|
| Tuesday, March 21, 2006 |
 |
A great excuse for visiting Santa Barbara 
Because he's probably right
Your tax data, for sale
Taking delivery
Were there eyeball hors d'oeuvres?
| | There was a guy on stage yesterday that Esther Dyson kept trying to get to say that the users could create on his site, and he finally blurted out, ".. we just let them think they are creating...". (You know there was a publicist in the back of the room saying "Take him out. I repeat. Take him out" to a sharpshooter on an ear radio somewhere. In fact there are tons of publicts and PR folks here.. many more than last year.) |
| | It's too bad because "Users in Charge" is a great topic and Esther and company have put in a lot of work to frame these issues thoughtfully. But most of the attendees can't help themselves... they can only think of consumers buying things, being fed something packaged and consumable and neatly branded from these companies and making boatloads of money, with seemingly little care for the users, the experience or anything else. |
| | The most absurd was during the Me Media roundtable session where someone was talking about "content-producing consumers"... I had to walk out about then. |
Stilldeath?
| | Bruce Sterling: What exactly do you call a 'fatality' that strikes the cryonically suspended? Link. |
Why there won't be a Web 3.0
| | Shel Israel doesn't like the term Web 2.0, and observes that I don't either. We both think that Web 2.0 sounds way too much like a product upgrade, when in fact what is happening is more fundamental and much larger than a feature-enhancement. |
| | And he also wonders about changing it: |
| | Is it already too late to rename "Web 2.0?" Are Doc and I are the only ones still resistant to the term, which had been argued with some passion several months back? Is resistance futile? |
| | The longer answer will come from the future. Here's betting that "Web 2.0" is what we'll call the next crash. |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
