Forbidden” on MySpace?
One more. Would you rather develop a YouTube clone, or be a film maker growing an audience and a reputation on YouTube’s nickel?
The real winners are the people who use the free infrastructure provided by these so-called businesses to create something that is both valuable and portable- a brand. If someone builds a freeway that leads to fame and fortune, it’s not the builder who makes the real money, it’s the people who ride that freeway as far as it will take them.
It’s almost like Web 2.0 has turned business theory upside down. It’s not the author of the book that gets the run in Web 2.0, it’s the company that binds the book. Maybe that’s the price they charge for giving everything away.
If so, that’s OK.
Forbidden and others will laugh their way to the bank, while the Web 2.0 companies sit and wait for the next AdSense check to arrive.
Knowing in the back of their minds that the next one might be the last one.
Rob Pegoraro of the Washington Post has an article about the crack that has developed in the IM wall thanks to the deal between Microsoft and Yahoo to allow their IM clients to cross proprietary borders and communicate with each other.
In addition to pointing out the fact that users have to have the latest version of each application to speak cross-network and outlining some some hiccups that have occurred thanks to the lack of an open standard and the resulting difficulty in erecting a bridge between two walled-in networks, Rob also describes the main reason my use of IM clients is very limited:
“Unfortunately, both program’s installers are as pushy as ever about adding browser toolbars, loading extra start-up software, and changing your home-page and Web-search preferences; choose custom-install to opt out of those intrusions.”
I call this the Real Player Syndrome. It’s the genesis of my intense dislike of everything Real- well, that and the fact they make you call them to unsubscribe to things you subscribed to online.
In the race to add features, the IM applications have become bloated caricatures of their former selves. People don’t want to use IM applications as browser-substitutes. They just want to be able to chat with other people, without network limitations.
And what about AOL? Rob says that AOL may be tiptoeing in the right direction:
“AOL is no longer reflexively hostile to letting outsiders hook into its system, having stopped trying to block AIM-compatible third-party software. But the company has only tiptoed toward interoperability, opening its network strictly to far smaller competitors. For instance, users of Apple’s .Mac service have been able to tie into AIM since 2002, and AOL says that by the end of the year, the Google Talk network will also connect to AIM.”
It’s a risky business for the IM applications with the biggest market share to knock down the walls and allow cross-network communication. But it’s inevitable and it will happen.
There’s a crack in the wall. Let’s sit back and watch it grow.
Dwight Silverman thinks I’m wrong about HR 5319 being a good idea.
Maybe, but here’s my thinking- as succinctly as I can describe it.
Yes, in theory, it would be great to have these decisions made at the local level, as Dwight suggests. The thing is, though, that I simply don’t trust the local educators to make the right decision. Plus, I know that kids are very, very clever when it comes to getting around obstacles to their desires, and if the blocking was done on some ad hoc basis, kids would find a way around it within the first day.
Let’s say it was handled on the local level, and let’s say that the principal at my kids’ school decided that since her kids are so responsible and all, that she would trust them to police themselves. I know that’s not going to work. So what would my choices be? To gut it up and deal with it or yank my kids out of the school they love and move them somewhere else? What if the principal at the new school leaves in a year and the new one changes the policy?
What if changing schools is not financially or geographically feasible?
Again, I simply don’t trust local educators to make the right decision every time. Particular when it comes to technology. And I’m unwilling to cede control to them to that degree, regardless of whether they see things my way or not. If you accept the fact that kids shouldn’t be hanging out on MySpace at school, then there is no compelling argument against HR 5319.
Now, if I could conceive of one good reason why a kid should be on MySpace at school, then maybe I’d have second thoughts. But I can’t. Not for a second.
So while there is some paternalism going on here, on both my and the legislators’ part, the overriding good of protecting our kids far outweighs the mild fear that this is the fist step in some Orwellian plan to take away all of our rights.
Kids shouldn’t be on MySpace at school. Kids don’t always know what’s good for them.
The MySpace Law is a good thing that will make schools safer and more productive for our kids.
P.S. Although I suspect he will line up on Dwight’s side of the debate, I really want to hear Seth Finkelstein‘s thoughts on this.
Update: As he mentioned in a comment, Seth posted his thoughts and, as always, makes a lot of good points. I hadn’t thought of the Republicans vs Fox angle, but that might just prove to be a very interesting by-product of this debate. Having said that, if the vote was 410-15, a bunch of Democrats must have voted for it too.
I really like this passage from Earl’s latest post:
“My ego hopes that the subjects I think are important or interesting are relevant to at least a few other people on this planet. When someone leaves me a comment or links to me I feel I’ve accomplished that. It may be part of my own sense of mortality. When posting I’m not concerned about popular opinion. People can love to read you even if they’re certain you’re dead wrong and bound to self-destruct. With different viewpoints comes opportunity for growth. I welcome this.”
When people talk back, or comment, or link it is evidence that we’re all in this together- and by this I mean the universe as well as the blogosphere.
It’s not about money, or fame. It’s about belonging.
That’s why I write, that’s why I read and that’s why I link.
When I said the other day that “as soon as the parents of the world (and the legislators they vote for) come to understand the risk their kids are taking by putting their lives online, MySpace will come under increasing pressure to become safer,” I didn’t realize when would be now.
Marshall Kirkpatrick writes today about House Resolution 5319. If it becomes a law, HR 5319 will require schools and libraries to block social networking sites and chat rooms.
Marshall, not surprisingly, looks at the issue from the perspective of application developers.
Let me give you the parents’ perspective. Put very simply, is there anyone with two brain cells to rub together who thinks that kids should spend part of their time at school surfing around MySpace?
Of course not.
I will read the resolution and the portions of the Communications Act it seeks to amend tonight, but based on what I have read so far, this is a good thing.
Am I the only one who has noticed a marked increase in the amount of spam getting through the Hotmail spam filters?
It was almost non-existant until a week or so ago, now I have 10-15 spams getting through every day.
Steve Rubel writes a very interesting and timely post today about the underground blogosphere- the scads of emails that bloggers send to each other every day.
He describes the underground blogosphere thustly:
“The Underground Blogosphere is an intricate web of hundreds of thousands of emails that bloggers send to each other every day. In essence, they are “pitching” their latest posts in hopes of getting a link. Sometimes, bloggers are genuinely looking for good feedback, but more often than not all they are just looking for traffic.”
As you might imagine, I have a few thoughts about the underground blogosphere.
First, as I mentioned the other day, I have historically been very hesitant to email other bloggers about posts of mine. After thinking about it a bit, I think the reason is that it can easily (and often correctly) be interpreted as taking advantage of a contact or relationship. Putting it in songwriting terms, as I often do because of the similarities I see between blogging and songwriting, it’s sort of like asking another artist who writes his own material to cover your song. Bold, yes. Fruitful, not very.
Steve is one of my blogging mentors, and has been very kind to me as I grow my blog. About the time I was starting to make some progress up blogger’s hill, he wrote a post suggesting that emailing the top bloggers in a quest for links was not the way to go. While I questioned the way he said it, I agreed then on this blog and I agree now that emailing wildly is not the way to go. I also know that if you want people to help you, you have to play be their rules. By trying to be considerate and fair, I was able to (maybe, sort of) prove myself wrong, with much help from Steve, Scoble and other mega-bloggers.
As I mentioned the other day, however, like everything else blogging is different than it appears once you get into it, and as a now somewhat established blogger I am always appreciative of emails and Delicious links suggesting topics and posts to write about.
But I still go easy on emailing others about my posts. So how should emailing and the underground blogosphere work as far as blog growth goes?
I’ll suggest 5 rules for emailing another blogger about your post.
1) Develop a relationship with the blogger before you email. Link to him. Comment on her blog. Bloggers notice who links to them and who comments on their blogs. When I see someone linking and commenting here, I almost always subscribe to their blog and look for opportunities to create cross-blog conversations. Human nature dictates that you return a favor- no matter how big your linkcount is. Let this work in your favor.
2) Don’t just start sending indiscriminate emails to people who don’t know you and expect to get link love in return. Broad emailing looks more like spam than information, and it will be treated as such.
3) Be brief, kind and appreciative. Here’s the relevant portion of an email I wrote Scoble about my killer podcast application post: “I thought you might be interested in a post I did today about expanding the reach of podcasts.” I know Scoble cares about podcasts- I would never email him about a post about something unrelated to his blog and interests.
4) State why the post might be of interest to the recipient. Don’t make the recipient read the post just to see if it might be relevant- tell her why it is. Briefly. And remember, you’re not trying to sell her anything- you’re just giving information.
5) Be patient. I have a mental list of 3-4 newish bloggers I want to link to right now, and I am just waiting until I see an interesting post within a reasonable time after it is posted. I am sure other bloggers have similar lists in their head. It may not seem like it at first, but people will respond if you approach them the right way.
Obviously, these rules don’t apply to email for other purposes, or to emails between people who are friends- in that case, email away. We all do that- and that’s a large part of the underground blogosphere that Steve wonders about exposing.
Exposing it is a good idea, and I’ll have more on that angle later.
Newsome.Org 