RSS
A Reminder Of Why We Shouldn't Write Off New Business Models Too Early
from the a-look-back dept
Every so often someone pulls out Cliff Stoll's infamous Newsweek piece from 1995, in which he trashes the internet and mocks the claims people make about it -- nearly all of which came true:
But the point of this post isn't to mock Stoll's bad predictions, but to note that this kind of thinking was hardly unique to Stoll at the time. It was, in fact, quite common -- and still is in some circles. But in rereading Stoll's article, I'm reminded of the naysayers we see around here pretty regularly, complaining about how these new business models we talk about can never work, or that they only work for the few "exceptions" at the margin.
They point out that "only" 30,000 music acts are making a living and snicker, as if that's proof that new models don't work. And, yet, in 1995, folks like Stoll could snicker at the idea of books being sold online. Later he mocks the idea that anyone would get involved in politics online, or buy an airline ticket online. That was only fifteen years ago. The internet enables amazing things, and it does so much faster than people believe, but it doesn't happen instantly. But ignoring basic trend lines and recognizing how technology progresses is only going to serve to make people look foolish down the road.
How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it's an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can't tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.I'm reminded of this thanks to Shocklee posting a link to it -- even though I've seen it many, many times before. The last time this article got passed around, it finally resulted in Stoll issuing a mea culpa of sorts, admitting he got it wrong. Newsweek, itself, has also sorta kinda published an apology/non-apology for the piece as well. I do wonder if the likes of Jaron Lanier and other internet pessimists will end up being forced to do the same in another fifteen years as well.
But the point of this post isn't to mock Stoll's bad predictions, but to note that this kind of thinking was hardly unique to Stoll at the time. It was, in fact, quite common -- and still is in some circles. But in rereading Stoll's article, I'm reminded of the naysayers we see around here pretty regularly, complaining about how these new business models we talk about can never work, or that they only work for the few "exceptions" at the margin.
They point out that "only" 30,000 music acts are making a living and snicker, as if that's proof that new models don't work. And, yet, in 1995, folks like Stoll could snicker at the idea of books being sold online. Later he mocks the idea that anyone would get involved in politics online, or buy an airline ticket online. That was only fifteen years ago. The internet enables amazing things, and it does so much faster than people believe, but it doesn't happen instantly. But ignoring basic trend lines and recognizing how technology progresses is only going to serve to make people look foolish down the road.
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
You can try to predict the future and fail more than you are correct, or you can be a sheep and just not try.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Besides, we praise people who try and fail, while we scorn people who don't even try, though the end result is the same. Why not treat predictions similarly?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Rather pessimistic?
Predicting things will "revolutionise" life is often a bit fanciful I'll grant you. Life has it's own way of deciding what will change things and what won't. But that doesn't mean the predicting that "in the future we will be able to do X" isn't valid. Even if you're wrong, sometimes the idea in the right place inspires people to create something like it.
True enough that it's become anecdotal. I've often heard the phrase "Yeah, this internet thing is just a fad" used sarcastically in techy circles following an online implementation that was doubted by the business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The trick
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rather pessimistic?
If you get religion you will never understand anything.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why don't you people grasp this obvious reality?
Submit to whatever the internet decries. Resistance is futile.
We will dictate what everyone does.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@6. God
Please consult a dictionary before employing polysyllabic pontification; in this specific instance, "decries."
It does not mean what you seem to believe it means.
Thanks, and have a glorious day!
AH,C
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
SOON? "we'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet"
As for books, no, a few weenies buy the toy readers (and pay high prices for data bits that they'll never own), but even that's nothing to do with the internet as such: it's the HARDWARE that's now available. It's possible to walk into a store to get a wired connection for the data, anyway.
And again with this context-less number! -- "30,000 music acts are making a living" -- How many existed before, and how does "teh internets" directly enable them now?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
PS ^^^ "Intenet" is *as* copied.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: PS ^^^ "Intenet" is *as* copied.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SOON? "we'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet"
I own one of those "toy" readers (complete aside, please define a "real" reader, will you?), and I have 'bought' several (well over 100) titles for it at the tidy sum of $0.00.
Your second paragraph is so far off as to be laughable. Do you think for one minute that if the internet didn't exist the market for those "toy" readers would have had anywhere near the success they have had?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:God
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SOON? "we'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SOON? "we'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet"
http://www.jeromegodboo.com/Music/Alive/index.cfm
Great band I used to listen to. I may have to replenish my collection. Someone stole these from me (meaning my tape is gone).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:God
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: #14 Re: #6 God
Usually the Trolls (capitalized, just in case He really is God) stick with the simple misspellings.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rather pessimistic?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Rather pessimistic?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Best quote from Bill Gates
There are a lot of other things you can say about the guy, but that's dead on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Best quote from Bill Gates
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment