"There is no revenue credibility for new services on the Internet—and that’s the fault of the west coast hippies”
June 5, 2001 6:46 AM Subscribe
"There is no revenue credibility for new services on the Internet—and that’s the fault of the west coast hippies” Harsh words from the Economist. Will much of web space become segmented into paid subscription "walled gardens" accessed by wireless users, leaving free/community services to the "hobbyist" crowd that dominated the space since the early 1980's?
leaving free/community services to the "hobbyist" crowd that dominated the space since the early 1980's?
We can hope so. The free services created by "the 'hobbyist' crowd" are generally the better ones.
posted by daveadams at 6:54 AM on June 5, 2001
We can hope so. The free services created by "the 'hobbyist' crowd" are generally the better ones.
posted by daveadams at 6:54 AM on June 5, 2001
I just love this attitude these guys have: "I didn't make a ton of money on the internet, so the internet must be at fault." It doesn't occur to them to think that the internet was never meant to have a "business model", and trying to apply one to it like trying to nail jello to a wall.
daveadams, you said it; if they want to hang out inside their walled gardens waiting for people to give them money for services and content that have been done better for free, let 'em.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:06 AM on June 5, 2001
daveadams, you said it; if they want to hang out inside their walled gardens waiting for people to give them money for services and content that have been done better for free, let 'em.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:06 AM on June 5, 2001
It looks to me like "revenue credebility" problems were created by companies like pets.com which were lame-ass. You have to have at least some innovation. Ebay is trading at what, 64 now? I don't see any problem there. Online banking is handy for some people. No problem there. This appears to be public opinion bullshit spiced with ideological assault to get applause. "Ha-ha, France."
Incidentally, such assault directed at the West Coast has been mounting lately with those damned environmentalists causing all those energy problems and those hippies eating babies. I hear more and more of it every day. It's getting ugly, but maybe I just notice it more.
How much can you do with a mobile phone on the internet? You might be able to flirt with a hip girl at a party where the annoying music is too loud, but what else? Is it enough to pay more for?
I like how their customers are used to paying, so they can offer them more little services to pay for. "They like paying."
posted by mblandi at 7:24 AM on June 5, 2001
Incidentally, such assault directed at the West Coast has been mounting lately with those damned environmentalists causing all those energy problems and those hippies eating babies. I hear more and more of it every day. It's getting ugly, but maybe I just notice it more.
How much can you do with a mobile phone on the internet? You might be able to flirt with a hip girl at a party where the annoying music is too loud, but what else? Is it enough to pay more for?
I like how their customers are used to paying, so they can offer them more little services to pay for. "They like paying."
posted by mblandi at 7:24 AM on June 5, 2001
> leaving free/community services to the "hobbyist" crowd
> that dominated the space since the early 1980's?
YES! YES! YES!
posted by jfuller at 7:42 AM on June 5, 2001
> that dominated the space since the early 1980's?
YES! YES! YES!
posted by jfuller at 7:42 AM on June 5, 2001
What a silly little article. The Economist's coverage is usually far better than that - they normally avoid pure speculation pieces in favour of an analysis through the lens of a specific situation.
There's a fundamental theoretical problem as well. "Information wants to be free" isn't a suggestion, it's a (debatable) description of a demonstrable principle. True or not (information, after all, can't 'want' anything), no one can disprove it just by saying they don't want it to be so.
The cellphone model is a non-starter, I think. I'd like to know the number of people who buy metered cell services who pay their own freight versus those who have them paid for by an employer or deducted as a business expense. Once you get the early-adopter crowd out of the way (people who are mostly interested in trying something new because it's new), I bet they sell very few such services.
posted by mikel at 7:44 AM on June 5, 2001
There's a fundamental theoretical problem as well. "Information wants to be free" isn't a suggestion, it's a (debatable) description of a demonstrable principle. True or not (information, after all, can't 'want' anything), no one can disprove it just by saying they don't want it to be so.
The cellphone model is a non-starter, I think. I'd like to know the number of people who buy metered cell services who pay their own freight versus those who have them paid for by an employer or deducted as a business expense. Once you get the early-adopter crowd out of the way (people who are mostly interested in trying something new because it's new), I bet they sell very few such services.
posted by mikel at 7:44 AM on June 5, 2001
> But if it comes to a choice between profitability and the
> survival of the Internet’s traditional culture, it is not hard
> to guess which will prevail.
Economist says "If you can't eat it or fuck it, then piss on it."
posted by jfuller at 7:49 AM on June 5, 2001
> survival of the Internet’s traditional culture, it is not hard
> to guess which will prevail.
Economist says "If you can't eat it or fuck it, then piss on it."
posted by jfuller at 7:49 AM on June 5, 2001
West Coast Hippies? I thought the preponderance of bad Web ideas and egos was centered here in Manhattan.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:52 AM on June 5, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 7:52 AM on June 5, 2001
In Manhattan, they disavow the existence of hippies. They are reclassified either as "iconoclasts" or "homeless," depending on their income bracket.
posted by Skot at 8:24 AM on June 5, 2001
posted by Skot at 8:24 AM on June 5, 2001
The problem they're having is that they're trying to treat the web as a "magazine without paper", just as in the early days they tried to treat television as "radio with pictures" or "a theater in the home". Television wasn't a variant on previous things, it was something completely new. The Web equally isn't a variant of previous things, and attempts to morph previous things to fit in it will not usually prosper. It's only when the unique characteristics of the web are recognized and completely new entertainment experiences which capitalize on it are created that web-based businesses will really flourish. (Anyway, they already are.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:26 AM on June 5, 2001
The Economist has long been known for tongue-in-cheek statements such as this. Those Brits and their sense of humor! Had this statement come from Texas we might be able to take it at face value. And I'm sure some East Coast hippies had a bit to do with the whole "information wants to be free" thing too. (sarcasm alert, please note)
posted by nofundy at 8:28 AM on June 5, 2001
posted by nofundy at 8:28 AM on June 5, 2001
I thought television was radio with pictures. Wait a minute; let me look again....yes: that's what it is.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:35 AM on June 5, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 8:35 AM on June 5, 2001
> I thought television was radio with pictures. Wait a
> minute; let me look again....yes: that's what it is.
No, wait, it's telegraph with words and pictures and no copper wire. No, wait, it's the Pony Express with bandwidth. No...
posted by jfuller at 8:49 AM on June 5, 2001
> minute; let me look again....yes: that's what it is.
No, wait, it's telegraph with words and pictures and no copper wire. No, wait, it's the Pony Express with bandwidth. No...
posted by jfuller at 8:49 AM on June 5, 2001
"Harsh words from The Economist."
"The Economist has long been known for tongue-in-cheek statements such as this. "
Did you actually read the article? The quote was from Tom Nolle.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:57 AM on June 5, 2001
"The Economist has long been known for tongue-in-cheek statements such as this. "
Did you actually read the article? The quote was from Tom Nolle.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:57 AM on June 5, 2001
Er Mikel:
The cellphone model is a non-starter, I think. I'd like to know the number of people who buy metered cell services who pay their own freight versus those who have them paid for by an employer or deducted as a business expense. Once you get the early-adopter crowd out of the way (people who are mostly interested in trying something new because it's new), I bet they sell very few such services.
I see from your profile that you're from Montreal. Lets talk about cellphones (or mobiles) from a UK perspective (which is where the economist is made after all. In the UK about 60-70% of people own mobile phones. There are about 1billion paid text messages sent per annum (I think) and loads more on the 'net for free. Each of those text messages costs at least 5p and more usually 10p.
about 75% of uk mobile users are on prepay, the rest are on monthly post pay contracts. A significant proportion of those are business users but it is dropping as the mobile companies are increasing the pre-pay prices (and dropping the post-pay ones).
More people will vote on Big Brother than will vote in the General election in the UK. They'll vote in three ways. Text messaging (25p a pop, Cellnet only as they're sponsoring the thing but they've got 9 million users), interactive TV (again 25p each) and the usual phone line ring up wotsit (25p once more). To be honest they'll make loads of money.
I think you may be thinking in a US context where mobiles aren't quite so all embracing.
I do agree with your criticism of the convergence thing. IMHO it's balderdash. But the evidence was wrong (for most of Europe and Japan anyway).
posted by nedrichards at 2:03 PM on June 5, 2001
The cellphone model is a non-starter, I think. I'd like to know the number of people who buy metered cell services who pay their own freight versus those who have them paid for by an employer or deducted as a business expense. Once you get the early-adopter crowd out of the way (people who are mostly interested in trying something new because it's new), I bet they sell very few such services.
I see from your profile that you're from Montreal. Lets talk about cellphones (or mobiles) from a UK perspective (which is where the economist is made after all. In the UK about 60-70% of people own mobile phones. There are about 1billion paid text messages sent per annum (I think) and loads more on the 'net for free. Each of those text messages costs at least 5p and more usually 10p.
about 75% of uk mobile users are on prepay, the rest are on monthly post pay contracts. A significant proportion of those are business users but it is dropping as the mobile companies are increasing the pre-pay prices (and dropping the post-pay ones).
More people will vote on Big Brother than will vote in the General election in the UK. They'll vote in three ways. Text messaging (25p a pop, Cellnet only as they're sponsoring the thing but they've got 9 million users), interactive TV (again 25p each) and the usual phone line ring up wotsit (25p once more). To be honest they'll make loads of money.
I think you may be thinking in a US context where mobiles aren't quite so all embracing.
I do agree with your criticism of the convergence thing. IMHO it's balderdash. But the evidence was wrong (for most of Europe and Japan anyway).
posted by nedrichards at 2:03 PM on June 5, 2001
Great point, nedrichards...
it's easy for us in the U.S. to forget that in the rest of the world, Europe and Asia in particular, net access/text messaging through wireless devices is a big deal, and it is almost all paid for through subscriptions.
In this context, it could be argued that the "walled garden" approach makes sense. Until more sites are WAP-enabled (or enabled for whatever other protocol arises), it's probably more sensible for consumers to have ready access to a stable of wireless-enabled sites.
However, it's absurd to think of this as a "replacement" for the web - more likely than not, it's a development that will exist parallel to the web, intersecting here and there. The fact is, there are still tons of PC's in the US, and despite apocalyptic predictions from analyst charlatans, the PC will continue to be the premier net access device on this side of the pond for awhile...
posted by preguicoso at 7:02 AM on June 6, 2001
it's easy for us in the U.S. to forget that in the rest of the world, Europe and Asia in particular, net access/text messaging through wireless devices is a big deal, and it is almost all paid for through subscriptions.
In this context, it could be argued that the "walled garden" approach makes sense. Until more sites are WAP-enabled (or enabled for whatever other protocol arises), it's probably more sensible for consumers to have ready access to a stable of wireless-enabled sites.
However, it's absurd to think of this as a "replacement" for the web - more likely than not, it's a development that will exist parallel to the web, intersecting here and there. The fact is, there are still tons of PC's in the US, and despite apocalyptic predictions from analyst charlatans, the PC will continue to be the premier net access device on this side of the pond for awhile...
posted by preguicoso at 7:02 AM on June 6, 2001
« Older Jon Carroll defends Kaycee: | What's 95 inches tall, purple, and stinks like... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by owillis at 6:49 AM on June 5, 2001