Re: Different churches

["Laird Popkin" <laird.popkin@sothebys.com>]

Dave,

The distinction I'm drawing isn't between print vs. online
distribution 
of content, but between being in the content business vs. being in
the 
web site business.

Since this was unclear, let me try to express it a different way:

Being in the web site business means that you:
- control the presentation of the content.
- restrict your content to your site.
- get paid for page views (i.e. sell ads, or products, etc.).

Being in the content business means that you:
- distribute your content widely.
- allow the subscriber to integrate the content into their site.
- get paid for content.

Of course, syndication is a very broad concept that covers both of 
these options (and numerous others). To make it clear, I am not 
promoting one business model over another, just trying to make clear 
that syndication is a broad market in which there are many models,
and 
that a single standard in that market is more productive than two 
standards.

Speaking of which, I posted an example of spelling RSS in ICE at
http:/
/www.io.com/~laird/rss-in-ice.html a few weeks ago, which I believe 
captures the spirits of both RSS and ICE. I've seen one rapid 
implementation (Rael's, very cool). Now that people have had time to 
digest it, I'd be curious to hear what people's thoughts are.

--- In syndication@egroups.com, "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
> Laird, we belong to different churches.
> 
> I like reading Reuters stories, for sure, but if the economics of
the
> Internet undermines their business model, I wouldn't shed a tear.
The
> Internet has reporters everywhere that Reuters does, and over time,
the
> Internet will reach many places Reuters doesn't go, and no matter
how much
> Reuters grows, they'll never be able to match it.
> 
> Further, the print-derived press has huge conflicts of interest
that color
> the stories they write. How many challenging Steve Jobs or Larry
Ellison
> pieces will Fortune write if it means they no longer have access to
the
> icons? Their only asset is their objectivity, and I've seen the
insides of
> the sausage factory, and I don't believe there is any objectivity.
Even the
> most highly reputed organizations behave with questionable ethics,
imho. In
> the end, I trust users as reporters much more than I trust the
"pros".
> 
> I pretty much subscribe to the Forrester point of view, the print
media is
> in the process of being swamped by the Web. We're not fully there
yet, so
> there's still time for the print pubs to change their ways. But the
process
> is inexorable.
> 
> Dave