|
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Tuesday, October 17, 2006
started 10/17/2006; 1:59:15 PM - last post 10/18/2006; 3:57:06 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 
10/17/2006; 5:59:15 PM (reads: 5421, responses: 7)
|
|
Attention Santa Barbarians (and Lost Angelinos) 
| | While the title is the same as the luncheon talk I gave at the Berkman Center last month, the subject is somewhat different. I'll talk more about infrastructure issues (such as what we mean by that noun, and how citizen can build out what the cable/phone duopoly cannot do alone) — and about the Live Web. |
| | It's open to the public. See you there. |
Apple vs. Apple, part N
| | Yesterday I heard from an Apple enterprise customer who had recently bought 80 Macbooks. Ten of them, so far, have had to bo back for heat, shut-down or freezing problems. This customer wondered if they were taking a risk buying another 300 of the things. I told them they clearly were, and suggested holding off on the purchase ‹ since, far as I know, Apple has not acknowledged the problem or dealt with it in a serious way. |
| | Gotta say I'm amazed at Apple's persistent silence on this issue... |
| | There's only one reasonable solution, once Apple licks the technical problem: a full-scale trade-in of lemons for working machines. Anything less will fail to restore a full measure of good will. |
The NewsMill at work
| | What's this about? Did Newsweek actually run a different cover story outside the U.S.? I'm no fan of Chomsky, but is there not a better example of manufacturing consent? |
Good question
| | Joe Andrieu: If, at the end of the day, Attention is to be monetized directly, how do we distinguish the PayPerPost's from more legitimate efforts? |
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/17/2006; 7:56:13 PM (reads: 757, responses: 3)
|
|
|
Instead of trying to re-route the money that goes to Advertising, why not simply enable people with stuff to sell to more directly connect to the people who actually want to buy it... and cut out expensive middlement completely? Lower prices would result.
We need to build markets without Marketing.
--Mike--
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/17/2006; 9:15:35 PM (reads: 752, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Another idea is to do everything possible to eliminate friction in the marketplace. Napster did a great job of this, and helped CD sales soar before the Big Labels panicked, and closed it down. The best way to help the market is something we can run on our own hardware, that is like the internet... nobody owns it, anyone can use it, and anyone can improve it.
The best solution will have ZERO MONEY changing hands, and result in a wide open marketplace.
--Mike--
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/17/2006; 10:32:35 PM (reads: 812, responses: 2)
|
|
|
Exact-a-mundo.
Meanwhile, marketing isn't going to go away. And marketers want to get in on the post-marketing marketplace. Their problem then is zero-basing solutions outside the traditional marketing framework. This ranges from difficult to impossible. It's like trying to imagine PCs from the mainframe perspective -- before PCs showed up.
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/18/2006; 12:06:33 AM (reads: 912, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Following your mainframe analogy:
The PC revolution basically gave every single person the power of a mainframe. So this leaves us with a situation where every person formerly known as a consumer, now has their own marketing group.
Going past the analogy to the extreme...
Imagine Nike getting commercials for the --Mike-- brand all the time... they'd go insane!
--Mike--
discuss
|
|
Mike Warot - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/18/2006; 12:29:38 AM (reads: 976, responses: 0)
|
|
|
How about going back to the Napster idea... the great thing about napster was that having a copy of a song implied you like it... if we can replicate something like that for real objects... it might go somewhere.
I.E. I have a [Product Name Here], here's what I do and don't like about it...
The trick will be to tie a reputation to an opinion, so it just doesn't get gamed like everything else. The flip side is I don't necessarily broadcast to the world that I own a [Product Name Here] to be stolen.
It'll be a balancing act, at best.
--Mike--
discuss
|
|
BrianW - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/18/2006; 12:46:14 PM (reads: 744, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Is the UCSB talk open to the public?
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
10/18/2006; 7:57:06 PM (reads: 800, responses: 0)
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
