Now I’ve seen everything. According to the Beeb, Tim O’Reilly, amongst others, is calling for the implementation of a blogging code of conduct in response to the whole “OMG someone threatened death against Kathy Sierra meme”, which he describes as

a code of conduct around what is acceptable behavior, I would hope that it doesn’t come through any kind of [legal/government] regulation it would come through self-regulation.

OK, so I’ve been a little negative lately in my analysis of all things blogging, but how do you spin this crap positively? You cant.

It’s complete and utter bollocks (language refrained due to the audience).

A code of conduct is going to stop nutters making death threats on blogs. Yeah, and a f*cking lettuce leaf will bring peace in the Middle East and a carrot will appease North Korea.

Are these people on drugs?

And no, I’m not just talking about the Grade A nutters making death threats against feminist obsessed professional victims, but the Grade A nutters who think that implementing a blogging code of conduct will make even an ounce of difference.

Could there be any other possible explanation?

The world is an amazing place, screwed up, but amazing none the less. :-)

Originally posted on March 29, 2007 @ 12:30 am

Ardent fans of the patent system are fond of legitimizing the system based on the mantra that ‘patents encourage innovation’. However, evidence continues to mount that patents are accomplishing exactly the opposite and are one of many reasons that innovative technologies fail to succeed.

The latest example, covers VoIP patents.

The problem, of course, is that tons of companies (some big, some small) all claim patents on various aspects of VoIP — creating the very definition of the “patent thicket.” That is, there are so many patents around the very concept of VoIP that no one company can actually afford to offer a VoIP service, since the cost to license all the patents is simply too prohibitive.

Read the entire dirt.

Originally posted on March 27, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

There has got to be some irony in having to post a defense against the meme that blogging is dying two days after posting that newspapers are not dying either, but alas such is the life of Web 2.0 pundit in a world where economics is taught on the back of a packet of cereal instead as a compulsory subject in schools and Universities.

Blogging is not dying, in the same way that newspapers are not.

We are seeing a market correction.

A market correction which I’d note is only being seen in Western/ English speaking markets, mature markets with near universal internet access.

Blogging growth in Asia, particularly China & India will continue to boom.

Blogging has peaked in the English speaking world. No doubt about it.

Some may remember the fruit fly/ population test from their school days, the one where the fruit flies explode with growth, only to hit a peak, then a large decline in numbers followed by a leveling out in population somewhere between the peak and trough, a level that is sustainable over the longer term.

Blogging is just like fruit flies :-)

What I find amazing about the current blogging is dying/ blogging is dead meme is that it’s coming from the mainstream media (examples: here, here and here). It’s nearly enough to want to make me take sides with the likes of Robert Scoble and support the whole concept that newspapers are dying out of spite, and yet my brains don’t seem to fit in the blender currently located 3 feet away from where I write this post on my laptop.

Take a look at the decline in the number of newspapers, looks terminal, doesn’t it?

But wait. Lets look at the growth in a sub-section of the newspaper market, morning papers and weekend editions:

Notice the difference? What if I told you newspaper readership is increasing worldwide? Read this.

Same goes for blogs. We are seeing a decline in blogs, no doubt about it, but it’s no where near the end of blogging. The glory days of blog growth are over and after a possibly large decline (they’re talking 200 million abandoned blogs already), the new, leaner, meaner, and more efficient blogosphere will still be there to keep the MSM honest, and to create and break more unique and niche news and reviews, just the way we like it.

Charts made with Journalism.org’s excellent State of the Newsmedia Chart tool.

Originally posted on March 26, 2007 @ 11:41 pm

Robert Scoble believes that newspapers are dead, and he’s right, if you make the assumption that all newspapers are printed in California and the only readers on the planet also reside in that very same state.

Rumors of the death of newspapers are greatly exaggerated, because it might surprise some people living in California to know that not only are they not living at the center of the universe, the rest of the world isn’t like California either.

Now I’m not saying that living in California is a bad thing or a good thing, there are solid arguments on both sides, however newspapers exist throughout the world, and the market conditions in California are very, very different than most of the planet.

Matthew Ingram correctly points out that news is not dead. Is the traditional newspaper model though in trouble? Ingram points out it is, but facing a market correction bought upon by competition from the internet doesn’t kill an entire industry. Sure, we are going to see newspapers shut down (indeed we already have), we are going to see continued declines in newspaper circulation, but are we going to see the death of newspapers? Not in the next 20 years, and then probably not for another 50 years after that, if at all in my life time.

For newspapers to die you must presume given the still existing desire for news that there must be a ubiquitous, easily accessible alternative available at all times. Here’s the thing. There isn’t. Sure, San Francisco is getting a city wide wireless network thanks to the very generous and benign (lol) folks at Google. 1 city on the entire planet may have in the coming years free WiFi everywhere. 1 city. In Australia it’s next to near impossible to get free WiFi anywhere, and alternatives such as EvDo and 3G tend to be expensive and not widely used for internet access…and that’s presuming you can always get coverage. I think I read somewhere a couple of years ago that GSM phone coverage was extended to the Sydney Underground (Cityrail) train network, but that’s some 15+ years since the introduction of mobile phone coverage to the city. No idea whether they get 3G of 2.5GSM GPRS or similar coverage. But that also presumes that this coverage would be used for obtaining news. Admittedly, it’s been over 10 years since I was a commuter, but the trains in Sydney were always full of people reading newspapers, and that’s back in the day before the City had free commuter newspapers. I’m betting that a packed train carriage in Sydney would still be full of newspaper readers, as indeed the NJ Transit, NY Subway and Toronto trains were when I was in North America last year.

The only way newspapers will die is when internet access is universal, and mostly free, and when everyone has the means to access the internet at all times. We are a long way away from ever reaching that point. The internet is eroding circulation amongst newspapers world wide, and yet we have no viable 24/7/365 anywhere alternative to print. If a country like Australia lags behind the US in terms of free WiFi access, there is a pile of nations behind Australia on that list that are even further behind.

One last note of the news marketplace. Some markets will be more resilient than others to the onslaught of competition from the internet. Australia has already seen massive market consolidation in the 1980-1990s where as, for example there is only one State based Daily where I live now. Cities such as Sydney have 2 local (state based) daily papers, and a couple of freebies for a population in excess of 5 million. When I was growing up the number was in excess of 4. Markets, and nations with many newspapers servicing a smaller number of people will see long standing titles disappear, but this is a notion of marketplace correction rather than death of an entire industry because competition from the internet may reduce the pool of readership, but it does not eliminate it, those left standing, who are smart enough to adapt their product to appeal to the broadest base of people will have a long future ahead of them.

Originally posted on March 25, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

Ever wondered what Google would do if it was to use its powers for evil rather than good? Well here’s a list to start you off. Can you think of more?

1. Favor the emperor’s chosen few
2. Punish Citizens Without Due Process
3. Know Who Is Related To Who
4. Force Businesses To Advertise
5. Change The Laws And Keep Them Obfuscated

To see how these evil moves apply to Google, the search kingdom, and the internet in general, hop on over to SmallBusinessHub.

Originally posted on March 25, 2007 @ 11:01 am