Robert Young, please stop telling people what to do
November 2, 2006I was about to write a short piece about the difference in blogs between commentary/news on the one hand and speculation on the other. I was going to bring some fine examples of commentary on current events, some examples of “so and so company will do such and such a thing,” and finally the most cheeky of all, “so and so should do such and such a thing.” And then I noticed that the latter category all involved posts from GigaOM, in particular written by a certain Robert Young. Now, Young is a wee bit of a big wig in some tech circles, and he did do some clever stuff, so I’m going to do my best to tread lightly. But I’m a mite disappointed by things like Maybe Google Should Buy a Movie Studio? or Why Steve Jobs Should Buy Youtube, or the most recent tour-de-force, Facebook & Six Apart Should Merge.
Now real quick, here’s a summary of those three and why I think they’re silly:
Google and the Movie Studio
Google buying a movie studio – this is admittedly written before the YouTube purchase, but I still find the argument a little bit contrived: Apple is looking for exclusive online distribution rights for movies, so instead they should (a) buy a studio, (b) make movies available online through Google Video for a modest fee (hey, it works for Apple…), severely undercutting Apple and everyone else, and without any DRM (or with less DRM from anyone else). Then, Google should hunker down, eat all the lawsuits, wait for DVD sales and theaters to die, fundamentally change Hollywood and come out on top.
First of all, the reason that the online distribution of movies model works for Apple is that (a) they already have a huge user-base of iTMS users (b) they market a set of overpriced accessories (e.g. remote, RCA cables) that make it pretty easy to take your movies out of your uselessly small iPod screen and onto your TV.
Second:
Consumers should be given the choice to either pay to download & own, or to stream it free with ads. And the pay option should be priced substantially below existing home video/DVD alternatives (e.g. $3.00 for sell-through/ownership), to reflect the lower cost basis of digital distribution. Moreover, if the consumer buys the title, they should be able to do whatever they want with it for personal use… burn it to DVD, copy it to an unlimited number of machines, etc.
I see all the idealistic “DRM is bad” and “movies for the masses” and Google should do this “with the direct intention of disrupting the Hollywood business model at every level” because Hollywood is evil, but I’m really failing to see any useful reasoning for the fact. If Apple can make very good business selling DRM-protected movies for $10-15, why should Google sell DRM-free movies for a fraction of the cost? I’m sure it’d make Young happy, and it’d make me happy, but where’s the business model?
Apple Buying Youtube
I’ve blooged about this already – Apple Buying YouTube? Why Bother?. Apple has a great distribution system, and has absolutely no need for YouTube. My own prediction was Microsoft buying YouTube (if anyone was going to), and I was wrong, but I still think it makes more sense than Steve Jobs.
facebook and SixApart
The basic argument – facebook and SixApart are very similar, are competing for similar audiences, and should “immediately run a strategic/financial analysis to look at the costs and benefits of a merger.” Young loosely bases his essay on the new Vox service from SixApart, which is near and dear to my heart. He does mention that SixApart also owns TypePad, Moveable Type, and LiveJournal, but I don’t see how those blogging services are in any way like facebook (and neither, I think, does Young) so I’m going to go ahead and focus on Vox and facebook as potentially competing services.
I’ve been using facebook since it was only a handful of schools, and Vox since the beta, so hopefully I’m at least a little bit qualified to evaluate what they’re about.
Vox is, first and foremost, a blogging service. It is innovative in that it has cool integration with photos, video-posting and so on as well as intuitive social elements, but that alone does not a social network make. In trying to be a media-rich and socially-connected blog, Vox is in some sense taking what LiveJournal is one step farther.
facebook does have a new notes module, which one could argue is sort of like a blog (and in fact, one of my friends cross-posts entries from her blog to facebook notes). Still, among my hundred-odd facebook friends, there are under a dozen notes users, most of whom use it for silly things or for the ubiquitous “MEMORIES” entries (e.g. “please comment with a memory of me”).
You could say that facebook has users with profiles and a place for longer bits of writing, and that Vox has places for longer bits of writing attached to profiles, but if you try to get more specific, the comparison loses strength quickly. It’s not just a question of specific features within those profiles and bits of writing, but a question of focus: Vox is a blog, facebook is not a blog. You don’t sign up on facebook to blog on it. You don’t sign up on Vox unless you’re going to blog on it.
Young views both SixApart and facebook as “ultimately aimed at becoming personalized portal platforms” but I really don’t see that as true. facebook is doing it, sure – and bringing the kitchen sink with it, might I add. SixApart does one thing – blogging – and does it well. These are two different company philosophies, and I really don’t see how Young lumps them together.
I will be the first to admit that presenting these three articles out of the context of the rest that Young wrote does not present the full picture. But these are not the only three I object to, and the existence of good ones among them does speak at least of a throw-crap-at-a-wall-and-see-what-sticks attitude, which is not cool. Robert Young, you can do better than that.
Mike,
Wow, this post certainly got my attention!
Let me explain why I sometimes write speculative pieces:
1) I’m not a journalist… I’m an entrepreneur and dealmaker. So I don’t write news, company/product reviews, etc. Instead, I simply try to share my thoughts and opinions… oftentimes elaborating on scenarios that would interest me if I were running a given company. In fact, most of my speculative pieces originate from actual conversations I’ve had with various interested parties to the subject matter, and what I write represents what I honestly believe would be a viable, if not optimal, course of action.
2) I would guess that 70% of the emails I get from readers (thousands every month) ask me to speculate about such things (probably because I have an “insider” view of an entrepreneur, and not a journalists’ view). In fact, most seem to enjoy my speculations (even for those who disagree) and they seem to welcome the departure from the daily grind of keeping up with an increasing avalanche of news. Not sure if other bloggers experience similiar requests… but clearly for me, that’s what the majority of the folks who read me seem to want. And I’m glad to oblige.
3) I’m sorry you don’t like what I write, and you certainly have the right to your opinion… just as I have the freedom to write what I think. The beauty of freedom and choice is that you don’t have to read me if you don’t like what I have to say. This is the blogosphere after all, and my blogging is my form of self-expression and sharing. Remember, I’m not the “news”… just one person with his opinions, who’s using the invention of the blog precisely as it was meant to be used.
I hope this clarifies some of the reasoning behind my writing.
Oh, wow, I guess it’s the internet 101 for me: “if you write something, people might come across it.” I really didn’t expect people to see this yet (I was keeping this blog on the down-low until I get more settled with regular posting and a standard writing style).
Anyway, first of all let me apologize if my essay was a little too strong. It’s sometimes easy to fall into that sort of a style, and it’s easier to criticize than to praise, and I suppose that practice will make better. I do like the stuff you write – otherwise I wouldn’t read it – which is why I was surprised and maybe a little disappointed with the specific pieces I commented on. With that said, I’m going to do my best to respond to your comments and clarify my own position:
I am not expecting you to be a journalist. I think that by now it’s pretty clear that bloggers and journalists do slightly different things and are held to different standards, and I think that that’s a good thing. I also do not object to speculation – in fact, that’s pretty much what I do on my own blog, and I find big questions of tech corporate strategy fascinating (it’s one of the things I’d love to do after I graduate).
I also, for the most part, enjoy your writing and insight e.g. as I recall your thoughts on Google-Apple alliance came a few weeks before the Official Google Mac Blog, and your look at the middle of the Digg user curve is something more people should take note of.
What I do take a bit of an issue with are two things. The first is admittedly minor – I think that there is an attitude difference between saying that a company should do something, and saying that they will do so – even though at the end of the day, if you’re right in either case, the companies involved will do the same thing (i.e. what you predict). To me, it’s the difference between making a prediction of what will happen on the one hand, and instructing someone about what to do on the other. If you’re wearing your blogger / commentator hat, I think that you’re placing yourself in the predictor camp – but I welcome reasoning to the contrary.
The second is less minor – as I said above, I’m not objecting to speculation, but rather I’m trying to call you on speculation that I find insufficiently justified. e.g. if Apple has a good (and successful, unlike Google Videos) online movie distribution system, why should it buy YouTube? How are facebook and SixApart going after the same audience if they differ in significant ways XYZ? What’s the financial / business motivation for Google to buy a studio, and offer non-DRM’d movies for 3 bucks when Apple is making good business selling $10-15 DRM’d movies on a well-established platform?
I’m glad that you took the time to read my post, and I apologize again if it looks like I’m launching an all-out salvo against your body of writing. That was honestly not my intention. I realize that you are very busy, but I’d love to hear what you have to say about some of my more specific points, and to perhaps check back here some more in the future.