Comments on: The individual web: A counter-argument http://shotbeak.com/2009/05/17/the-individual-web-a-counter-argument/ Student, aspiring web entrepreneur and musician. Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:25:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: shotbeak http://shotbeak.com/2009/05/17/the-individual-web-a-counter-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-721 shotbeak Sat, 23 May 2009 16:34:36 +0000 http://shotbeak.com/?p=289#comment-721 Thanks for the reply!<br><br>Yes, I should've made it clearer. It is more a case of control. Most older media, ie radio, television, newspapers are run by few people and serve a HUGE subscriber base. Before the internet, most (if not all) media was controlled by these companies.<br><br>I'm not disputing the other media. As you mentioned with your examples, currently, the other types of media are a much better option than the internet. I'm more arguing against the fact that David Edgerton called the internet just another form of communication, like radio, television and newspapers, while it is not. It is much more than that. It is a totally different form of communication. Radio, television and newspapers are a 1-to-many form of communication, while the internet is many-to-many. I see the future in the internet as an enabler. It's more a case of not what the internet will do, but what we will achieve through the internet. :) Thanks for the reply!

Yes, I should've made it clearer. It is more a case of control. Most older media, ie radio, television, newspapers are run by few people and serve a HUGE subscriber base. Before the internet, most (if not all) media was controlled by these companies.

I'm not disputing the other media. As you mentioned with your examples, currently, the other types of media are a much better option than the internet. I'm more arguing against the fact that David Edgerton called the internet just another form of communication, like radio, television and newspapers, while it is not. It is much more than that. It is a totally different form of communication. Radio, television and newspapers are a 1-to-many form of communication, while the internet is many-to-many. I see the future in the internet as an enabler. It's more a case of not what the internet will do, but what we will achieve through the internet. :)

]]> By: Johan Swarts http://shotbeak.com/2009/05/17/the-individual-web-a-counter-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-720 Johan Swarts Sat, 23 May 2009 05:51:24 +0000 http://shotbeak.com/?p=289#comment-720 Although I share your overall sentiments on the internet and media creation, I think you're a bit biased towards other media. Radio, television and newspapers aren't a "problem" - the people controlling them are. Radio and television at heart is just...well, waves. Newspapers are pieces of paper with tiny squiggles printed onto them.<br><br>Any type of media can be corporately controlled and sadly this also true of the internet. If you have read any hardware reviews lately, you might have noticed how there doesn't seem to be one coherent opinion on anything. Do yourself a favour: Google [Hardware Vendor Name] + "SUCKS" and you'll get a massive list of people bashing equipment. Start with your own laptop.<br><br>That's rival companies paying students to spew rubbish about perfectly good products.<br><br>The internet can't replace radio. Setting up a 3G connection in your car to stream live podcasts while you drive won't just be insanely expensive, it'll be plain pointless. The same goes for paper. Putting giant 24" LCD's in portrait mode on lampposts instead of cardboard would be extremely cost ineffective and have pointless, sky high maintainance costs. A bird dropping here, a stone there and poof - gone's your screen. Television, also, can't currently really be beaten in terms of live image bandwidth and audio quality.<br><br>Which would you rather forget on a subway - a newspaper, or your Kindle?<br><br>(On an unrelated note, be careful of sweeping statements like "the internet is the future". What exactly does it mean? What is it the future of? Rockclimbing? Toasters? Public service delivery? Crowdsourcing aren't going to sweep the streets or install your plumbing.) Although I share your overall sentiments on the internet and media creation, I think you're a bit biased towards other media. Radio, television and newspapers aren't a “problem” – the people controlling them are. Radio and television at heart is just…well, waves. Newspapers are pieces of paper with tiny squiggles printed onto them.

Any type of media can be corporately controlled and sadly this also true of the internet. If you have read any hardware reviews lately, you might have noticed how there doesn't seem to be one coherent opinion on anything. Do yourself a favour: Google [Hardware Vendor Name] + “SUCKS” and you'll get a massive list of people bashing equipment. Start with your own laptop.

That's rival companies paying students to spew rubbish about perfectly good products.

The internet can't replace radio. Setting up a 3G connection in your car to stream live podcasts while you drive won't just be insanely expensive, it'll be plain pointless. The same goes for paper. Putting giant 24″ LCD's in portrait mode on lampposts instead of cardboard would be extremely cost ineffective and have pointless, sky high maintainance costs. A bird dropping here, a stone there and poof – gone's your screen. Television, also, can't currently really be beaten in terms of live image bandwidth and audio quality.

Which would you rather forget on a subway – a newspaper, or your Kindle?

(On an unrelated note, be careful of sweeping statements like “the internet is the future”. What exactly does it mean? What is it the future of? Rockclimbing? Toasters? Public service delivery? Crowdsourcing aren't going to sweep the streets or install your plumbing.)

]]>