He literally cannot hide his derision, and fails to grasp that fact that his industry is feeling the effects of a realized egalitarian democratized distribution network that isn't going away. Gatekeepers and their monopolistic inflated prices are going away. There is going to be less and less margin for gatekeepers to leech off from their content creators, and if content creators see their wages going down, it is because of competition, and their output is not as valuable as they think it is in the face of competition. They will have to adapt their business model to reflect this, and I believe that one of the first things creators will do is cut out people like John MacArthur, go directly to their consumers, and keep the money in their own pocket as the market will bear. No wonder John is unhinged.
Personally, I see this turmoil coming to rest in time. When compared against current forms of distribution and copying, the old model of compensation for writing doesn't work. However, if writers get the lion share of the profit, and distributors the small fraction that writers used to get, costs for information can fall to a level that can compete with piracy. Piracy does have costs and inconveniences, and when you distribute information in a way that pays the creator, you can afford build user-friendly platforms that provide value in categorization, search, archiving, recommendation, etc.
The crux of the matter appears to be a complete undervaluation of the cost and effort of production of informational products, given that "reproduction" costs of information is "negligible ". History has a funny way of surprising folks. It may turn out that serious producers of mind products will seek wealthy patrons (like in the old days) and the rest of us prols will never get to see or hear their creative works.
An interesting counter example would be the enormous success of Shostakovich in the United States compared to similar 20th century composers. His works have not carried copyright protections in the US until very recently, making them significantly cheaper to perform. He would have likely remained relatively unknown outside of Russia if his works weren't freely available to American orchestras.
Go in Salaam and happy St. Patrick's Day.
frankly, i agree with him. and just in case youre still skeptical: why does adblock exist, if not
to bypass the obnoxiousness of the google model? that being said, i agree with your "go directly to the consumer" point. thats a newish idea that has worked out well on several fronts, but requires a certain amount of several other factors to work successfully... the standard seems to be google ads, and i agree that print ads were much less obnoxious, and therefore much more likely to get done whatever the advertisers had in mind. and finally, i hate ads. on tv, in mags/comics, before movies, and anywhere else; but the google model (much like the billboard) has out-shouted any interest i could have possibly had in any product, to the point where i specifically AVOID said products. edit just for fun: my favorite part was "inability to hide derision", followed by the rest of your point. heh.
I would much rather live with intelligently targeted, non-offensive, plain text advertising than the insultingly stupid, full color advertising that fills print and broadcast media. I'm right with you in hating advertising in all its forms, but you must give Google credit for dramatically redefining what online advertising meant. Their enormous success is the perfect testament to the power of tasteful advertisement.
Ah, but that says nothing about the viability of the model itself. Is advertising online a sustainable business model? Of course it is. If there are enough of you to matter, this sentiment represents exactly the business opportunity that the author implies does not exist. I was referring to the personal attacks and gross mischaracterizations : | that I found myself trapped in a corridor at Harper's, surrounded by a small mob of what I can't help but refer to as "young people."| | In the long run, I think I'll be vindicated, since clearly the advertising "model" has failed and readers are going to have to pay (in opposition to Google's bias against paid sites) if they want to see anything more complex than a blog, a classified ad or a sex act.| Like I said. He comes across as extremely elitist and upset. I think he would have better served himself by arguing his points for the various business models on the merits. THIS is where the change is happening. Here is the tremendous opportunity for content creators, as well as their biggest pitfall if they get it wrong in this changing landscape imho.frankly, i agree with him. and just in case youre still skeptical: why does adblock exist, if not to bypass the obnoxiousness of the google model?
and finally, i hate ads. on tv, in mags/comics, before movies, and anywhere else; but the google model (much like the billboard) has out-shouted any interest i could have possibly had in any product, to the point where i specifically AVOID said products.
edit just for fun: my favorite part was "inability to hide derision", followed by the rest of your point. heh.
because the Internet salesmen claimed, in sly mimicry of the indigenous tribesmen,
I've recently come to realize that the Internet huckster/philosophers are first cousins -
doesn't make "Zuck" any more attractive
that being said, i agree with your "go directly to the consumer" point. thats a newish idea that has worked out well on several fronts, but requires a certain amount of several other factors to work successfully... the standard seems to be google ads, and i agree that print ads were much less obnoxious, and therefore much more likely to get done whatever the advertisers had in mind.
I wasn't trying to mix your quotes up. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought I prefaced his quotes clearly and your words are right above for context since i was replying. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote that though.