|
| Author: |
|
Doc Searls |
|
|
| Posted: |
2/27/2001; 4:01:31 PM |
| Topic: |
|
| Msg #: |
586 (top msg in thread) |
| Prev/Next: |
585/587 |
| Reads: |
2294 |
So what do they really mean by "unit?"
Thanks to UseTheSource ("the reciprocal of hype" one of my favorite slogans) for pointing out one more reason why markets hate marketing.
Here are your "NEW INTERACTIVE MARKETING UNITS":
- 120 x 600 IMU Skyscraper
- 160 x 600 IMU Wide Skyscraper
- 180 x 150 IMU Rectangle
- 300 x 250 IMU Medium Rectangle
- 336 x 280 IMU Large Rectangle
- 240 x 400 IMU Vertical Rectangle
- 250 x 250 IMU Square Pop-up
Which are sure to "perform," "excite," "impact," "stimulate" and "penetrate" you and, of course, "deliver an experience" superior to those "EXISTING BANNER UNITS":
- 468 x 60 IMU Full Banner
- 234 x 60 IMU Half Banner
- 120 x 240 IMU Vertical Banner
- 120 x 90 IMU Button #1
- 120 x 60 IMU Button #2
- 125 x 125 IMU Square Button
- 88 x 31 IMU Micro Button
"This is an ad supported medium, " Richy Glassberg says, "and all of us doing business in it should be willing to work together to achieve the best possible experience not only for our business, but for our consumers, who are at the heart of the success of the Internet."
Richy is Vice Chairman of the Internet Advertising Bureau and Chairman & CEO of Phase2Media.
Gone and figuring
Richard Stallman has issued his response to remarks made by Microsoft platform chief Jim Allchin a couple weeks ago (and corrected more recently by the Microsoft PR apparatus). This is RMS' official response, which corrects a draft version that became public a few days ago. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it yet. The original free software philosophy seemed clearer to me, uncomplicated by the need to defend itself from a percieved attack by Microsoft. Last August Richard took issue with a statement I had made suggesting that the free software movement was "anti-commercial." But that's the way this piece comes off, at least at first reading. The Declaration of Software Freedom, which carries RMS' John Hancock, says "Current Software Commercial Organizations" do all of the following:
hide source code to keep developers divided, disenfranchised and dependent; tie inferior products to dominant ones; defiantly violate and avoid court orders; quash promising competitive startups; leverage dominant products into other, unrelated businesses; carve up markets to eliminate real competition; utilize predatory pricing practices to foreclose competition; commoditize and objectify their customers by making them captive; cause developers to constantly re-invent the wheel by hiding the source code; exercise general thuggish behavior in business dealings; compel weak competitors to destroy their own innovative products to protect established profitable ones; fail to respond to customer requests and needs in a timely fashion; exploit natural "chokeholds" in the economy for their own advantages; manipulate and delay technological progress to maintain supremacy; hide coding bugs thereby jeopardizing stability and security; de-humanize software developers by considering them as "inputs" or "assets"; stifle innovation; "embrace and extend" or otherwise pollute open standards in order to break and appropriate them; use exclusionary contract provisions to enforce censorship over disclosure of bugs and defects; shutoff or block channels of distribution to legitimate competitors; announce vaporware to foreclose adoption of real competitive products; frustrate, taunt and antagonize governmental officials protecting the public interest; truncate choices; create confusion and frustration in users by selling inferior code; take the innovations developed by others as their own; practice differential pricing to punish those that oppose them; misinform and exploit users; use undocumented features as an anti-competitive device; suppress the open, efficient and free nature of the scientific method by keeping the code secret; purposefully break the code of competitors so that there are code inoperabilities across products; prohibit friends from sharing software with friends; coerce their users to forego promising competitive technologies; use overly restrictive and exclusionary contracts against weaker competitors; and perform other anti-social, anti-competitive and improper acts to establish, maintain and extend their software monopolies.
Red Hat and Caldera are commercial organizations. Do they do all that?
We'll see where it all goes. I've been thinking that this will tend to marginalize Richard and the free software movement. But there is something sturdy in the margin already occupied by the GPL. The Open Source Initiative endorses a plethora of licenses, while the free software folks unshakably stand by the GPL. I was told recently by folks at Borland that they "worked closely" with Richard in developing a dual-license strategy for their new Kylix family of Linux software development environments and their class libraries (CLX). Essentially the customer (or user) has the choice either to develop under the GPL or another license, depending on purpose.
I sense a convergence coming on, in spite of the way the mainstream press likes to cover everything like it's a sportscast.
Meanwhile, I want to report that Richard does have a sense of humor. I've been laughing at this letter to Dr. Laura.
Like Spy never imagined
Joshua points to Paul's discourse on blogrolling, the neolojism that was born (I must immodetly point out) here.
I should add, for the record (whatever that now is), that the blogrolling idea was indeed inspired (as Paul kind of suggests) by Spy Magazine's original "Logrolling in our time" feature, which consisted of twin blurbs from flattering book reviews written by authors about each other's work. Spy was funny as hell, as well as hell on muck, which it raked with relish. One example is this piece, on Wackenhut, a kinda creepy company that does everything from sell pants to operate prisons to filling staff positions, mostly in security, all over the place.
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|