I couldn't hope to afford an Ipad. I signal my poverty because it colors the way I see things and I know most people are poor like me.
So for example I'm not so sure that I take it as a fact that Google's "core business" is advertising. Of course I understand that's where the money is right now. But I think Google's core business is organizing information. They have to know that the better organized information is the distinction between advertising and just information approaches zero.
What amazes me about the Ipad is how the device seems intended to access stuff on the Web instead of connect you with the Web. The Google phone may not be a revolutionary product but at least it's got the relationship right.
My sense of it is there isn't enough splintering at least as far as gadgets go. I'd like to see cheaper gizmos for sharing information more widely so that each node in the network sprouted more branches.
Back in 2006 you you talked about when it comes to making money the important thing is to become an "essential hub/ partner in an ecosystem of peer-production."
Apple is a luxury brand and I think they do a heck of a job of it. But as far as fundamentals go it seems to me Google is much better positioned for this essential hub idea. It seems not only to be a hub, but also the means to increase the number of hubs in the ecosystem.
"What amazes me about the Ipad is how the device seems intended to access stuff on the Web instead of connect you with the Web. The Google phone may not be a revolutionary product but at least it's got the relationship right."
I couldn't agree more. In fact, the more I think about it, the nastier the whole idea of an iPad is : Apple trying to resurrect the top-down, paid "broadcast" model of big-media; a one way message from publishers to audience, through ultra-convenience and eye-candy.
2 comments:
I couldn't hope to afford an Ipad. I signal my poverty because it colors the way I see things and I know most people are poor like me.
So for example I'm not so sure that I take it as a fact that Google's "core business" is advertising. Of course I understand that's where the money is right now. But I think Google's core business is organizing information. They have to know that the better organized information is the distinction between advertising and just information approaches zero.
What amazes me about the Ipad is how the device seems intended to access stuff on the Web instead of connect you with the Web. The Google phone may not be a revolutionary product but at least it's got the relationship right.
My sense of it is there isn't enough splintering at least as far as gadgets go. I'd like to see cheaper gizmos for sharing information more widely so that each node in the network sprouted more branches.
Back in 2006 you you talked about when it comes to making money the important thing is to become an "essential hub/ partner in an ecosystem of peer-production."
Apple is a luxury brand and I think they do a heck of a job of it. But as far as fundamentals go it seems to me Google is much better positioned for this essential hub idea. It seems not only to be a hub, but also the means to increase the number of hubs in the ecosystem.
"What amazes me about the Ipad is how the device seems intended to access stuff on the Web instead of connect you with the Web. The Google phone may not be a revolutionary product but at least it's got the relationship right."
I couldn't agree more. In fact, the more I think about it, the nastier the whole idea of an iPad is : Apple trying to resurrect the top-down, paid "broadcast" model of big-media; a one way message from publishers to audience, through ultra-convenience and eye-candy.
Post a Comment