wow. smack dab in the middle of browsing, i find something honest:

“It’s hard to find people that “get” the web anymore. Everyone’s scampering for the next big profit model, doing whatever it takes to create the next successful IPO. These are people that “use” the web or “do” the web, it’s just another medium to them like television or radio (remember when people used to think television could educate us?). The people that really “get” the web are the people that can still remember how magical it was to hear stories from the other side of the world, they can remember the first time a complete stranger emailed them to share experiences similar to the one’s they wrote about, and they know an interconnected world isn’t just about selling stuff to everyone that can operate a mouse.”

anatomy of a soon-to-fail internet venture

1. build search-centric site with lofty statements pronouncing that anonymous private searching is as important to you as mom, god and apple pie:

“Protect the disclosure of your personal search profiles to on-line search engines by using our excellent Search the Web Service, that guarantees your personal privacy at our site.

Our Private Search Engine will never deliver an unsolicited banner advertisement to you. It will also never use cookies or other invasive Personal Profiling technologies to build any personal profiles on your search requests. ”

2. reveal in sec filing that you really don’t think private searches are as important as being an overblown amazon affiliate:

“The Company has developed a substantial privacy-based information site with thousands of links to privacy issues, news, books and organizations. The company is constantly updating and improving this site and when it is ready for proper launch it will replace the existing search-based site as the home page and central focus of the web site in February, 2000. At such time, the existing search-based web site will be retired from service.”

whoa. but the real question is – can m$ keep developing bloatware that wastes all of those spare processing cycles? i think we all know the answer. o.k. – that was a cheap joke and a mute point:

“Power4 is on schedule to ship in the second half of next year in IBM’s RS/6000 Unix servers and its AS/400 servers for small and medium-size businesses running Unix or Linux.”

it appears that stephen king’s online book has been a little too successful for softlock – the company that’s actually doing the selling [note – the softlock server was down when i posted this]:

“SOFTLOCK EXPLAINED that due to extreme demand, customers would have to return later to access the story. “It’s ten times what we expected,” said Ruth Feiner of the Maynard, Mass.-based firm, though she would not be more specific.

At Amazon.com early on Tuesday, where the $2.50 charge most outlets asked for the book was waived, readers were accessing the 66-page novella, “one and a half times per second,” claimed spokeswoman Kristin Schaefer.”

call me ‘old school’. but i think ebooks have a way to go before i kick back and read the next great american novel with one. despite the buzz, i this has more to do with stephen king and the fact that it’s a short story than it does with ebooks as a disruptive technology that’s going to sweep the nation. some perspective can be found on a previous post to conflux.

i’m not a journalist. i don’t even play one on t.v. but i do have an healthy appetite for critiques of how the medium and messages are changing. chris nolan, formerly of the san jose mercury news, has an interesting bit in salon on how the .com craziness is affecting technology ‘journalism’:

“Both local papers, in their own ways, exercise judgments that undermine their credibility. The [San Francisco Chronicle’s] technology coverage harps on the same tired theme of amazement. My God, says the local paper, look at the wizards and their wonders. The Chron should justrun the same daily headline: “More Cool Stuff From Those Young People in Palo Alto.” The [Mercury News] regards the area’s newly wealthy as curiosities from another planet. The Merc’s recurring headline would say, “They’re Rich. They’re Young. What Does It Mean for People Who Are Poor Like Us?””

“One former editor at the Merc once stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison at a banquet, but couldn’t bring himself to say a word to the billionaire. He told me later he didn’t know what to say to Ellison, whom he noted was at the time the wealthiest man in Silicon Valley.

How is it possible for an editor to be so awed by power, money or influence that he could not even shake another man’s hand? Such insecurity in the face of the area’s increasing wealth and sophistication is a sad commentary on the people who should be telling the valley’s stories”

she has some interesting things to say, coming from someone who has certainly taken her lumps for participating in the IPO of a company in the tech sector:

“This is the backdrop to Chris Nolan’s little stock deal. Whatever the specific rights and wrongs of her AutoWeb escapade, it’s a sign of the new prosperity some technology reporters enjoy, and that really
gets under some observers’ skin. Maybe Nolan did everything by the book, maybe she didn’t; either way, she serves as a whipping boy for the tut-tutting of old-line news hounds who resent the changes that the Internet is bringing to their business.”

i actually ‘scooped’ slashdot this weekend by posting this. the new york times is now running a story on bill joy’s dire predictions. my take? i agree with microsoft?! from the times story:

“Nathan Myhrvold, a physicist who is on leave from his job as the chief technology officer at Microsoft Corp., said in an e-mail interview, “People have made apocalyptic predictions about technology constantly for as long as there has been technology. I think it is because change frightens them. What is more, the most common form these dire predictions take is ‘this next generation of stuff — wow! that is really different and really scary.'””

that’s not to say that i don’t agree wholeheartedly with many of joy’s comments:

“In the telephone interview last week, Joy said he doubted that the development of advances could be reined in in the commercial world, and he criticized scientists as being largely silent on the inherently destructive potential of rapidly evolving technologies.

Asked if he thought a technological species could expect to survive the ever-accelerating evolution of its market-driven technologies, Joy said: “The answer is ‘yes, but not without additional care.’ I think it’s possible — but it’s not a given. Survival won’t come for free.” ”

{ intertwingled since 2000 }