Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
Besides, if this model works, it would be adopted by more companies, increasing competition.

Competition undermines the model. Every competitor doesn't want to be constrained to only offer exactly what the others do; each will want to offer differentiating factors. He suggests that all "news" will simply come from the New York Times app - ridiculous, given that the New York Times, and all other news agencies, only offer a portion of the news based on their own editorial policies. Will there be an Al Jazeera app? The Guardian (UK) app? Daily Punch (Nigeria) app? National Enquirer app? What if someone starts a new newsgathering organization; how does this new entrant get visibility when a platform vendor is the gatekeeper?

We're not even discussing the anti-trust implications of this yet.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan
Something similar might happen in the business world, with small businesses opting for cheap speciality computers, and large businesses reducing their worker's pcs to little more than a web browser which accesses the applications on the main server.

That's a completely different thing than the elimination of the open internet. That's just the proliferation of cloud services to places where they make sense, such as large organizations that can see substantial gains from migrating line of business apps back onto the cloud (ie "mainframe," LOL) and using lightweight client machines.

(As an aside, OnLive is now in open beta and users with adequate bandwidth - at least 5Mbps - are reporting pretty solid performance.)

Quote: Original post by Antheus
Not one, several. Just like TV. Someone who works in broadcasting has tons of options, but population at large has choice of cable or satellite or aerial, along with preselected sets of channels.

Cable TV is an awful model. New channels have had an absolutely terrible time getting carriage while users are stuck paying lump sums for hundreds of channels they never watch. There's been a persistent campaign for a la carte pricing for years but it's gone nowhere because of the combination of local monopolies (most US consumers only have a single cable vendor option), channel portfolios (Disney insists you carry, say, ToonDisney to get ESPN while NewsCorp says you've gotta carry Fox News Business to get FX) and simple inertia. Many people view the internet and IPTV as an opportunity to get away from the old and busted cable model and you're saying we should apply it to the new hotness?

Quote: Original post by Antheus
How many people already today use their computer for Facebook only. The rest might not exist at all. How many use it for Word only, perhaps as sole use at their place of work?

This is a complete fiction. That "Facebook-only" user? Her news feed is full of embedded videos, links to articles and more from all over the web. Yeah, maybe she doesn't directly type in URLs to other sites, but she definitely consumes their content.

I don't get the relevance of Word in a discussion of a "curated" internet, unless you're talking about Microsoft Office Live.

You know, with a face like that, he's going to have to be quick at disregarding females.

Otherwise there's a very real risk that he'll get disregarded by us first...

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

He suggests that all "news" will simply come from the New York Times app - ridiculous, given that the New York Times, and all other news agencies, only offer a portion of the news based on their own editorial policies.

Not in literal sense.

User behavior is strongly influenced by brand trust. This is why Android platform is a problem for Google. Apple's brand is much better suited, and consequently for everything that is available on their products. A typical user will not be able to distinguish between application feed that streams the news vs. device that it's running on.

Quote: Cable TV is an awful model. New channels have had an absolutely terrible time getting carriage while users are stuck paying lump sums for hundreds of channels they never watch. There's been a persistent campaign for a la carte pricing for years but it's gone nowhere because of the combination of local monopolies

And now the society has had an epiphany and it will do away with monopolies, huge profit margins and such...

Some things never change. This is precisely why all of those organizations (those that will survive at least) will flock to controlled platforms as soon as their market share is adequate. Then they can simply turn off other distribution channels.

What good are independent sources, when they can be banned from the device ("oh noes, the button is 2 pixels to wide") since the powers that be dislike competition. Free market is illusion, and internet isn't changing that.

Quote: That "Facebook-only" user? Her news feed is full of embedded videos, links to articles and more from all over the web.

Who gets exposure - Facebook or Youtube/vimeo/hulu/etc...). Again, problem of brand identity.

Quote: you're saying we should apply it to the new hotness

I'm not advocating anything, merely observing.

The natural progression will be similar to what is happening elsewhere already, namely software development and photojournalism. Everyone can create and publish, but outside of select few individuals, it will remain a hobby.

To get exposure, one still needs to sign up with some larger entity. AppStore is an example - anyone can create. But Apple makes the rules. It's same with Android really, use anything, as long as it's Java. Big publishers have effectively fired all photojournalists and now just license off getty, flickr or iStockPhoto.

The winners of this model are aggregators. While they may be able to provide more content, the actual content is worth very little today. If anything, the "new cable companies" will use behavioral metrics (available to them alone) to provide better channels. The value will lie in metrics (and perhaps a lump sum by a publisher wanting exposure), not in actual content served. This is easily demonstrated by auto-generated sites.

The flawed belief is that democratization of the media means old structures will vanish, while they'll only reform themselves to better match new distribution models.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Competition undermines the model. Every competitor doesn't want to be constrained to only offer exactly what the others do; each will want to offer differentiating factors. He suggests that all "news" will simply come from the New York Times app - ridiculous, given that the New York Times, and all other news agencies, only offer a portion of the news based on their own editorial policies. Will there be an Al Jazeera app? The Guardian (UK) app? Daily Punch (Nigeria) app? National Enquirer app? What if someone starts a new newsgathering organization; how does this new entrant get visibility when a platform vendor is the gatekeeper?

Well, I was thinking more about Antheus's point about platforms reducing the visibility of certain unneccesary features, especially as OSs become more able to handle those features on their own. A good example would be a file explorer, a normal user doesn't need to know what files are on his / her hard disk. Some features may also be hidden so that the user doesn't use the platform in a way the publisher doesn't want him to.

This doesn't have to be done coercively. The gatekeeper can simply deny the user access to an extraneous service (Such as a warranty), should the user go beyond the platform's intended use -- similar to what's happening with the iPhone and jailbreak. As we become more cloud centric, the extent of these services may grow. Should I be forced to allow a banned user from using my servers to store their files if they have broken their terms of service?

People can't tell me what to do on my computer, but they most certainly can on their computer.

A platform like this can't really exist unless it gives the majority of users the degree of freedom which they want. This freedom comes in the form of the app store and others like it. It's a closed sand box, but you can get it if you play by the rules. It also gives fruit to a very energetic market.

Quote: We're not even discussing the anti-trust implications of this yet.

I don't think anti-trust laws are really neccessary in all cases. I think you mentioned the browser advertisements the EU forced on Microsoft. I was pretty shocked by that, mostly because I really didn't think it was neccessary. Three years ago, I didn't need an advertisement to become an avid Firefox user. None of the people I know who immediately installed Chrome when it was announced needed an advertisement from Microsoft.

If Microsoft was covertly hiding parts of the internet in order to obscure these alternate platforms, or breaking them in some way when they are installed, I would cry wolf, otherwhise, it doesn't make sense.

I don't even think the cross-compiler thing is an anti-trust issue -- even though it's peculiar. Because, for better or worse, Apple aren't discriminating against anyone, and they still allow the most widely used, and available, system languages (C and C++) to be used.

Quote: That's just the proliferation of cloud services to places where they make sense, such as large organizations that can see substantial gains from migrating line of business apps back onto the cloud (ie "mainframe," LOL) and using lightweight client machines.

My thoughts exactly lol.

Quote: Original post by WazzatMan

A good example would be a file explorer, a normal user doesn't need to know what files are on his / her hard disk. Some features may also be hidden so that the user doesn't use the platform in a way the publisher doesn't want him to.

Hidden has negative connotation - most do not think about the contents of their computer in files. It's just images, movies and homework and that annoying work time sheet.

Quote: Should I be forced to allow a banned user from using my servers to store their files if they have broken their terms of service?

Bans and prohibition are ineffective. Vendors today are competing to provide incentive to not want alternatives. The barrier of "good enough" is incredibly low, as long as it provides the needed features.

Quote: People can't tell me what to do on my computer, but they most certainly can on their computer.

Again, technical perspective. People do not "do things on computer", and they will increasingly do less so. They show the lovely sunset to their family, post their buddy passed out on couch, or ask a question over something they worry - technology and applications used to do that are not part of this activity.

Quote: This freedom comes in the form of the app store and others like it. It's a closed sand box, but you can get it if you play by the rules.

Freedom is an illusion. How many free and democratic countries do not allow uncontrolled possession of firearms? Would they be considered non-free? What about driving or drinking age limits? Drug use?

The only thing that such "closed" platform has to do is meet the needs and expectations of majority of users.

Quote: I was pretty shocked by that, mostly because I really didn't think it was neccessary.

That is governments, especially EU for you. That verdict was made in response to a lawsuit started in 2001. It merely took that long to process.

This is why such lawsuits pose less of a problem in reality.

Quote: If Microsoft was covertly hiding parts of the internet in order to obscure these alternate platforms, or breaking them in some way when they are installed, I would cry wolf, otherwhise, it doesn't make sense.

None of the platforms hide anything. But ever notice how clicking on a link on FB (or wikipedia) shows a big box saying "you are now leaving the safe zone, for the bad and evil outside world"? Or how canceling subscription to WoW shows an image of orc orphan crying not to leave? Nobody hides anything, there are much more effective methods to persuade people.

Quote: My thoughts exactly lol.

I still encounter people daily that have lost a document, their disk crashed, they misplaced their USB key, the editor stopped working...

As long as internet is ubiquitous - none of that is possible, by design, in the cloud. At least so far, the big drama will happen when one of important cloud providers closes (so far, there has been only one such case associated with Microsoft, which means such events have so far been surprisingly rare).

Quote: Original post by Antheus
User behavior is strongly influenced by brand trust. This is why Android platform is a problem for Google. Apple's brand is much better suited, and consequently for everything that is available on their products. A typical user will not be able to distinguish between application feed that streams the news vs. device that it's running on.

On the one hand you're saying a typical user won't be able to distinguish between the New York Times app and the iPhone it runs on, but on the other hand saying all news will be routed through the New York Times app? Which one's brand is being trusted here?

Quote: Original post by Antheus
And now the society has had an epiphany and it will do away with monopolies, huge profit margins and such...

Ooh, snark! The classic substitute for substantive argument.

The internet is not cable. The assumption that the internet will replicate the cable model ignores the fact that there are vastly different parties invested than with cable, that the internet is fundamentally distributed in a way that cable television never was or will be. Your analysis blithely commoditizes ISPs, despite the fact that they are most logically comparable to cable companies. You assume that Verizon and Time Warner and Comcast will accept a role as dumb pipes when every indication is to the contrary - including Comcast trying to buy NBC (NBC!).

Quote: Original post by Antheus
Some things never change. This is precisely why all of those organizations (those that will survive at least) will flock to controlled platforms as soon as their market share is adequate. Then they can simply turn off other distribution channels.

What good are independent sources, when they can be banned from the device ("oh noes, the button is 2 pixels to wide") since the powers that be dislike competition. Free market is illusion, and internet isn't changing that.

Again, you're far too hasty. Apple can get away with what it does right now because it is far from a monopoly. Once it attains an obvious monopoly (not going to happen) or it and its competitors adopt a consistent pattern of behavior in this area (almost certain), competitive and trust concerns will intervene and the platform providers will lose the power to blithely ban any independent source they don't like.

Quote: Original post by Antheus
Who gets exposure - Facebook or Youtube/vimeo/hulu/etc...). Again, problem of brand identity.

And? We're not talking about identity. We're talking about access. You said other sites won't exist, I refuted. Now you're saying other sites won't have direct consumer exposure - a vastly different argument, and a near irrelevant one given that it is very possible for a company to make a lot of money despite having very little brand recognition among consumers. Example? A company you referenced: Getty Images.

Quote: Original post by Antheus
The winners of this model are aggregators. ... The flawed belief is that democratization of the media means old structures will vanish, while they'll only reform themselves to better match new distribution models.

These two sentences do not agree with each other, given that virtually none of the aggregators are, in fact, old structures.