tygerland.net

I have written before about the ongoing technological revolution, my belief that we – at least in the developed world – are becoming more and more tech savvy.

One of the ‘major’ developments we are increasingly hearing about is Web 2.0 – the ‘democratisation’ of the Internet. Techie’s are convinced that new Ajax-based webpage’s will enable us to interact with sites on a much greater level (see Google Maps and Wikipedia), and allow applications (such as word-processing and photo manipulation software) to ‘exist’ online, rather than running the programmes on your PC.

There has been a major debate within the IT community on the merits of the term Web 2.0, as predictably it is seen as a post-bubble marketing tool to convince investors to dip their toe back into the Internet pool. Indeed the term is peddled idly by many new start-ups.

Personally I don’t believe the Web 2.0 is anything more than a term for a natural development within the industry, moving beyond the point-click-read-point-click of the previous ‘incarnation’ of the Web. In other words a natural market evolution, not a technological revolution.

But these are significant changes in the way we interact with the Internet, and are developments that we should acknowledge, as hacker/essayist Paul Graham sums up in this essay: -

The second big element of Web 2.0 is democracy. We now have several examples to prove that amateurs can surpass professionals, when they have the right kind of system to channel their efforts. Wikipedia may be the most famous. Experts have given Wikipedia middling reviews, but they miss the critical point: it’s good enough. And it’s free, which means people actually read it. On the web, articles you have to pay for might as well not exist. Even if you were willing to pay to read them yourself, you can’t link to them. They’re not part of the conversation.

I think Graham is absolutely right to examine the link between cost and user adoption. The Web has become too huge for people to realistically pay for each and every service. As free-marketers we should encourage the Internet to become a commodity, to allow the forces of supply and demand to sort the wheat from the chaff, but consumers are far too hungry for information, and importantly, happy to put up with the deluge of junk out there in cyberspace.

Also the democracy of self-publication (i.e. blogs) has enabled talented writers, photographers, musicians, and not to forget political activists, to find a voice in among the white noise of the Internet. People will not give up these freedoms, and wily techies will always subvert any corporatisation of the Web.

My personal experience was when the New York Times began charging for access to what it termed premium content – chiefly its regular commentary. Overnight there was a $50 charge to read the likes of Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, and Maureen Dowd, and overnight they dropped out of my ‘conversation.’ No longer do these great columnists influence me. Why should I pay for comment – even world-class comment – when blogs and other sites provide acres of comment for free?

This is the problem with ‘old media’ organizations getting involved in an entirely new medium. The Times is obviously, like all US newspapers, losing circulation to the net, and is looking to maintain revenue levels and protect the integrity of the print version, by charging readers. But the reality is: if newspapers wish to evolve and survive online, they must raise revenue indirectly (i.e. through ads) without charging for content. Of course the drop in revenue will piss off shareholders, but I wonder how the shareholders of Kodak felt when the digital camera came along. Pretty pissed off? You bet. But Kodak re-geared its business and is now a digital media company, having dropped its traditional film developing business. Kodak should be an example for ailing newspapers looking to evolve.

Graham has written an excellent essay and it’s well worth a read.