Where is the internet going?

GreyWyvern <SP_bhuisman RemoveThis @greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message news:<opr27miwd8v0in9v RemoveThis @news.nas.net>...
 > On 10 Feb 2004 19:42:01 -0800, Duke of Hazard <faraz_hussain RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
 > wrote:

 > No. Newspapers won't be obsolete until computers get small enough, thin
 > enough, and cheap enough that you can buy one at a stand somewhere. There
 > is something about being able to take "your copy" of a newspaper to lunch,
 > or to a sports event, where you have little fear about leaving it behind
 > for someone else to use.

Taking your copy of the paper to lunch is simply a habit that can
easily be replaced with taking your tiny wireless laptop to lunch. If
you prefer the newspaper, it's simply by habit , not because it's any
better.

 > Books likely will never become obsolete. It's much easier on the human
 > eye to read static text on paper than the luminous text on a computer
 > screen. Books are also much more durable, and considering the punishment
 > many books go through these days during a read, that's a good thing.

you have a good point about the text being easier to read on paper
than on screen. However, if people see greater learning value in a
multimedia enhanced e-book over a static paper book, then they will be
willing to accept the trade-off of more difficult to read text.
Newspaper print is difficult to read also, but you read it because the
benefits outweigh the costs.

 > As long as there are cars and music there will be radio. Because you must
 > focus your sense of sight on the road around you while driving, your sense
 > of hearing is freed to listen to the radio. As well, since music is an
 > important part of human civilisation, the easiest way to distribute this
 > music it broadcasting. Although in the future, more and more of these
 > radio stations will be simulcasted on the internet.

i agree that more radio will be broadcasted via internet. In fact I
see no reason why all these car navigation systems won't become full
personal computers with wireless internet with voice recognition. Now
you can get your tv, radio, maps, phone, and news from one screen in
the car!

 > Rather than TV becoming obsolete, computer and television technology will
 > merge. TV tuners will become standard equipment on most motherboards.
 > And as people gain more control over the channels incoming into their
 > homes, network television will fade into history.

i agree with this.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

Duke of Hazard wrote:
 > As we all know almost anyone can "publish" their own products,
 > services, and ideas on the internet for next to nothing. So why do
 > major corporations, the news media and entertainment industry continue
 > to have a strong hold on the population?

Because most of the things published by "anyone" are either boring,
crap, too complicated for simple MTV minds. And things published by
"anyone" typically aren't pushed with a multi-billion marketing campaign.


 > My theory is because people
 > respond to them out of habit. I am guessing that things will shift
 > with the younger generation that has been brought up on the internet.

Naw... those young kids are all obsessed with their peer pressure dress
codes, their trading card games, etc. Hey, even my six-year-old insists
(without success<g>) on buying brand clothes; it's ridiculous. These
youngsters are much more under industry control than us old farts who
don't care what we wear as long as no private parts stick out.


 > Or is it because the internet only reaches a small segment of the
 > population, i.e upper-middle class, college educated and beyond ? Just
 > trying to gather some of your thoughts and experiences on why the
 > internet isn't more dominant in today's society.

Why should the internet be more dominant?


Matthias<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-spam DeleteThis @gmx.net> wrote in message news:<c0dbo0$15a8a9$1@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>...

 > Why should the internet be more dominant?
 >

It should be more dominant because it has the potential to merge tv,
radio, news, and higher learning into one faster, cheaper and better
source.

For example I don't understand how universities are able to justify
their tuition rates when 90% of what they offer can be taught better
and at a fraction of the cost via e-learning tools?

Faraz<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

GreyWyvern wrote:
 > On 10 Feb 2004 19:42:01 -0800, Duke of Hazard <faraz_hussain DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  >> So back to my original question, where is the reach of the internet
  >> heading? Will it make TV, radio, books and newspapers obsolete? If so,
  >> how long? If not, why?
 >
 >
 > No. Newspapers won't be obsolete until computers get small enough, thin
 > enough, and cheap enough that you can buy one at a stand somewhere.

Newspapers won't be obsolete until pet owners find something cheaper to
line their guinea pig/rabbit/mice cages .


Matthias<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

"James" <james.taylor.TakeThisOut@aicNOomSPpaAMny.com> wrote in message
news:Ou6dnQNffsRUU7TdRVn-jw@adelphia.com
<snipped>

I noticed that your reply had your sig then your message and then your
sig again.

You should download and install OE QuoteFix. It's a great little program
that rearranges your usenet replies into the proper format
--
Red E. Kilowatt
Advertise your webmaster-related products
and services in news:alt.www.webmaster.ads
Read the FAQs at: http://aww-faq.org and http://awwa.aww-faq.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

"Duke of Hazard" <faraz_hussain.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5052c5d.0402110936.41841356@posting.google.com
 > Eric Jarvis <web.RemoveThis@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
  >>
  >> books won't become obsolete...at least not because of the
  >> Internet...they are a very effective and satisfying medium in their
  >> own right
  >>
 >
 > Books currently have value over the internet. However in the future if
 > we all have lightweight wireless laptops connected to the internet,
 > then what value is there in lugging around books when your laptop can
 > access millions of e-books?

In the future we'll all have chips implanted in our brains. Well, not me
'cause I'll be dead by then.
--
Red E. Kilowatt
Advertise your webmaster-related products
and services in news:alt.www.webmaster.ads
Read the FAQs at: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://aww-faq.org" target="_blank">http://aww-faq.org</a> and <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://awwa.aww-faq.org/" target="_blank">http://awwa.aww-faq.org/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

James wrote:

James... I'd really like to quote what you have said but you did have to
put your sig up the top so that my newsreader has deleted the entire
contents of your post in my reply

But anyway... two points/questions

1. I haven't done the research, but how can the translations be exact? I
mean, there were words in the original texts and the greek manuscripts
etc that simply don't have an English translation OR which have multiple
translations but one translation has been forgotten or pushed aside over
time...

2. I was taught that the testaments (which were written all over the
place) were written so that locals could relate to the stories told and
to persuade the Jews that this Jesus bloke really was the messiah and
they should follow him - couldn't that have caused errors in the
'accounts of what those people observed at that time'?
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

"GreyWyvern" <SP_bhuisman.DeleteThis@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message
news:opr27miwd8v0in9v@news.nas.net...
 > On 10 Feb 2004 19:42:01 -0800, Duke of Hazard <faraz_hussain.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > > So back to my original question, where is the reach of the internet
  > > heading? Will it make TV, radio, books and newspapers obsolete? If so,
  > > how long? If not, why?
 >
 > No. Newspapers won't be obsolete until computers get small enough, thin
 > enough, and cheap enough that you can buy one at a stand somewhere. There
 > is something about being able to take "your copy" of a newspaper to lunch,
 > or to a sports event, where you have little fear about leaving it behind
 > for someone else to use.

I usually read the news on my Palm Tungsten. My computer is set up to
automatically download and sync the days news to my Tungsten just before I
wake up. I just grab it and go. Read it when I have the chance.

 >
 > Books likely will never become obsolete. It's much easier on the human
 > eye to read static text on paper than the luminous text on a computer
 > screen. Books are also much more durable, and considering the punishment
 > many books go through these days during a read, that's a good thing.

This I agree with. I have a huge collection of books. Ranging from
automotive to computers to novels. I don't think they'll be replaced. There
are too many books that were printed prior to computer days to have them all
converted to a digital format.

 >
 > As long as there are cars and music there will be radio. Because you must
 > focus your sense of sight on the road around you while driving, your sense
 > of hearing is freed to listen to the radio. As well, since music is an
 > important part of human civilisation, the easiest way to distribute this
 > music it broadcasting. Although in the future, more and more of these
 > radio stations will be simulcasted on the internet.

I guess I'm a gadget junkie. I have an MP3 player in my truck. Seldon listen
to the radio these days. Too much talk and not enough music. Not to mention
that I have hundreds of songs on my laptop that I can play while on long
drives. I have a Dodge pickup and the center console is ideal for holding a
laptop (although, I do get funny looks from people in traffic who look over
and see me playing with the computer).

 >
 > Rather than TV becoming obsolete, computer and television technology will
 > merge. TV tuners will become standard equipment on most motherboards.
 > And as people gain more control over the channels incoming into their
 > homes, network television will fade into history.

I agree with this statement too. My primary computer (I currently have 3
desktops, my laptop, and my Palm), has a TV tuner added in. I have a 63" big
screen in the den that seldom gets used by me (other than for football with
friends). I have a 21" monitor, so my computer is larger than the old 19"
TV's. And I can redord whatever I want to my hard drive for later viewing.

 >
 > Grey
 >
 > --
 > The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
 > pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
 > - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.greywyvern.com" target="_blank">http://www.greywyvern.com</a> - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
 > management<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

Duke of Hazard faraz_hussain.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
 > Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-spam.RemoveThis@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<c0dbo0$15a8a9$1@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>...
 >
  > > Why should the internet be more dominant?
 >
 > It should be more dominant because it has the potential to merge tv,
 > radio, news, and higher learning into one faster, cheaper and better
 > source.
 >

not quite...single source yes...cheaper, faster and better, possibly any
one right now and any two in the future...combining those last three is
unlikely in a single source...there are some advantages to specialisation

it is becoming dominant because of its versatility...what it WON'T ever do
is provide the same as old media but on the cheap...the proof is plainly
there to see by comparing the costs and quality of the top end of web
animation and the cheap end of the cartoon channel...you don;t get quality
work by hiring second raters on the cheap...too much web content is
currently produced that way

the power of the Internet is the ability to get data from a range of
sources in a range of media...it isn't going to reach maturity by creating
cut price copies of what is available from older media...the chances are
that its future isn't in competition with existing media, but as the
central point of access by which their distribution is arranged

for example...you log on and call up the TV schedule...it tells you there
is a new show you are likely to want to watch available, but it's an hour
long and your team are playing football in just over 40 minutes...so you
check the latest music releases and stream them through the stereo while
you catch up on Usenet...bang on time the computer turns on the TV,
already to receive the narrowcast of your team's game...it then turns off
the stereo...at the end of the game you get asked if you want the rest of
the music, the TV show you wanted to save for later, or something
else...you decide to find something new...so you call up a friend's music
page, and the computer compares their new tracks listing with what you've
listened to and plays everything they've recently found that you haven't
heard

and so on...it's the "switching" that the Internet does best...it may well
not be the way the information is transmitted, that might be done by a
separate method...you certainly won't be using the same monitor to read
news and to watch TV...but eventually the control and the decision making
will involve the Internet, because that's what it's good at

--
eric
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.ericjarvis.co.uk" target="_blank">www.ericjarvis.co.uk</a>
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

Duke of Hazard wrote:

 > GreyWyvern <SP_bhuisman.DeleteThis@greywyvern.com_AM> wrote in message news:<opr27miwd8v0in9v.DeleteThis@news.nas.net>...
 >
  >>On 10 Feb 2004 19:42:01 -0800, Duke of Hazard <faraz_hussain.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
  >>wrote:
 >
 >
  >>No. Newspapers won't be obsolete until computers get small enough, thin
  >>enough, and cheap enough that you can buy one at a stand somewhere. There
  >>is something about being able to take "your copy" of a newspaper to lunch,
  >>or to a sports event, where you have little fear about leaving it behind
  >>for someone else to use.
 >
 >
 > Taking your copy of the paper to lunch is simply a habit that can
 > easily be replaced with taking your tiny wireless laptop to lunch. If
 > you prefer the newspaper, it's simply by habit , not because it's any
 > better.
 >
 >
  >>Books likely will never become obsolete. It's much easier on the human
  >>eye to read static text on paper than the luminous text on a computer
  >>screen. Books are also much more durable, and considering the punishment
  >>many books go through these days during a read, that's a good thing.
 >
 >
 > you have a good point about the text being easier to read on paper
 > than on screen. However, if people see greater learning value in a
 > multimedia enhanced e-book over a static paper book, then they will be
 > willing to accept the trade-off of more difficult to read text.
 > Newspaper print is difficult to read also, but you read it because the
 > benefits outweigh the costs.
 >
 >
  >>As long as there are cars and music there will be radio. Because you must
  >>focus your sense of sight on the road around you while driving, your sense
  >>of hearing is freed to listen to the radio. As well, since music is an
  >>important part of human civilisation, the easiest way to distribute this
  >>music it broadcasting. Although in the future, more and more of these
  >>radio stations will be simulcasted on the internet.
 >
 >
 > i agree that more radio will be broadcasted via internet. In fact I
 > see no reason why all these car navigation systems won't become full
 > personal computers with wireless internet with voice recognition. Now
 > you can get your tv, radio, maps, phone, and news from one screen in
 > the car!
 >
 >
  >>Rather than TV becoming obsolete, computer and television technology will
  >>merge. TV tuners will become standard equipment on most motherboards.
  >>And as people gain more control over the channels incoming into their
  >>homes, network television will fade into history.
 >
 >
 > i agree with this.

Geee, call me old fashioned, but...

I like my TV - it sits in the living room in front of the comfy chairs
and it has a big screen and I can watch whatever someone else wants to
show me.

I like my Radio - it is portable and I can listen to it from the time I
wake up, when I'm driving, working outside or just wanting something in
the background while I'm concentrating on something.

I like my Newspapers - they bring information to me everyday on my
doorstep. I can read it whenever I want, and then I can fold it up into
a little rectangle and take it wherever I go. If I lose it it is no big
deal. If it rains I have an instant raincoat. If I'm bored I have an
instant source of paper for aeroplanes. If I lose my newspaper, it does
not cost me hundreds of dollars.

I like my Books - they are comfortable to read anywhere. They have their
own covers and my book is MY book.

I like my Internet too - heaps of information if you know where to look.
News, entertainment, everything. But I don't want the internet to take
over my life. I like radio because it has been around for over a hundred
years, I like TV because it lets you tune out while it tunes in. I like
newspapers and books /because/ they are probably not as efficient as a
tablet PC. It might be quaint, but I like them because they are not the
latest and greatest.

There is only one way in which I would think that these technologies
would merge, and that is solely in the home entertainment system, where
a PC /could/ be used to manage all the input and output - so if there is
video from the internet or airwaves I can watch it on my tv, internet
music on my radio and through my speakers etc.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

On 10 Feb 2004 10:18:45 -0800, faraz_hussain.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Duke of
Hazard) wrote:

 >As we all know almost anyone can "publish" their own products,
 >services, and ideas on the internet for next to nothing. So why do
 >major corporations, the news media and entertainment industry continue
 >to have a strong hold on the population? My theory is because people
 >respond to them out of habit. I am guessing that things will shift
 >with the younger generation that has been brought up on the internet.
 >
 >Or is it because the internet only reaches a small segment of the
 >population, i.e upper-middle class, college educated and beyond ? Just
 >trying to gather some of your thoughts and experiences on why the
 >internet isn't more dominant in today's society.
 >
 >Faraz

Lots of prognostication in this thread, which is always enjoyable to
read.

If we model our predictions on what has happened in the past we will
see that a new medium like the Internet, TV, the telephone, the
telegraph (read "The Victorian Internet", it's great),
wide-circulation newspapers, the typewriter and so on, is subject to
hype and speculation before settling in to a niche in the market, and
sometimes being replaced by a new, more efficient technology.

Television is an inefficient way to read and discuss news and opinion.
It is perfect for passive entertainment. TV news shows realise this
so television news has been reduced to snippets of often irrelevant
but entertaining information.

Upon the invention of television, the demise of the movie theatre was
widely predicted. Then again with the propagation of the video
recorder. But theatres have their own unique advantage that they
market more and more - comfortable seats, a cheap escape from the
home, big screen size and high sound quality. Maybe one day only big
action block-busters will be released into the cinema with
small-budget dramas and comedies the exclusive fare of on-demand TV.

Until things like photonic cells (as used by jellyfish and peacocks
for their colouration and light displays) are introduced, the capacity
of 'the Internet' to transfer individual programming to viewers is not
feasible. With digital TV you can choose a 'personalised' version of
a program, but you are still just choosing from a sub-set of views of
a program chosen by somebody else.

Books and newspapers will change their format and the technology used
to produce them will become more efficient but they are here to stay.

The Internet as a place where anyone can display anything to a huge
audience is an idea on the wane as business has realised that it has
potential to increase their competitive edge and is pushing aside (but
not pushing out completely) the anarchic Internet for a more
structured 'net. The majority of people want predictability, ease of
use and stability. Big, centralised business provides that on a
broader scale than a million individuals with slightly different ideas
on any topic they collaborate on.

The state of the Internet will change again and again, until it is not
recognisable to us, or splits into a larger commercial "structured,
secure and executable" web and a smaller, more chaotic public-access
web like we have today.

Porno will thrive whatever happens.


--

Adrian Appleyard

3,000+ links on web site design, usability, accessibility, tools,
books, link checkers, associations, events, web standards...

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.theNetPlace.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theNetPlace.com/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:40:40 -0000, Eric Jarvis <web DeleteThis @ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:

 >and so on...it's the "switching" that the Internet does best...

Hence the term "multimedia".

Even today individual pieces of information are not as valuable as
access to the information you want at the time you want it.

Look at pay-per-click search engines. Content on an individual site
is of such LOW SIGNIFICANCE that you have to pay to get people to
visit your web site.

The push to be the hub, the middle man who connects people to what
they want to see, hear or experience, is a bigger fight and can be
much more lucrative than providing the content or service in the first
place. TV stations were a licence to print money in the past. Now
they struggle, merge, post flat profits or even losses.

Microsoft Media Centre anyone? Internet Explorer? Control of the
hub, the centre that everyone must pass through, is big business.
Which is why there will eventually be a corporatised web and remnants
of our existing web. Think ham radio compared to commercial radio
stations. A fringe community using the same basic principle as the
controlled, secure, often bland centre.

Than again, I could be wrong.

--

Adrian Appleyard

3,000+ links on web site design, usability, accessibility, tools,
books, link checkers, associations, events, web standards...

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.theNetPlace.com/" target="_blank">http://www.theNetPlace.com/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going? 

Adrian Appleyard <adrian.DeleteThis@REMOVE123.nameplace.com.au> wrote in message news:<fkhm20t9lo8bunmpalg5an6ea8k9bohrcm.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...

 > The push to be the hub, the middle man who connects people to what
 > they want to see, hear or experience, is a bigger fight and can be
 > much more lucrative than providing the content or service in the first
 > place.

I agree with this. Sites like yahoo and google really have no value.
The technology behind them is simple and commonplace. Think about it,
anyone can provide email accounts, have a web directory as their main
page, and have a search engine. There is really no capital investment
to do that.

I think in the future these yahoo, ebay and google sites will just get
bought out by larger media conglomerates that can market them to a
much wider audience.

So what does that mean for webmasters like us?

Faraz.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the internet going?