James Kirkpatrick's Not-So-Random Keyboard Strokes

Location: Blogs PaleBlueScot Semi-Lucid Rants
Posted by: James	8/24/2006 8:09 AM
I’m curious if anyone actually, after misspelling a URL, actually stays on those pseudo web sites that rely on people’s misspellings. For instance, it’s easy to type in “Micorsoft” and not “Microsoft” and you’re then sent to a site with a bunch of totally unrelated links and downloads. If you want to book a flight on AirTran and accidentally type in "airtrain", you’re sent to a site with links that have just about anything but AirTran listed on it. Do these site squatters actually think that we won’t simply hit the Back button on our browser or retype the proper URL? Maybe I’m in the minority, but when I type in the wrong URL, the last thing I want to do is look at a bunch of illegitimate links to sites that I’m not interested in that probably are loaded with popup ads and spyware. Speaking of popup ads, what companies still think this is a legitimate way to bring in revenue? I know of no one who likes popups, yet there are still sites that try to force them on you unless your browser is set to disable all popups. Thankfully most sites have stopped using this, although the ads that render themselves temporarily over the text you’re reading and linger for 10-15 seconds are even more of an annoyance. I’m convinced that some of them, where the “Closed” or “X” is located, are actually links to their site. Generally though, I grin and bear it since it makes no sense to whine about ads on sites that are free. They need a source of income somewhere since most internet users want everything for free and there's no way to please all the people all the time. I will say this though – whoever developed the first popup application has a special place in hell reserved for them where, when they enter through a door, find themselves encountering 3 more doors to open. Their eternity will be spent trying to get to the next room, only to find yet another door to open. If there’s one behavior that is going to be hard for most internet users to grasp, it is the concept of paying for online content. We all were reared up in the “wild west” of internet development that we call can tell our kids about, but if you think that most of your news sites will be permanently free in the future, just think of how ludicrous your parents thought about paying for TV or even our generation who would never have thought we’d pay for radio. Since most users hate the aforementioned ads (myself included), pay sites will be where this all eventually winds up. Of course, no one will want to have subscriptions for 30 different sites, as this wouldn’t be cost effective. Maybe in the near future, like Microsoft’s Passport, there will be more groups of sites that will give access to a subscriber for a nominal fee. There will always be free sites on the web, but think of what is free on TV now – the main networks plus horseplop like PAX and non-PBS public access channels. Yes those stations are free but, unless you’re a sucker for televangelists or like to order things from infomercials when you’re drunk or stoned out of your gourd, those stations are free for a reason

Permalink \| Trackback

Comments (2) Add Comment

Re: Web Thoughts

By JA3 on 8/25/2006 10:49 AM

Do you count as "horseplop," James? ;) As far as people hating Internet advertising, that knock on your door is Google's profits from last quarter, and they'd like to disagree with you.

I think it's still way too early in the evolution of the Internet to figure out where it goes...the biggies are experimenting, hoping they strike gold using old methods: ESPN's new premium service requires the ISP to pay for access, rather than the user. They're basically trying to force the "premium" Internet to be like basic cable, where users are insulated from the true cost of the content by paying one fee to the bandwidth provider regardless of what we use. At the same time, ISPs want to make the premium content providers pay for higher priority on their networks for their high-bandwidth content. Unless Verizon and ESPN just plan to hand each other checks every month, one of these two strategies must fail.

Most predictions about the future of the Internet look at it in terms of old media, failing to take into account simple facts...

#1, the ubiquity of Internet publishing tools has completely commoditized vast amounts of information. News sites have already realized they will have to be free, because with ever-lower barriers to entry there will always be too much competition for them to charge a subscription. Investigative reporting (if it still exists) may still be worth a premium, but you can't charge the consumer for headline news any more than MLB can pretend baseball stats are proprietary info. Not even I believe commoditization will happen to ALL information; but it has to be considered possible.

The #2 overlooked fact is the speed of technological development, which you'd think these dopes would've learned not to ignore over the past 50 years. Think about how wireless is constantly getting faster and cheaper -- and note that it's already enabling much of the developing world to skip copper/fiber infrastructure buildout. Are ISPs going to see a return on fiber to the home, when I'll be able to buy a $20 self-configuring wireless router running at gigabit speeds?

So as the information itself and the media for getting it to the home become so commoditized that they're practically free, how does anyone make money? Hell, if I knew that I'd be out doing it. :) Maybe in a commodity world there will still be some content providers out there skillful enough to charge -- think of HBO.

Of course, by going back to a cable TV metaphor, I've just proved that I'm no better at this guessing game than the "experts" I was mocking in the first place...

Re: Web Thoughts	By Syl on 9/5/2006 8:42 AM
"link here" are the $ words...for now. Of course MLB baseball on its own has had me hooked for a couple of years. Niche sites will still prosper, folks have hobbys and interests. More and higher dollars for provider's priority service should be considered the plague that would keep poor people's children poor and less educated. This is not television, it is your library of information.

Your name:
Title:
Comment:

Add Comment Cancel