Thursday, April 13, 2006
Less is (Gill)mor
Hey look, it's Steve Gillmor aiming a long, crapful tirade directly at me.
I wrote a long post in response, pointing out it's numerous untruths - but I've decided that it's better to let Steve's bizarre tirade speak for itself.
Click over, read, have a chuckle, enjoy - and note after spending hundreds of words attacking me, he concludes by by unwittingly citing my work (microchunking, etc) without even knowing it.
What a class act.
Oh yah, you may want to note that Steve launches another broadside on (John Hagel's) notion of infomediaries, which is astounding.
In case it's not crystal clear: if anyone is one of the fathers of 2.0, it's John. He wrote a series of books
about all the stuff we're discussing today nearly ten years ago.
Many 2.0 plays - like Last.fm and Memeorandum - are, in fact, nascent infomediaries (if I can stretch John's original defintion a lil bit). In a sense, 2.0 is largely about
But Steve blithely dismisses the idea by saying something unintelligible about RSS. I have no idea what he's trying to say, but I think that's because he doesn't either...
Um, who the f*ck is David Gilmore?
Keep my Dad's advice in mind:
"Your opinion of me is none of my business."
"It doesn't matter what people think because most of them don't anyway."
If I was you I would sell
David has proved his own ignorance.
// chartreuse // 1:30 AM
wait did I say David Gilmore? I meant Steve Gillmore.
David is a world famous guitarist who has played with and for some of the best in the music business.
Steve is some guy who probably doesn't even play guitar...sorry for the confuse.
We music folks think we are the center of the universe...
// chartreuse // 1:34 AM
> If I was you I would sell everything.
When the business community actually realizes what you have laid out here, I truly hope that you are credited. Unfortunately, I fear that well-framed buzzwords will ultimately be the conduit into business practices.
Have you considered using a word other than "arbitrage"? It's a loaded term with a negative connotation to those unfamiliar with finance.
Perhaps blogging branded PowerPoint friendly charts would spread the word?
Best of luck.
I never considered 2.0 to be about intermediaries, but it makes sense. Cheers mate.
Thx for the comments + advice.
To be honest, I'm happy with my so-called "b-model"; the impact of my ideas is progressing nicely.
The only person my b-model seems to be a big deal, for some reason, is Gillmor...
If Web 2.0 isn't about enabling infomediaries, what would the *web* part be there for? Hagel has kicked ass since Net Gain.
I am so used to these ridiculous non sequitur attacks from my law days, and yet it blindsides me every time it happens in the blogospere, where, unlike in legal briefs, the truth is much easier to see.
Gilmor has no credibility.
By the way, which one's Pink? :)
I read his post, and I didn't quite understand his point. He seems to be feeling competitive with others coming up with ideas (note the name dropping, weird references to being angry with people without explanation) so he's looking for chinks in the armor.
He didn't find any. A report for sale? Does anyone really thing that all information is going to be free? There simply isn't an audience large enough for certain types of information, and all of Umair's work that I've read so far has been talking about Media, as in popular media-- not obscure reports that are of interest .00001% of the population. How can you possibly incentivice people to make such reports public if there is no money in it? Only as a way to enhance the consulting busienss, I guess, but then you're basically just selling the same information but personalized.
Anyway, I'm rambling but his 'attack' made no sense. You needn't have responded in such detail.
// Anonymous // 2:40 AM
Honestly both of you are so far invested in these Valley-only ideas that it's a bid hard to figure out what you're talking about. Both sides sound like religious arguments that talk right past each other, and most listeners.
// Anonymous // 3:19 AM
I agree my post is kind of over the top, which is why I was reluctant to write it, but Steve calling my stuff "guesswork" is kind of like me calling Steve a plagiarist.
And he's been doing it long enough that I felt compelled to respond in a way that I really hope ends the idiotic anti-discussion.
Dude, this isn't an argument about ideas at all - you need to brush up on your reading skills.
I think you have summed it up nicely in 'ridiculous non sequitur attacks'.
Thx for the comments.
OK - I read his article and I don't think it's as bad as you may think it is, Umair.
He seems to be complementing your work/insights in general. Other than that he outlines some differences of opinion (that's OK) and chastises you for trying to sell your information by inserting ads for your own reports into your posts (which I don't think is fair as I've only seen this a few times, at the most, in the months I've been reading your blog)
I agree that the comment about stabs in the dark etc. is harsh but I've noted something in my time(I've completed 3 uni degrees, including law and post-grad Business)...sometimes people just don't respect the amount of time and effort that goes into research and analysis and sometimes theyï¿½re just not capable of even recognising the amount of effort that goes into it let alone the amount of respect it deserves.
If you ask me, this guy didn't realise the implications of what it was he was saying, in terms of how upset you would get because of the amount of effort you put in to your work and the pride you take in your analyses.
His disjointed comments appear to contain many throw-away lines so, if we have to even consider his thoughts, let's focus on the good stuff he had to say about you (which, i have to reiterate, there was a lot of) and take the rest as being of little meaning or significance due to its lack of reason
there...hope that makes you feel betterï¿½ :)
If not, sleep well knowing you laid the smackdown with your retortï¿½ XD
i gotta agree to anon2, itï¿½s somewhat hard to follow such discussion from outside sometimes, not because of the particular ideas (lots of it is long known stuff), but because of all this buzzwording, that makes it pretty abstract after a while.
reading through your blog and others comments, i come to the conclusion, that it would help the spreading much more, if you'd enriched all your conceptual basic work with some illustrating examples or suggestions. think this will just support the process of diffusion, also in the jornalists/columnists or bloggers world (as jordan already suggested). and using buzzwords is one thing, but trying to profile new word creations (donï¿½t want to allege that to you, but in some cases it seems just there to be the one that shot first) isnï¿½t helpful for the 'community' at all. why should someone take his time among myriads of blogs, many of them full of bright ideas, to crawl through 3 ppt presentations first, to get your idea or to be able to follow a post? another point, that would take the wind of the sail of such imprecise affronts would be to enrich your quantitave studies by some sources or numbers. i've been missing this totally in your concept, as an academic you should know that this is basic to any serious primary research.
apart from these remarks, i should say that i'm very much of your opinion in most points and appreciate all the effort you have taken. good stuff! just a little bit more tweaking, and i can use it as a reliable ressource for my papers and recommend it to others as well!...
// Anonymous // 10:19 AM
Because I have read a lot of the work here and feel similar to K's post...
In general, jargon can be tough to swallow. Being a business person, jargon compiles complex thoughts into a word or phrase. How many times are business people saying, "The world is flat" or "the singularity" now? Most business people immediately know what those phrases imply. And yes, it is branding and self-promoting to a degree to coin new words or phrases (let's all tell Thomas Friedman and Ray Kurzweil such, too), but it is also a highly efficient way to describe business strategy concisely.
BTW, I've learned through painful experience that it is SO EASY to be negative and degrading and SO HARD to build on thoughts and be innovative.
Steve and Winer- two people who's content I choose to pass over. My time is valuable, I choose not to spend it elsewhere (like here :).
// Gen Kanai // 3:57 PM
Umair; your arrogance, foul language and self obsession on bubblegen have totally eclipsed your skills.
Suggest you step back & take a look ... there hasn't been an original, constructive thought pioneered here since "microchunking"; which was a massive contribution btw.
I'm outa here - yes, yes, I know I won't be missed - blah blah blah.
I also know I'm not missing anything. Ciao.
// Anonymous // 4:17 PM
re jargon, it's just shorthand. You can always Google if you don't understand.
But I will redouble efforts to dejargon and provide examples.
oh noes!!! I said "arse". And..uhh... you won't be missed (since no one has any idea who you are).
Thx for the comments.
I think blogging can be a bit like emails.. you know the problem when people somehow get more offended by written text, and perhaps we say stuff that's more pointed (or critical) than we would face to face, also. The trouble with asynchronous conversations is that they often turn into soliloquies... The blog-form is all too easily prickly and critical. I actually thought Steven paid you quite a few compliments, sure there was some salt in there, but hey... he clearly tips the hat.
// Simon Edhouse // 2:49 PM
Post a Comment