Comments on: Adding Value on the Internet

By: John Reilly

John Reilly — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:50:09 +0000

@Steve Gillman – I couldn’t agree more, Steve. But the biggest question for me is, who’ll beat Google and is there a company lurking to do it? There’s got to be a company which will swift through the internet, like Google did it, Facebook and Twitter.

By: John Stove

John Stove — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:12:25 +0000

Interesting article. It’s unfortunate but I agree with Magda too. The internet is no longer in “frontier mode” and huge companies are going to start distorting the system as they move in. It’s really unfortunate but hopefully we continually create new forms of entertainment and media, and the little guys will always have a good chance in the beginning.

I also think that ironically enough the internet is the reason that we depend on flash news instead of in depth analysis. We expect to be able to know what’s going on in 140 characters or less, and all forms of news have to compete with that.

By: Jason Smith

Jason Smith — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:34:24 +0000

Hey Ed Hazel… that is a good point about how far technology has advanced. Recently we’ve seen some pretty devastating natural disasters here in Australia and the fact that we had twitter and facebook and even the new were using these mediums really helped everyone stay updated even if they didn’t have power or internet at home.

It’s through the advancement of mobile phones that this was possible. And I think in regards to this, it is definitely a good move forward and very valuable to have technology like.

However I do see your point in terms of it being a negative as there is too much noise and no one can really govern whether the information is actually accurate any more.

Cheers for the post James.

Jason Smith
Webmaster, Tech 1 Repairs
visit us at: TV Repairs Sydney

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:02:52 +0000

@Magda – if the internet does not stay open, we have no one to blame except our own lazy selves that won’t get off our rear ends and vote those no good legislators out of office. I agree with you 100%.

Nice write up James.

By: Clement Wong

Clement Wong — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:21:43 +0000

hey james, great article. I think the internal FTC circulation is frightening for me. The FTC is reactive at best and they should be less myopic.

Clement

By: Steve Gillman

Steve Gillman — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:07:36 +0000

Quote from above:

“Wow. “A billion clicks.” “Millions of dollars.” Such big numbers. What Google doesn’t mention is that the billions of clicks and the millions of ad dollars are so fragmented among so many thousands of sites that no one site earns enough to have a decent online business. Where the real money ends up is at the one point in the system where traffic is concentrated: the Google search engine.”

There is a problem of aggregation versus real new content, and shallow information in general, but I have had several websites that earn “enough to have a decent online business,” and have done so by trying to add real value, so there is some hope.

By: James

James — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:16:57 +0000

@Magda – depressing look at the future, but unfortunately not too far off point.

By: Jeannie

Jeannie — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:35:58 +0000

“Information is not free to produce, at least good information isn’t, so reasonable charges designed to fund its collection are fair. So is a considerable level of exclusivity, as long as the information is available to all who are willing to pay. (There is something to ye olde doctrines of common carriage.) One of the ironies of the current tech world is that people are willing to pay billions for hardware, connectivity, and software, but squawk loudly at paying for the content that is the raison d’etre for these functionalities.”

Although much of the internet information has been free, things are changing. I know more an more people who are charging for good information, memberships, tutorials.

Much of the valuable information provided cannot be given out at no cost. The persons valuable time and his/her money went into producing it. And then if they plan on continuing in business, a profit must be made.

As Magda said you can count on change. I think the internet will change from a free information model to a mixture.

By: Gavin Connor

Gavin Connor — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:01:15 +0000

"He makes the point that it was once difficult to find solid information, but that those who did get it were able to capitalize on it in some fashion, precisely because of its scarcity. “In that era, access to data conferred power and many economists made good livings simply because they had it.” I have always been fascinated by this concept. Shouldn't this imply that the access to information is basically a very valuable resource, a resource which is accessible in exponentially greater form to anyone with an internet connection? Shouldn't a resource which provided the means for giving power, which is now readily available, make a perceivable impact for the better in modern times? What do you think about this concept? visit us: Super Affiliate Free Training and learn how to turn information into power!

By: Magda

Magda — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 03:21:02 +0000

Yes James, analysis at the jet ski level is becoming more accepted each year.
As newspapers shut down, real investigative journalism takes a hit. More folks are becoming news aggregators instead of originators. Think Huffington Post. Whatever direction the whole mess goes, there are huge forces at work that most of us can’t do a damn thing about.

Will the internet stay as open as it is? Not likely – its adolescence is over, and the big players are getting on board. They will demand “special” treatment, effectively squelching the little guys and entrepreneurs who made google rich in the first place.

The only thing you can count on is… change.