|
Friday, March 7, 2003
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Friday, March 7, 2003
started 3/7/2003; 12:15:39 AM - last post 3/7/2003; 4:31:56 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Friday, March 7, 2003 
3/7/2003; 4:15:39 AM (reads: 8749, responses: 4)
|
|
Customer vs. Consumer, cont'd 
Make no mistake
| | If you know anybody who's into being all dumb about the Net, this is the place to send them. |
| | Of course, it's good for people being smart too. They just don't need it as much. |
| | The good doctor explains more here. |
| | Sorry I can't add more now. Something about the long list makes things crash. No time to figure out why. I'll put up a new list of links tomorrow. |
| | A thought: This thing needs some fun graphics, don't you think? I'm liking some kind of Koosh ball drawing that represents the World of Ends we call the Net. Volunteers, hm? |
| | A number of folks have compared World of Ends to The Cluetrain Manifesto (which went up four years ago right around this time of year). I suppose that's unavoidable. But the idea here is different. As Jakob Nielsen perfect put it, with Cluetrain we had guys who defected from marketing to side with markets, raising our collective voices against marketers' misunderstanding of what markets are really about. Remarkably, it still serves that original purpose, along with Chris Locke's brilliant (and highly useful) Gonzo Marketing. Where Cluetrain was the work of four authors, World of Ends gathers the wisdom of many more: Reed, Burton and Isenberg, to name just three. And its purpose is to put in one place what we might call commons wisdom about the Net. David Weinberger and I had both become a bit tired of saying the same kind of thing over and over again in our blogs and essays. Better to summarize it all in one place where anybody and everybody could point to it. |
| | World of Ends also has a specific purpose: to help save the huge sums of money and time being wasted by large old industries that don't even qualify for Cristensen's Innovators Dilemma, because they were barely innovating when the Net blasted the old infrastructure out from under them. |
| | These corporate codgers aren't only screwing their employees and stockholders, but citizens as well — buying votes and biasing regulators to serve an agenda that screws things up for everybody. |
| | That agenda will fail. WoE's purpose is to hasten that, plus the smart decisions that will surely follow. |
| | Finally, I'm getting HUGE email traffic on this. Forgive me if I can't get to it all. Lots of other real-world stuff going on here. Thanks. |
discuss
|
|
|
|
|
Your piece stirred the silt of my subconscious. You shook loose a few other observations:
- The simplicity of the 'net is self-enforcing. When one of its ends forgets it's an end, the other ends and the 'net itself starve it into extinction.
- Number One makes the Internet the smartest technology yet created, despite the fact that it's stupid.
- The value of participation is built into the 'net itself. It's invited, in fact, by the stupidity of the structure. An end-bound entity's death begins when it forgets it's an "an" and begins to believe it's "the."
Thanks, Doc. Your piece puts the synapses in "full fire" mode.
discuss
|
|
lou josephs - Technology may not be the answer
3/7/2003; 6:03:47 PM (reads: 572, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Check the links to an interesting conversation from a group of the smartest folks I know in the international radio biz. Worth 30 minutes of your time.
www.myjamby.com/medianetwork.
discuss
|
|
eric norlin - Re: Friday, March 7, 2003
3/7/2003; 6:07:53 PM (reads: 541, responses: 1)
|
|
|
not to nit-pick, but this language *really* bothers me:
"...an agenda that amounts to nothing less than destroying the Net."
doc, i know what you're getting at (so i certainly don't misinterpret what you mean), but I am as of late getting a general sense as i surf the net that there is this strain/thread of thought taking shape which feels that "the Net" is somehow the saviour of nearly all things -- and even more, that it should be preserved in the beautiful state that has been attained in the early days of its existence.
Now, i do believe that there are certain fundamental attributes on the net that are important to preserve (and we should work to do so), but simultaneously, i recognize that the Net WILL CHANGE (like all things).
When we start speaking about the Net being "destroyed," i begin to think that we've concretized the Net itself, when one of the things it has always been best at was taking us through different metaphors themselves.
I'm not saying this well....but i fear that hardening, that literalizing, that concretization that can come from "both sides" of this "fight".....
2cents,
ejn
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Friday, March 7, 2003
3/7/2003; 8:31:56 PM (reads: 603, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I agree about the 'destroy" language. Doesn't help. I wasn't comfortable with it in the first place, so I just changed it.
But I don't agree that the Net will change, at least not in terms of its basic agreements. That's one of our points. You can disagree with it if you like, but that's where we stand.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
