Spoiler for Lost fans – Do not read this post until you’ve watched the 4/3 (make that, 5/3) episode: However, if you have watched it, all I can say is this: If you get a DUI while working on this show, then watch out.
I’m sorry, this blog is looping: A few minutes ago, one of the original seven readers of this weblog, Doug Shore, emailed me a link to the this WSJ.com story about the “best of the worst” technology from the past decade as it features the CueCat, a swell bit of convergence technology that I’ve mentioned a few times over the years. And then, I saw where Rafat (who must be staying up all night in London) was pointing to a story at Adage.com reporting that Forbes is “quietly seeking investors”…And that reminded me of the last time I blooged about the Forbes family selling something and low and behold, that post also mentioned the CueCat, which Forbes invested in before the bust that I’ve been blogging about today.
I agree. Why is so hard to understand that it’s all about “the model”? If you try to explain Apple’s success (or what will “kill” it) in the music (and now video) category, you’re hopeless if you try to isolate your explanation to one aspect of what they’ve done. “It’s the model.” It’s not just the iPod, it’s the iTunes/iPod/iTunes Store juggernaut. It’s the business model that allows them to generate high margins on selling iPods while squeaking by (if making money at all) on the distribution of music and video. Others may replicate the low-margin music and video distribution business — sell it, sell subscriptions to it, give it away for free, it doesn’t matter. Others may one day offer the next, coolest whatever playing device. But can Apple’s model be replicated? And by whom? It’s what Steve Gillmor said.
The coming bust in Web 2.0 names: I argued this morning that boom and bust aren’t necessarily applicable tags to apply to the current proliferation (and inevitable failure of many) of the web applications and new media experiments that fit under that biggest of big tents called Web 2.0.
However, in the last few moments, I’ve been glancing over all the names on the website/blog called categoriz and I must say that after a while, all of the names run together. Looking over that page reminded me of the recent meme quiz, “Web 2.0 or Star Wars Character?” Except the quiz just scratched the surface.
In the magazine world, it’s thought that most “categories” can sustain two, maybe three brands. However, in the magazine world, publishers have a genius for creating new niches in which they can be number one or two. When it comes to Web 2.0, rather than explore new categories, it seems to me that developers feel compelled to createt the tenth or twentieth version (but better than the others) of the same thing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to go climb a new mountain than for everyone to keep trying to climb the same old ones?
Technorati Tags: web2.0
A book I won’t be reading: Paul Conley points to a B2B media-related book he’s learned about, a self-published graphic novel that “satirizes the compromised ethics at play in the fictional offices of American Tractor Times magazine.” In the past I may have ordered it, but I recently became a member of the Church of Kathy Sierra and one of its doctrines is to admit I’ll never get around to reading a book like this so why have it sitting on my desk reminding me what a loser I am for not keeping up with everything I think I want to read or see or do.