Feb 2nd, 2008 | Blogs, Media 2.0 | 1 Comment
Alexander Rose at The Long Now blog has a post about how the foundation has determined a winner in the 2002 wager between Dave “I invented blogs” Winer and Martin Niezenholtz of the New York Times. The bet was whether a search of the top news stories from 2007 would produce more results from blogs or more from The New York Times. According to Rose, blogs won — although he also notes that the bet was poorly worded, and therefore ambiguous in many ways.
I think the bet was more than just poorly worded, however. The whole idea behind was flawed to begin with, and is even more flawed now. The wager pits blogs against the New York Times as though one is somehow a replacement for the other. That may have made some sense in 2002 but makes very little sense now — especially since the NYT and plenty of other mainstream media have blogs of their own.
Let’s recap: Blogs and media are not opposing forces. Blogs aren’t replacing “mainstream media,” they’re enhancing it and expanding it — connecting it to the conversations that are going on around it and through it and with it. Blogs take stories and commentary from the traditional media and extend them out into the world. Arguing that blogs will replace the traditional media is like saying forks are going to replace spoons.
Jan 26th, 2008 | Blogs, Media 2.0 | No Comments
Allen Stern of Centernetworks has a provocative post in which he asks whether people would be willing to pay $1 for a full-text RSS feed, or to pay $4.95 for a bundle of 10 feeds, etc. His point (I’m pretty sure) is that advertising in RSS feeds doesn’t really work that well, and that it’s hard to monetize a blog if no one ever comes to the website and looks at the feeds. Allen has very kindly suggested that my feed could be part of the tech-blog “bundle,” but I don’t think his idea is going to work.
Many of the commenters on Allen’s blog argue that this would be good value, that full feeds without ads would be better than either partial feeds or feeds with advertising, and so on. MG Siegler at ParisLemon says that he thought the idea was ridiculous at first, but that he has warmed up to it. I’ve given it some time and thought about it a fair bit, but I’m not warming up to it at all. If anything, I’m getting colder towards the idea. I just don’t think making people pay for feeds makes any sense.
If any of the blogs that Allen has in mind were producing content that was highly valuable — inside information, valuable tips — then you might be able to argue that charging for them would make sense. But I can only think of a few blogs that fall into that category (and no, I’m not including my own), and here’s the thing: most of them are already making money from those things, just not through their blogs. As Rex Hammock said, my blog doesn’t carry advertising, my blog is advertising.
I can totally understand the desire for something like a paid-feed model — I just don’t think it would work, and it kind of goes against what I see as the whole point of having a blog. Sorry Allen.
Jan 22nd, 2008 | Blogs, Media 2.0 | No Comments
As my friend Om Malik is reporting — and as founder Matt Mullenweg has confirmed on his blog — the company behind Wordpress has landed $29-million in financing, including an investment from none other than the New York Times. This sounds like a great deal for an equally great company, one whose products I not only use for this and other blogs, but have recommended to dozens of friends and coworkers as the easiest way to get online, and many of them now use it.
As Om points out, Wordpress is not only a blog platform — it has become one of the default publishing platforms for all kinds of online content, including some small newspapers. As CEO Toni Schneider notes, the hosted version of Wordpress at Wordpress.com has more than 2 million blogs and is now the number 12 site on the Internet in terms of traffic. And yet Matt Mullenweg, who I met when he came to the very first mesh conference in 2006, is as unassuming as can be — someone who just seems fascinated by what tools like Wordpress can produce.
Matt and Toni say that the funds will go to build out the company’s server network and to add new features, including (I’m assuming) the recently announced upgrade of storage space on Wordpress to 3 gigabytes. It seems clear to me that Wordpress is well on its way to becoming something much more than just another blogging engine. Well done, Matt. TechCrunch reported last fall that Automattic turned down a $200-million acquisition offer, and now I can see why.
Jan 20th, 2008 | Blogs, Media 2.0 | No Comments
I’m a big fan of the Mashable blog by Pete Cashmore. They cover technology and the Web like no other blog, and they have some great writers — like Adam Ostrow, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins, Kristen Nicole and others — but something has always kind of bothered me about the site, and I’m glad that Louis Gray finally wrote about it: Mashable often isn’t that great at giving credit to the blogs and writers who found an item first.
In his post, Louis is quite rightly upset about a couple of scoops he got, involving the site Readburner and another similar site called Shared Reader. In the first case, Mashable wrote about the site and gave him no credit whatsoever — not even a link. In the second case, Louis says that Mashable wrote an item and put a small “via” link at the bottom, something they often do. While this is a link, Louis is right that it’s not very prominent and is easily missed. But at least it’s a link.
The other example he uses is pretty outrageous, however: Louis says a quote he got from Robert Scoble was lifted from his post and used in a Mashable post without any link or attribution whatsoever. I think everyone would agree that taking quotes is pretty offside. Pete has responded in the comments to Louis’s post, and says he is reviewing the site’s linking policies, but he doesn’t say anything about the quote (although the post has been updated with attribution).
Attribution is something that has been — and is still — a long-running debate in traditional media as well. Television stations “rip and read” newspaper stories, but newspapers themselves routinely take articles from wire services like Reuters or Associated Press and use virtually the entire thing, but put their own writer’s byline on it. Sometimes they put a small “with files from” at the end of the story.
The fact that you can link on the Internet is one of the most powerful forces there is. A link from Mashable can help people find new blogs such as Louis’s, and they shouldn’t be stingy with their attribution — and they definitely shouldn’t be lifting quotes holus-bolus. I hope Pete and his team can set a good example for others.
Dec 20th, 2007 | Blogs, Media 2.0 | No Comments
The Apple rumour site Think Secret has posted a note saying that it has reached a settlement with Apple over the lawsuit the computer company filed against it for leaking company secrets, and that it is “a positive solution for both sides.” No doubt any kind of settlement that doesn’t involve millions of dollars or jail time is a relief for Nick Ciarelli — the Harvard student who ran the site and has been hounded by Apple for several years now — but I fail to see how it’s positive for anyone.
This case is separate from another case involving bloggers and company secrets, in which Apple tried to get PowerPage, AppleInsider and Think Secret to reveal the names of the sources they got their information from. In that case, a lower court ruled that the bloggers weren’t protected by California’s “journalist shield” law, and that they would have to turn over the information — but an appeals court disagreed, saying they were entitled to the same protection as journalists.
Think Secret was sued separately for divulging trade secrets — and while the site didn’t have to turn over the names of its sources, it has still been forced to shut down. Meanwhile, Apple comes off looking like some power-crazed South American dictator, the kind who can’t stand it when the media reveal government secrets and so arrests the entire press corps. I know that keeping secrets and then revealing them to an adoring public at Macworld is a time-honoured Jobs tradition, but this is ridiculous.
As Mike Masnick notes at Techdirt, this will have a chilling effect on journalists — and I’m including publications like Think Secret and Apple Insider in that description. Apple should be ashamed of itself. My blogging friend Rex Hammock has a moving tribute to Think Secret here.
Update:
Ars Technica has a good overview of the case and those that preceded it — and according to the EFF, Nick Ciarelli is pretty happy with the settlement (which the EFF suggests Apple was in danger of losing). If he got a half-decent settlement, then I’m glad. But I still think it sends the wrong message to shut the site down.
