Friday, February 24, 2006
Make The Switch
I switched to wordpress for my new blog jdamer.com - so this is probably the end of this blog. Now that I am no longer hand-coding XML, I will likely use that blog as my sole means of blogging.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Lopromo Delay
Lopromo should have launched by now, but it is being pushed back as I am considering a few more features and methods of implementation before it is launched. The design and feel of the site is great, but I'd rather push it back than launch it in a sub-par state. Part of the problem is that it's not as mainstream friendly as I'd like it to be. It seems that too often companies in the web2.0 space are building exclusively for early adopters, which will mean many of the sites will be gone by the time the mainstream knowledge reaches that of early adopters. This is really a key to Microsoft's success that isn't often discussed, MSFT always makes products (at least thus far) that are built for the mainstream user. It gets a lot of flack from the tech community for doing this, but the strategy is much smarter than the early adopter strategy. Timing more than anything is why MSFT is a success. With that in mind Lopromo is being pushed back.
But I am working on other things for Lopico as well. I've recently begun an initiative to move to 205 cities in the next few months, I've added 10 recently and 40 more are planned. I'm also working on a few new advertising options which are unique in kind and should be very helpful from both a consumer and advertisers standpoint.
Side Note: I think that I may be dropping the other blog. I might not, but the less that I blog the less I use it so it's hard to justify.
But I am working on other things for Lopico as well. I've recently begun an initiative to move to 205 cities in the next few months, I've added 10 recently and 40 more are planned. I'm also working on a few new advertising options which are unique in kind and should be very helpful from both a consumer and advertisers standpoint.
Side Note: I think that I may be dropping the other blog. I might not, but the less that I blog the less I use it so it's hard to justify.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
eHub Interview
My interview for eHub was posted today. Thanks to Emily Chang for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts on Lopico and the web in general.
For eHub readers - I encourage you to leave feedback here on this blog, in your own blog, or through email to "info at lopico dot com." As I said in the interview I encourage criticism. When visiting Lopico I recommend checking out Akron to see how Lopico works when it is a little more developed. I'd also encourage you to try out Lopico Lovers and send some feedback. Lopico Lovers just launched, and I'd love to get more feedback on the user experience. Thanks in advance.
For non eHub readers - become one! eHub is a great resource which can really enrich your web experience. The web services listed on eHub are shaping the future of the web, and making it much more useful. Check it out.
For eHub readers - I encourage you to leave feedback here on this blog, in your own blog, or through email to "info at lopico dot com." As I said in the interview I encourage criticism. When visiting Lopico I recommend checking out Akron to see how Lopico works when it is a little more developed. I'd also encourage you to try out Lopico Lovers and send some feedback. Lopico Lovers just launched, and I'd love to get more feedback on the user experience. Thanks in advance.
For non eHub readers - become one! eHub is a great resource which can really enrich your web experience. The web services listed on eHub are shaping the future of the web, and making it much more useful. Check it out.
Friday, February 03, 2006
The Chicken, The Egg, and AT&T
Much has been made lately of the end of the internet post. It's an interesting post, but seems to be a lot of speculation, and no one really seems to know for sure what is going on. First off, the quote from AT&T's Whiteacre is out of context, which is never very trustworthy, so keep that in mind as you read on.
The Quote:
"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
The way I understand it is this:
Telecoms and other ISPs have the users that Content Providers need, ISPs therefore think that they should be able to charge the CPs for access to the users. Essentially if you want our customers you're going to have to pay.
The rationale behind this is flawed however. The power is with the CPs not the ISPs. If an ISP tries to create a walled garden in which only sites that are paying the ISP get included, it will fail. If ISP1 is offering a limited selection of sites, the value of that connection is diminished. Especially, if ISP2 (say an ISP created by Google) allows access to all sites on the internet. Thus unless the ISP can establish a monopoly (which it can't) it will fail because it is offering an inferior product.
As the web stands currently ISPs (typically) are not paying content providers and content providers (typically) are not paying ISPs. This is the way it should be. Yes, ISPs do bring value to CPs in the form of users, but without the CPs the users would not want the ISPs in the first place. AT&T is having a chicken and egg problem.
This is really a failure of AT&T to understand what their consumers want, and an example of how bad ideas can be if you think about profits first and customers second - a situation that usually leads to less profits as customers move away from your services.
A side note for AT&T: how about including a web address on your hundreds of billboards, so that potential customers can find more information and you can track the success of your campaign.
The Quote:
"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
The way I understand it is this:
Telecoms and other ISPs have the users that Content Providers need, ISPs therefore think that they should be able to charge the CPs for access to the users. Essentially if you want our customers you're going to have to pay.
The rationale behind this is flawed however. The power is with the CPs not the ISPs. If an ISP tries to create a walled garden in which only sites that are paying the ISP get included, it will fail. If ISP1 is offering a limited selection of sites, the value of that connection is diminished. Especially, if ISP2 (say an ISP created by Google) allows access to all sites on the internet. Thus unless the ISP can establish a monopoly (which it can't) it will fail because it is offering an inferior product.
As the web stands currently ISPs (typically) are not paying content providers and content providers (typically) are not paying ISPs. This is the way it should be. Yes, ISPs do bring value to CPs in the form of users, but without the CPs the users would not want the ISPs in the first place. AT&T is having a chicken and egg problem.
This is really a failure of AT&T to understand what their consumers want, and an example of how bad ideas can be if you think about profits first and customers second - a situation that usually leads to less profits as customers move away from your services.
A side note for AT&T: how about including a web address on your hundreds of billboards, so that potential customers can find more information and you can track the success of your campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
