Exploding TV: The appetizer is served
Rafat reports that Cablevision has defected from the MSO ranks and is supporting a la carte pricing. Phone companies AT&T and likely Verizon would likely join. See yesterday’s post for what happens next.
: Tonight on NPR, I was interviewed about blog networks, in a story pegged to the Pajamas party. Asked about whether, like radio and TV before us, the internet and blogs are naturally forming into networks, I blurted this out:
“The internet kills networks.”
Yes, it kills permanent, closed networks and encourages ad hoc networks created by need and desire over synergy and deals.
Tags: Exploding_TV
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:21 am
Spot on.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:56 am
Jeff: Why hasn’t the Internet killed IGN, Gawker, CNET, or Weblogs, Inc.?
December 2nd, 2005 at 4:33 am
I’m with Jason on this one.
The Internet enables all sorts of stuff.
I think Gawker and Weblogs Inc. are great examples of how blogs (or whatever Gawker and Weblogs Inc are) work really well as a federated network (and the proof is in the traffic).
Oh yeah — and the best example of a great closed, proprietary network that works just great is Craigslist.
I’m sure wondrous distributed systems will in fact be a big part of the Internet (as they are today). But there’s a lot of places where, due to market efficiencies, technology, patents, or good old fashioned politics, closed networks will remain alive and well.
Bought a car off of the Internet lately? Oh — that’s right, the car dealers have entrenched state laws on their side. Do you use the open index of nutch? Of course not, you use Google’s 100k servers to do your web search.
December 2nd, 2005 at 6:41 am
More thoughts on this:
http://www.calacanis.com/2005/12/01/the-internet-kills-networks-the-latest-jarvis-ism/
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:12 am
I’d say that Weblogs Inc., Gawker, et al aren’t networks but are production companies.
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:30 am
Hrmm then how about an example of a ‘network’ which the internet is killing? Production companies generally sell their product to a network or to a distributor which then sells it to a network. Seems that weblogsinc, gawker, et al are networks with in house production.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:11 am
Jeff, I’m confused. I think Jason has a point. Craigslist is a terrific example. So are Weblogs, Inc, Denton’s efforts, Metroblogging, and others. If you think of these efforts as something different then networks (what’s a production company?), maybe you need to further define what you mean for us.
Listening to NPR - I do agree that each of us will have our own networks - tools like personal aggregators (Newsgator, FeedDemon, Bloglines), and sites like MySpace and LinkedIn - definately.
However - the internet doesn’t kill networks. It enables them. From networks as small as my group of friends, to networks that encompass my community of place, to networks that encompass my interests. Sure - you’re right - many of networks will form organically - almost spontenously - most will. But others, will grow due to the passion of those that want to make them happen - even if it takes a while and is a deliberate process.
The Internet doesn’t kill networks. It enables them. It’s all about connecting. And sometimes for more than just a moment.
Maybe what you mean is the net kills “top down rigidly controlled networks”? There is something very much to that. Since anyone can start a network - anyone - something that is static and controlled by the few will eventually fail.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:21 am
Speaking of ad hoc networks, the Iraqi insurgency seems to have caught on to their effectiveness in meatspace.
http://tinyurl.com/8uguy
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:25 pm
I think you folks are missing the point. Closed networks are like Compuserve, network television, AOL - any network which controls access to the programming, content or other feature. The Internet is open, weblogs Inc is open, because anyone can access the content (without subscription) and interact via comments. Heck on places like Craigslist, the consumer is the content via the Internet, so it’s hardly closed is it?
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Couple of additional notes:
1. Jeff’s “closed” networks like Gawker, WIN, and Craigslist are on the very open Internet. They can be linked to and commented on, so they are not exactly closed like a private dialup service. Also, the private dialup services opened up to the Internets in 94 in case you missed it (12 years ago).
2. If Jeff isn’t talking about blog networks in a blog network story on NPR then what exactly is he talking about? Give us three or four examples of the networks you’re talking about Jeff. Face it dude, you’re talking smack and now you’re not man enough to just say “I talked smack, but I was wrong.”
3. Calling web-based networks a production company is kind of insulting. We’re an enabler… we don’t edit our bloggers and never have (and never will). We give people support (technology, salary, sales, etc) so they can get compensated to blog. Craigslist and MySpace are also an enablers. Perhaps a place like the NYT or About.com where editorial control is exerted is a production company, but that’s not us.
Jeff’s spent three years telling u
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:51 pm
How about LiveJournal?
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:05 pm
LiveJournal will be killed shortly…. right after the Internets kill Xanga, Craigslist, EBAY, and Myspace.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:07 pm
“something that is static and controlled by the few will eventually fail.” umm, I am not so sure about that. When you look back on the whole Internet it is made up from lots of networks. About.com is a network, AOL is a network, aren’t a lot of the directories networks? Which networks we choose to use is usually determined by how experienced we are online. Lots of people choose AOL because it is easy and I am sure there will be those that like to be guided to blogs via a network. Maybe if you like one of the blogs in a network, you would like another. My feeling is that as blogs enter the mainstream, the mainstream will look to networks to bring them their blogs. Me, I am just a ‘rebel’, I like to find my own blogs without the guiding hand of a network.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:29 pm
[...] Jeff Jarvis on what he calls theExploding TV: “The internet kills networks.” Yes, it kills permanent, closed networks and encourages ad hoc networks created by need and desire over synergy and deals. Exploding TV Internet Networks technology [...]
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:04 pm
“something that is static and controlled by the few will eventually fail.â€
Liz - your statement agrees with mine. What I said was not a slam against *all* networks. Not at all. Please don’t take it that way. AOL at one time was anything but static. You seem to have missed the rest of my comment.
Permit me to repeat - the Internet is the enabler of networks. The Internet is the most successful and vastly growing network in human history.
Its whole purpose is to connect us with others - to form networks. And some of those are very valid businesses. My site is an effort at organizing one - although we are affiliated just by geography and little more.
Being a singular atom on the Internet makes no sense. You are going to form a personal network and you are going to move within networks others have spawned of all shapes forms and sizes.
However - just because the web is an enabler of networks - and empowers people and organizations to create them - that doesn’t mean all networks are equal. Some networks are anything but. Some are just top down structures that instead of relying on the strength of their nodes - their members - are static and non-changing. And the net does encourage their death. It empowers people to replace them.
Weblogs Inc is very successful because it is - indeed - a real network that values its participants.
I don’t think what Jeff said in his post can be summarized in his one liner.
If PJM fails - it won’t do so because it is a network - it will fail because it is a top down strictly controlled one. If that is what it is. But not because it is a network. In fact - if PJM realizes what its true strength is - its members - I predict success.
Call me crazy.
Sometimes a concept can’t be boiled down to one line Jeff. Not this one for sure.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
[...] Jason Calcannis says about Jeff Jarvis:Â “I’m so tired of Jeff Jarvis claiming to be a huge expert on blogging. What has Jeff done to become such a huge expert on bloggging? Sure, he runs a decent personal blog, and has done so for a long time? However, Jeff is tapped as this expert on the business of blogging and he’s never made any money from blogging.” [...]
December 5th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Does the Internet kill networks?
Well as I start to work on my plan to build a blogging network, seems some people see here already think my business model is doomed. Of course I take a different view I don’t think the internet kills networks I think creating a blog network is the wa…
December 6th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Jeff refers to the interent fostering ad hoc networks, those that grow “organically.” Weblogs Inc, a network I used to blog for, Gawker and the others are “engineered” in the sense that they are the result of the outworking of a business plan. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, just different.
I love the fact that networks do develop organically. It’s the essence of what the blogosphere is all about. I also appreciate the fact that “engineered” blog networks make a lot of sense. There is room on the blogosphere for both.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
The next time ANYBODY tells you that the Internet or any new emergent technology “kills” anything, think about the long list of “dead” media forms whose obituaries turned out to have been written prematurely.
These are just a few new media “kills” predictions I’ve heard over the last 10 years:
1) Online commerce means the “death” of the shopping mall.
2) CD-ROMs will “kill off” books and other old media.
3) Interactive storytelling is the death-knell of the 5,000-year-old 3-act dramatic structure.
4) Netscape and the Web mark the “demise” of Microsoft (this is one of my personal favorites).
5) Video on demand will “destroy” traditional network programming.
6) Blogs will “replace” newspapers, magazines (and OhMyGod, even traditional political parties!!!).
And if I go back even further in time, I can recite others:
7) TV marks “the demise” of radio.
9) And just in case they don’t kill Hollywood, grassroots movies produced with the help of “newfangled” camcorders will.
10) ??
C’mon folks, help me out here. 10 is such a better list than 9, so please someone come up with another “new media kills old media” prediction.