It's time to stop arguing the semantics of words like "content" "portal" and "competition".
This is what ATHM management does. You think I'm arguing about these definitions, but what I'm really doing is pointing out how critical unwarranted assumptions about what they mean both to the public and ATHM management is in determining who's on first.
Its all rather foolish. When you choose to define a word differently than the commonly accepted usage you deliberately create misunderstanding and confusion.
When you choose not to investigate what is under the apparent definitions, what is there continually changes according to fad. You can't build a business on ambiguity.
You also distract from discussion of the underlying issues.
You have continually shown that you are confused about what are the underlying issues and I am pointing out this is caused by the ambiguity of shifting definition.
We all know what these words mean to people.
Quod erat demonstrandum. This is a major error. Consider your definition below. It is perfectly unclear. How convenient.
"content" is anything you go to see. It can be created by the web site itself, someone they are in collaberation with or even the users.
This isn't a definition for "content". Then an operational definition for my facilitator concept.
Even a list of links to other sites. Its all still content.
Everything in the universe is content. The Hindus use the term, "substance" instead. To them even empty space is substance. Similarly empty space has "content", because content has form.
"portals" are web sites that attempt to gather a lot of "content" and place it all under one roof.
I'm surprised you bit on this one. Every web site is a "portal" because the Internet is almost fully interconnected. Further, that isn't what "portal" is. Your definition is incorrect. You ran into difficulty trying to define it so you just tossed it under the abstraction "under one roof". By this mistaken definition Excide isn't a "portal", for where is this roof? Everywhere!
"competition" (in business) is any time two organizations fight over money from someone else.
Bit for that one too. How about the often encounter case where the third party is the second party? How about competition to be the best? That doesn't even require a second party. MSFT sacrifices many revenue dollars to be the best. Being the best doesn't imply more future dollars. It is an image in society. Then there is competing with oneself, one's own standards which often has nothing to do with the outside defined milieu of society.
Of course @home and AOL are in competition. It is utterly absurd to think otherwise.
Beyond a doubt with respect to this shift in competition's definition, everything in the universe competes with everything else wherever it can, but the point as made by gpowell and myself is that there must be a field of action where the jousters spar. Between AOL and ATHM no such field exists. They are as different as glass and copper. You would like to imagine that one exists, but it is only an extrapolation of appearances. This is what frightened Jermo to push the Excide buy, fear of ghosts and goblins.
Every day people all over this country are thinking about whether they want to spend $22 a month for dialup AOL or $40 for @home and whether they want to keep AOL for another $10 beyond that.
This is how you see it in the sand box, but this isn't what is happening out in Internet land. Case knows this. I know this. So why can't you see the obvious?
For some the decision is obvious. For the mass majority however it is not that simple. They don't know if they really care enough about speed to pay the extra money. They don't know if there is any broadband "content" out there that is worth it either, and they would do almost anything not to lose thier e-mail address.
You have given but one minor reason why the the two spaces are topologically separated. The only argument you van make is that in the future there will be convergence, a resolution of separation in a broader space. This may come through new optic technologies. @Home's glass still has copper in't and that has made all the difference.
Every day some pick @home and some choose to stay with dialup. That is competition. The fact that reducing startup fees increases subscribers is the final proof.
Did you know that you're competing with cotton spinners in China since they're compensation rate puts an international floor on minimum wage. This isn't abstract as you may think and it is the essence of why the FED's interest rate manipulations policy will be shown to be another disaster. The FED can't do anything when those spinners raise their wage demands and force you to do the same.
From now on I'd suggest:
1) Discuss the quality of content rather than the word "content"
Did you not say "content" was anything? Thus the quality of anything must have the power of the continuum, so that it is more than everything. You have a Tower of Babel on your hands.
2) Discuss the survivability of the "portal" concept rather than the word "portal"
You have to be pulling my leg. Are you implying that this ambiguous word which just refers to all web sites in the world will not survive or the web sites will not survive?
3) Discuss who is going to get the subscribers and when rather than the word "competition
There's a job for you at ATHM or, for that matter, at most corporations. However, the days of wine and roses are gone, so one must move quickly to sneak under the growing perception that the fat and indolence must be cut. ATHM must concentrate on adding unencumbered revenue sources on existing subs. There's nothing in subs additions which isn't fully diluted. If you think so, you build a case on sand. |
