Reports Of The Web's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated Through Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics
from the mixing-mark-twain-quotes dept
Forgive the paraphrasing and mashing up of two separate Mark Twain quotes in the title. Lots of folks seem to be talking about the latest linkbait Wired story claiming that the web is dead, based on this graphic (built off of Cisco data):
This is not to say, of course, that web technology will dominate forever. Frankly, I still remember when the WWW first came along, and I switched from using Gopher to the web and figured that it was merely a stepping stone (as Gopher had been), and that something better would come along in about five years. I was clearly wrong on that. But it doesn't mean something else won't come along eventually.
But I wouldn't rule the web out just yet. As we've seen with things like OpenAppMkt, HTML 5 and related technologies (Javascript, CSS, etc.) are getting pretty powerful, and could bring a lot more attention to the web. In fact, many of the "apps" that the Wired articles (yes, it's two articles, side-by-side, making it quite difficult to read) applaud as driving us past the web, are really just web apps in disguise. The death of the web has been truly exaggerated in this case.
In fact, much of both articles seems to be wishful thinking to support a view that the two authors -- Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff -- hope the world will come to eventually, rather than what seems to actually be happening. In both cases, it feels like they take the misleading graph at the top as the starting point, and then justify it, even though it's not painting an accurate picture. There is this new fascination with app madness as the latest new thing -- and companies love it because they think it gives them back some of the control they've lost to the open web. But, openness tends to find its way through. Closed systems are great for leading a charge to a new level, but they almost always stall out as more open solutions leapfrog them in the end. Apps are still digital, after all, and it's tough to keep anything digital closed for too long.
So I wouldn't fear the death of "the web," or of "openness" any time soon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apps, internet, predictions, web
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not really accurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring out ya dead!
Sounds like Wired is trying to throw the internet on the cart even though it isn't dead. I wonder when they'll begin to club it over the head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring out ya dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring out ya dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring out ya dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring out ya dead!
Like Mike I think they've misread the tea leaves or entrails or whatever they're consulting. Apps are certainly the "trend du jour" something tech commentators need and invent as need be so they have something new to talk about.
I just love the now and then chart!(http://www.wired.com/magazine/wp-content/images/18-09/ff_webrip5_f.jpg). Last time I checked the browser is an app. The little things he's calling apps have a long standing analog in Firefox extentions, last time I looked. (A lot more useful that most of the iPhone/iPad apps I've had the misfortune of looking at and using.)
Then Javascript and Now as Objective-C strikes me as a tad too Apple centric. To be honest I've yet to see an iPad in the real world outside of retailers. Yeah, I know how many have sold but I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of them haven't become super expensive door stops.
Then as HTML and Now as XML shows a disconnect with reality as the Web itself shows if you land on most CMS sites. As Mike points out HTML 5 is on the way and then we'll see.
As for the Internet becoming a group of walled gardens, we'll see. This isn't the first time the death of the Web has been announced in favour of walled gardens all over the Interet but somehow it's survived. Maybe because it's flexible enough to contain just about anything?
And the walled gardens that have gained so much favour in the past have all but disappeared.
My guess is that all this seems to be about "excitement" over apps/gadgets is being taken far too seriously by some.
As for Jobs alignment with "traditional" media models that's not really much of a surprise as he builds his iTunes, iPad, iPhone house of cards. It's hell of an idea but all it takes is someone with the moxie to invade that space to knock it all down. Google anyone? Anyway, to a large degree the "i" world still relies on the web for an awful lot, as do the other services mentioned.
It may be that we're seeing a convergence rather than a revolution.
Funny thing is that it all reminds me of the architecture of UNIX a kernel (HTML5) supported by applications (apps) that do one thing an done thing only extemely well and built up from there. (Not the best of news for Jobs, I suspect.) Oh yeah, and the Internet transporting the whole kit and kaboodle along with ancient, forgotten things like usenet, IRC, Gopher and more. (All still very much alive.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring out ya dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone today asked if I was on facebook. I replied, "Do they have Gopher access?"
I must love getting confused looks from people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Chris and I agree on quite a lot (see his last book for example...). But, I just don't see the support on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/ff_push.html?pg=1&topic=
The Web is still here. Netscape is no more, Active Desktop is a horrible nightmare best forgotten and push, while it exists, is kinda by invitation only and on life support otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usenet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying again...
What surprised me about that graph was that apparently Usenet was less than 1% in 1990, when it should have been, I think, much more. Sure, it didn't hit its stride until broadband met the binary groups, and AOL's eternal September, but still. I'd also like to know what makes up "Other" back in 1990.
Also, Dark Helmet, "putting the Internet on the cart"? The web is not the Internet, so I don't think they're doing anything of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying again...
But, as we all know, the Internet is a series of tubes, and you could most certainly fit tubes onto a cart.
disclaimer: I'm not being serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trying again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
To me, that's why what Google did with Verizon was evil. Not the fact that they agree that wireless should be exempt from net neutrality, but that the government should control and fine private networks for operating as they see fit.
Time and time again, the market has defeated closed networks. See AOL for the best example. I don't believe that networks should be tiered, but that's up to the network operators to decide. If I choose to subscribe to an ISP that had tiered access, then that is my choice, and the government fining them $2 million isn't going to help me. What exactly would the government do with that money anyways? Besides the fact that it would come out of the customers pockets (it's not like the CEO would pay it), the money would probably be giving back to the ISP to pay for broadband or phone access for hillbilly's that live in the Ozarks and can't afford satellite (in other words, more government intervention to distort the market). Or maybe they'd just funnel it directly into the bank accounts of Goldman Sachs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
So only if you admit that the bandwidth everyone is paying for doesn't mean anything and that we are reaching the maximum of what the network supports can prioritizing make any sense.
It's basically saying:"I'm already lying to you over your bandwidth, but you can pay more to have it back."
I agree with you that this should be dealt by the market. The problem is that to have a market you need competition. From what I read that is were the problem starts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trying again...
If an ISP started throttling certain websites in order to shake them down for money, there would be massive consumer outrage, articles everywhere about how horrible that ISP is, and they would be forced to change.
I could maybe see a scenario, however, where somebody like Google would pay an ISP in order to be able to co-locate a data center with a major backbone in order to obtain faster load times, and I don't think that I would have a problem with it, if it didn't interfere with regular internet traffic. But, I don't think that it would really yield that great of results, Google (and pretty much all websites) load fast as long as you have a decent connection, nowadays.
So, to reiterate, I am for open networks, etc, but I am against the government regulating those networks. Unfortunately, the government already harms Internet accessibility with regulations that grant monopolies to ISPs (cable & telcos) which is the greatest market distortion to the Internet today.
For example, "Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland,
Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905."
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apps...
Long live the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wired is a confusing pub
Then it began to 'feel' different (I'm not sure how else to express the vibe) and I looked elsewhere (for many years)
More recently the "I'm missing something" vibe returned, so I added them to my RSS reader and I was seriously considering a print sub (not that I'd always read it .. just to support them) then the IPad app mania (seriously??) kinda cooled me a little - now this (I had the exact same impressions of their motives)
Forget it, they're as clueless as (insert old media company name here). I wonder if the "missing something" vibe was some sort of marketing ploy that they have down pat? (feeling gamed is icky)
Kinda like my XM sub. - they feel SOOO "old school" that it pains me to give them my money but I LOVE hockey, and they have a channel named "Home Ice" that is pretty awesome ... but do you really want me to (secretly, kinda) loathe you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wired is a confusing pub
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wired is a confusing pub
Just asking :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wired is a confusing pub
I was referring to a few articles I've seen on there about teledildonics, as they refer to it, which is (as I understand it) having a dildo hooked up to the internet so that it can be controlled remotely (via the Internet). They seem to think it's the next greatest thing, I suppose it would be great for those who can't get laid any other way...
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2004/09/65064
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wired is a confusing pub
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stats can be made to say anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stats can be made to say anything
And I would agree, Telnet, FTP, and Usenet have vastly lower usages nowadays, at least proportionally. FTP in particular is a lost art. I miss logging in to ftp.cdrom.com and wuarchive.wustl.edu and infant2.sphs.indiana.edu. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stats can be made to say anything
But I agree, it's sad how little it's used any more. It was quite convenient when stuck with a terminal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stats can be made to say anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stats can be made to say anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stats can be made to say anything
As long as you run behind a firewall and block X server ports both ways, that's unnecessary. Run a netbeui file system with print server in your intranet, behind a firewall or not- all bets are off. You're on your own, pal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stats can be made to say anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Wired Story Is In The Debate
Mike, you may want to look at it.
The debate is between Chris Anderson, Iim O'Reilly and John Battelle.
A quick synopsis would be, from Chris Anderson's keyboard: "The competition for attention is growing, thanks to the Web’s low barriers to entry, and the advantages of high-production content (from TV to, yes, magazines) are lost in the browser-centric marketplace, where all content looks more or less alike, context is lost, session times are measured in seconds, and brands are blurred in a river of atomized text and pictures."
Starting to sound familiar? Let's continue: "Apps, for us, are just a way to put our best foot forward, to package text, images, video, interactivity in a designed package that can engage people for an hour, not a minute. It’s early days yet, but we’re already seeing an order of magnitude difference in iPad app session times compared to the same content on the Web."
In short Wired failed to adapt to the open Internet and now, to save itself, proposes a closed one. While that's buried deep in the debate and takes a while to get there, with Anderson dancing around it all the way, we do get there.
It's a self serving story designed to going the chorus that's already coming from the "high end, professional" class of content providers to move to the iPad/iPod/iPhone Apple world where content is controlled and walled in.
Just the ticket for Verizon/Google/Comcast/AT&T
I'll bet we're gonna get a torrent of this kind of story over the next short period of time. And, who knows, maybe Mike will shift his position on net neutrality a wee bit after reading this and the avalanche to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole graph could be replaced with the words "obvious traffic patterns, nothing to see here".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p is future for good reason -- it's more inclusive and empowering for many.
P2P is also a general category whose shared characteristic appears to be simply that most data is stored replicated across the network rather than highly centralized.
I agree with the last model. Sun Micro (as have many others), for example, spoke for a long time of how p2p will be the future.
I makes great sense. p2p is more efficient in transmission and in content creation. The new web will be largely on p2p, but it will continue to have many similarities with the regular web, except that I think we will leverage speedier client side applications and integration more extensively through what p2p and open source makes possible by everyone. P2P can be made more secure and private along the lines of keeping control with the creator of information (at his/her machine rather than on someone else's server).
Each and all will continue to exist, but p2p will ascend much further than where we find it today. In fact, I am slowly working on such integration for a Linux distro (so call be biased). The important point is that content creators will have more control relative to the current web (including by picking proxies and terms of security/privacy) and additionally transfers will occur more efficiently for popular content in particular. [Ads will take on new forms, etc.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: p2p is future for good reason -- it's more inclusive and empowering for many.
The existing html and other creations for the web can be leveraged by a web-ized p2p world. Most small content will still be download instantaneously just as is the case with the web (so don't compare to the downloading of a gig-sized file as is the use case for p2p today). Essentially, people will not notice a major difference as the software is created to mix p2p and web together (and with other things).
Open source puts the power in the community of technically savvy users. This is where the fastest innovation will occur and all software essentially will be free for everyone to use. More private conversations will take place (frequently, encrypted automatically) and people's desktop/surfing/etc experience will be much more easily shareable with others under a wide range of efficient contexts (rather than simply something like (eg) vpn or (eg) vnc -- each itself currently being a limited form of restricted p2p).
We will obviously need a p2p dns system. This lookup system will be out of the hands of any central authority and for free since hosting a name string (or small profile) is rather cheap and many will volunteer to do so for others (including for business reasons.. I mean look at how much more data Google voluntarily hosts today!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p is future for good reason -- it's more inclusive and empowering for many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]