I really enjoyed your next entry in that thread at Tribe. You wrote:
>I'll stick by my usual assertion. What Tribe need to do to make money is to let *us* make money. Don't try to sell *to* us. Give Tribe members an easy way do cool things with payments : to pay each other, to put money into escrow so that tribes can save towards common projects. We'll figure out dozens of business models and ways to sell to each other.<
Over at Platform Wars you posted: Why Don't the Media Get It? http://platformwars.blogspot.com/ 2005/12/why-dont-media-get-it.html Now more than ever I'm scratching my head. I'm wondering why media groups aren't busting down your door to hire you!
Before I started reading your blog I was quite unaware about the ways that Techies were using commonly available resources on the Web. It was a revelation to me to see Danny Ayers's Bloglines subscriptions. Ah ha! So that's how all these people are getting they're brillant ideas: by talking to each other.
In my town we've got a family owned newspaper. The population is aging and shrinking. I doubt with two papers they own the profit in the sale is all that great. Development of their Online presence seems a reasonable way to add value to their franchise.
But the model of one to many communications is rigid and inflexible. I think part of what's behind Tribe's maneuvers is the old-school model of newspapers: one-to-many orientation.
I don't even know how to add live links to comments, something I offer merely to suggest that if I can see the great potential, even for monetary profit, it's not hard to imagine that vision as mainstream.
So Doc Searl's "LINUX Journal" piece http://www.linuxjournal.com/ article/8673 and his recent blog post http://doc.weblogs.com/ 2005/12/06#theCostsOfAsymmetry are really important for people like me around the periphery to see. It seems that the Oligarchs are hoping to pull a fast one. I suspect and hope they're too late.
I feel pretty confident that the time for your vision for Tribe is upon us. Whether or not the powers that be at Tribe wake up to the potential they're missing or not, someone will come along who understands it.
My opinion is that Kight-Ridder has a good opportunity with their investment in Tribe, but I'm not sure the share holder group pushing for the sale of the company gets what that opportunity is at all. Nevertheless the play that you suggest is a pregnant opportunity for a smaller media group. Even my local paper or perhaps the recent entiy formed by the Village Voice and New Times.
The legal concerns resulting from 2257 compliancy don't seem the root of Tribe's changes, but rather a lack of imagination about the potential of many to many communications.
1 comment:
I really enjoyed your next entry in that thread at Tribe. You wrote:
>I'll stick by my usual assertion. What Tribe need to do to make money is to let *us* make money. Don't try to sell *to* us. Give Tribe members an easy way do cool things with payments : to pay each other, to put money into escrow so that tribes can save towards common projects. We'll figure out dozens of business models and ways to sell to each other.<
Over at Platform Wars you posted: Why Don't the Media Get It? http://platformwars.blogspot.com/
2005/12/why-dont-media-get-it.html Now more than ever I'm scratching my head. I'm wondering why media groups aren't busting down your door to hire you!
Before I started reading your blog I was quite unaware about the ways that Techies were using commonly available resources on the Web. It was a revelation to me to see Danny Ayers's Bloglines subscriptions. Ah ha! So that's how all these people are getting they're brillant ideas: by talking to each other.
In my town we've got a family owned newspaper. The population is aging and shrinking. I doubt with two papers they own the profit in the sale is all that great. Development of their Online presence seems a reasonable way to add value to their franchise.
But the model of one to many communications is rigid and inflexible. I think part of what's behind Tribe's maneuvers is the old-school model of newspapers: one-to-many orientation.
I don't even know how to add live links to comments, something I offer merely to suggest that if I can see the great potential, even for monetary profit, it's not hard to imagine that vision as mainstream.
So Doc Searl's "LINUX Journal" piece http://www.linuxjournal.com/
article/8673 and his recent blog post http://doc.weblogs.com/
2005/12/06#theCostsOfAsymmetry are really important for people like me around the periphery to see. It seems that the Oligarchs are hoping to pull a fast one. I suspect and hope they're too late.
I feel pretty confident that the time for your vision for Tribe is upon us. Whether or not the powers that be at Tribe wake up to the potential they're missing or not, someone will come along who understands it.
My opinion is that Kight-Ridder has a good opportunity with their investment in Tribe, but I'm not sure the share holder group pushing for the sale of the company gets what that opportunity is at all. Nevertheless the play that you suggest is a pregnant opportunity for a smaller media group. Even my local paper or perhaps the recent entiy formed by the Village Voice and New Times.
The legal concerns resulting from 2257 compliancy don't seem the root of Tribe's changes, but rather a lack of imagination about the potential of many to many communications.
Post a Comment