OMGROFLBBQ 2.0
March 01, 2006 02:44 AM
So I've been introduced to a new internet addiction, known simply as reddit. It is essentially a list of links that users can rate either "hot" or "cold", and then they are ranked accordingly. The other day I found the article WTF 2.0. I'll admit, I found the title somewhat humorous, so I hoped that I had an entertaining read in store for me. Instead, I was treated to a dose of exactly what I find wrong in the world today.
The article in question is an entry on the blog of Russell Beattie. I have no idea what kind of person he is. I've never met the guy, never read any of his other articles, and his biography is generic enough that I can't get a sense of his personality. The point is, I do not intend to thrash the author himself, but rather explain exactly why I believe that he is wrong. In a nutshell, he complains about how too many services on the internet are offered for free, and that the whole concept of the Web 2.0 has wavered from its original intent and has instead become a free-for-all that may eventually lead to another bubble burst. And that, my friends, is the proverbial load of bollocks.
His main points are that the intent of the web is primarily for business purposes, and that "Have an obvious way to take customer’s money" is a necessary component of any new web application. This is fundamentally wrong. The internet, by design, is a means of sharing information. It is as much of a business model as the telephone or television. It certainly lends itself to business applications, and indeed many businesses exist only in cyberspace, but that does not take away from the fact that it was created in order to efficiently propagate information to people that are geographically far away. As far as the average internet user is concerned, that is still its purpose today. Using the internet for business transactions is simply an extension of this property.
The big problem with taking customers' money directly is that it just doesn't work very well on the internet. Many people (i.e. consumers) simply do not want to pay for "premium" services on top of the $45/month that they are already paying for their broadband internet. If they are shelling out more money, they are going to want physical products. For some proof, take a look at the most successful web businesses that take your money directly- Amazon and eBay. They are actually selling you a product, not just some automated service where you don't even get to communicate with an actual human being. Now look at the other successful web businesses, Yahoo! and Google. I don't know about you, but I've never paid a single cent to either one of them for anything, but they somehow manage to stay in business. That is because they don't expect the average Joe to pay them to send e-mail or search for porn...er, conduct research. They essentially make their money through advertising or other means that are semi-transparent to the end user, much like commercials on television. There is money to be made on the internet, but it is not by gouging customers for every penny for every new application out there (which I will talk about more when I discuss his comparisons with the mobile phone market). Instead, they make money by either offering physical goods or through services offered to other businesses.
Mr. Beattie makes a lot of comparisons to the mobile phone market, which is fallacious. The mobile phone is a completely different medium than the internet, although there has been some overlap in recent years. The internet is designed to provide content such as web pages and web applications. It is what people expect when they sign up for it- they are part of the package. Conversely, mobile phones are designed as, well, phones. Extras, such as Instant Messenger and games, are not the reasons that people carry phones. They're to let others annoy you no matter where you go. The phone is also a basically closed platform- most people simply don't write code for it because it is difficult or impossible to get the programs onto the phone besides through the pay channels. On the other hand, any twelve year old with internet access can program a web application these days. In fact, with the increasing use of standards such as mp3 and Java on mobile phones, I can see the downloading of ringtones and games diminishing drastically in the near future.
So I finally get to the point where I can explain the reason why I'm so upset- the implicit attack on hobbyists. Everyone needs a hobby. Some people build doll houses. Others, like my father, build furniture and musical instruments out of wood. And a great deal of people like to program computers. And like any good hobbyist, they want to share their work with the world. That's why the internet is such a wonderful platform for programming for the sheer joy of programming. From what I can tell, Beattie seems to believe that this is not the purpose of web applications, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. He seems appalled at the idea of software being provided completely free of charge for the consumer. How dare somebody create something without expecting mounds of money in return. The truth is, hobby web apps are a threat to businesses that base their entire plan on simple services. Who would pay for an IM client when there are so many free ones out there? So logically, the idea of charging for the use of simple web apps is ludicrous in the first place, and I seriously doubt that anyone adopting this business model expects to create the next Google or Amazon. I think that most conventional businesspersons are sickened by this thought, that there is all of this untapped wealth out there. But would AIM and e-mail really be "killer apps" had they been pay services?
Now I am probably being a little hard on ol' Russ here. He is speaking from the business perspective, and the Web 2.0 movement really is about business. I do, however, fear that the internet will become much like the mobile phone market is today, which seems to be what Mr. Beattie is advocating. I also dislike the idea of looking at the internet purely from a business standpoint. (Warning: I am going to become philosophical) The internet is a place where anyone who can type and find internet access (not all that difficult of a feat) can express their ideas, regardless of social standing, income, or unattractiveness. The primary focus of the Web 2.0 is the sharing of information and ease of use, which means that even more hobbyists will enter the internet realm. Much of what he says does make sense from a business perspective. The only problem with that is, it is all severely disconnected from the user perspective, and that's exactly who he wants to pay.
Oh and as a general rule, never use chat room slang such as "WTF" and "IMHO" in anything that you want taken seriously. It makes you look like a total n00b.
Comments