Silicon Valley Watcher - reporting on the business of technology and media: Disruptive Archives

Microsoft abandons PC-centric view but what about Intel?

By Tom Foremski, Silicon Valley Watcher.com

Today's "leaked" Gates and Ozzie memos show that Microsoft finally "gets it" that the world has shifted towards the Big Computer in the Cloud.

Gates' Copernicus-like revelation that we no longer live in a PC-centric world is late but significant for Microsoft. But has MSFT's PC partner Intel realized the world has changed?

The last time I looked, Intel was quite happily promoting its latest and greatest PC microprocessors, vowing to make them ever more powerful and complex.

But with the Big Computer approach, for most tasks, you don't need super-smart PC clients, because the Big Computer can do the processing far faster than the client.

You just need a client that can render video/graphic/audio bits really fast and needs only a little bit of local smarts. And there are plenty of chips out there than can do this, and that don't cost several hundred dollars, as Intel's top of the line PC chips and chipsets.

Yes, there are many professional tasks that require a powerful PC client system, but for most of us, the Big Computer in the Cloud will do just fine once we get ubiquitous broadband--which isn't far away.

Take a look at my recent post-The Coming PC Crunch:

Like a universe that finally feels the pull of its dark matter gravity and starts to pull back towards its singular moment of creation, the massive PC market could be facing the same pull on its further expansion.
The onward rise of the PC microprocessor, more powerful and complex than ever, won't be stopped by Moore's Law. It will much more likely be stopped by the fact that it becomes cheaper, and better to do the processing on a large computer system, rather than on a PC, no matter how fast the PC microprocessor.

Posted by Tom Foremski on November 9, 2005 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

What happens if the old media dies too soon? The urgent need for solid online news media business models

Over the past few months I've been asking what happens if the old media dies before the new media learns to walk.

By which I mean, what happens if we lose much of the old media before the new media business models are formed?

It is Silicon Valley's top companies, such as Google, Yahoo and Ebay, that are devastating the old media business models. But the new media business models have not yet "grown up" to support the quality journalism that we need as a society.

The New York Times, for example, pays about $1.25m a year to have a Baghdad bureau, not to mention the rest of its huge editorial infrastructure. In contrast, online publishing relies heavily on revenues from Google text ads--but Google ads won't pay enough to fund a global network of journalists.

Google's blowout quarter

Google's blowout quarter last month means one thing: the old media is losing advertising dollars faster than we thought.

Those sales are not coming from market share gains against rivals such as Yahoo, since Yahoo also reported a very good quarter due to increased advertising.

And this is just the start of a trend that's likely to accelerate as print advertising sales contracts expire and budgets become free to shift to online advertising.

Swinging to extremes

We know what will happen in a situation like this: We will see a flood of online advertising as the pendulum swings to an extreme, before moving back towards the middle.

Which means that the old media will have its knees chopped from under it. Or perhaps the entire revenue-generating torso will be hacked off.

Continue reading "What happens if the old media dies too soon? The urgent need for solid online news media business models" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on November 14, 2005 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (1)

Heeding the call for finding the new media business models...

By Tom Foremski, Silicon Valley Watcher

My posts over the past few months on the subject of what happens if the old media dies before the new media learns to walk have been picking up a fair amount of interest out.

On Monday, I called for partners to work with SVW to help figure out what the new media will look like.

And I've already got several companies that are very interested in what could very well turn into a historic project. And there are a few other key companies that could very well become involved too, I'm getting quite excited at the possibilities...

Here is my post from this week:

What happens if the old media dies too soon? The urgent need for solid online news media business models

Also, please read the comments, one from Kevin Maney, a newbie blogger from USA Today ;-)

Also:

Editor&Publisher reports:

More Than 1,900 Newspaper Jobs Lost in 2005 Aya Kawano
By Tom Foremski - November 18, 2005 | Permalink | Comment on this post | Media Watch
Blog reactions | RSS Feed | SVW News Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW For Your Mobile Phone

Continue reading "Heeding the call for finding the new media business models..." »

Posted by Tom Foremski on November 18, 2005 1:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Another reason most IT data centers are on the way out

Here is my most recent blog post on ZDNet:

Another reason most IT data centers are on the way out

It is based on a conversation I had with David Scott, CEO of 3PAR, which has a technology that can dramatically increase data storage capacity. It discusses fine-grained virtualization, which means tricking IT applications into thinking they have a huge amount of data storage space allocated to their needs.

What this also means is that the efficiency of utility computing systems is significantly increased and that raises the bar even higher for internal corporate IT systems versus outside providers. Server huggers beware :-)

It's just one more reason why there will be a booming business in decommissioning corporate IT data centers over the next few years, imho.

Posted by Tom Foremski on December 7, 2005 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Skinny applications have a bright future

By Tom Foremski, for Silicon Valley Watcher

There is a new class of software emerging from companies such as Jotspot and Socialtext. The software enables custom applications to be created for small numbers of users, through a simple interface.

This class of software is sometimes referred to as roll-your-own or do-it-yourself software. Although they convey a meaning--they aren't that good because of the other connotations they invoke.

When I met with Joe Kraus, co-founder of Jotspot, before the holidays, he said it would be good to have a different term. And so here is my suggestion: skinny apps. Just skin it!

The reason is that there is an application layer or "skin" on top of a database. I've floated the idea over on ZDNet if you want to take a look at whether it floats or sinks in IT circles.

Or let me know if you have other suggestions.

Posted by Tom Foremski on January 11, 2006 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Scoop! Google is considering outsourcing some of its IT infrastructure

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher

I had an interesting chat last Friday with John Loiacono, Sun's software chief. Sun's software is the way it sells hardware and it is the hardware that is very interesting because Sun is very focused on lowering electric power consumption in the huge data centers of tomorrow, which will have hundreds of thousands of servers.

During the chat I asked him if someone were to try to build another Google, with its focus on inexpensive grids of PCs, could it be done more efficiently today using Sun's systems?

"Definitely, and we have systems running over there (Google) right now," he said. He also said that Google is thinking about whether it wants to be running its own data centers and developing its own software.

He added that Google created its own operating system to run its grids. And now there are some within Google that question whether they should continue doing that, especially since there is so much open source software, and middleware available (from Sun, of course :-) and increasingly, specialist grid builders.

He suggested that Google might outsource some of its infrastructure in the future, which would make sense if grid computing and utility computing take-off. After all, a machine cycle is just a machine cycle in the world of web services--it is what you do with it that counts--not the fact that you own and manage the infrastructure.

Here is my interview with Mr Loiacono on ZDNet:

I'm in a small, daylight filled conference room in Building 10 in Sun Microsystems Menlo Park campus with John Loiacono, head of Sun's software group. We've just met and sat down but he springs back up and walks over to the whiteboard, "let me just show you something . .."
This is normally not a good sign...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=28

Posted by Tom Foremski on January 18, 2006 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Drawing Flak from the Flacks: Transitions are always painful and emotional

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher

I've been drawing a lot of flak lately from the flacks in the PR industry, as I've been asking where is the disruption in their sector?

Why hasn't the PR industry joined the media industry's hand basket to hell? Media and PR industries have always moved pretty much in tandem--with maybe a six to nine month lag.

My posts have generated quite a lot of debate, and responses from leaders in the PR industry--which is wonderful. [That's one of the forgotten roles of a journalist--to be a muckraker, to challenge the accepted notions of our times.] Richard Edelman, for example, has written a lengthy post. And Steve Rubel, the top PR blogger, has also spent time discussing my posts on his blog Micro Persuasion.

I have a lot of respect for PR professionals (I use flack as an affectionate term, in the same way as I refer to myself and fellow journalists as hacks). I've worked with PR people for nearly 25 years both here and in London. We work on different sides of the same coin: we try to find and publish great, compelling stories. And the best PR folk think like journalists.

Lately, I have been challenging the PR industry to move away from business as usual because of the changing nature of communications and media.

Paradoxically...

Continue reading "Drawing Flak from the Flacks: Transitions are always painful and emotional" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on January 31, 2006 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Pulling out the rug: GOOG Q4 shows continued shift away from partner sites

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher

GOOG missing its Wall Street estimates is the main focus of the media coverage of its Q4 numbers. The more interesting story is that Google continues to shift revenues to its own sites, and away from third-party sites in its AdSense advertising network, such as those operated by media companies.

Take a look at the release and what used to be about a 50/50 split in revenues coming from Google sites and network sites:

Google Sites Revenues -- Google-owned sites generated revenues of $1.098 billion, or 57% of total revenues. This represents a 24% increase over the third quarter revenues of $885 million.
Google Network Revenues -- Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $799 million, or 42% of total revenues. This is an 18% increase over network revenues of $675 million generated in the third quarter.

In Q3 revenues from Google sites grew 20 per cent as revenues from Google's network sites grew 7 per cent.

This shows that GOOG is accelerating its revenue shift from network sites. And why not? It doesn't have to share the revenues with network sites.

This is bad news for media companies such as the New York Times--a key AdSense partner.

It is also bad news for the many VC funded startups whose business models rely on becoming honey pots for Google AdSense clicks. The trend towards developing advertising supported web service applications could be a short one.

However, Microsoft might be able to exploit this shift if it can offer a better "AdSense" revenue model to Google's network sites.

Here is my ZDNet column on GOOG.

Posted by Tom Foremski on January 31, 2006 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CEO Selina Lo of Ruckus Wireless--a name to watch

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher
[It is such a dreary, rainy day here in SF, and I have a touch of the flu, so I've been able to stay-in and catch up with stuff I should have written weeks ago.]

I recently had dinner with Selina Lo, CEO of Ruckus Wireless--a startup developing wireless multimedia IP technology for the home.

Women CEOs are rare in Silicon Valley but I don't think Ms Lo noticed. An organization would have to have a glass ceiling the thickness of a polar ice cap to keep Ms Lo in check--and I don't think that would work for long.

Take a glance at her bio:

Continue reading "CEO Selina Lo of Ruckus Wireless--a name to watch" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 2, 2006 1:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The 14 year-old coders are back...that's the proof of a new internet 2.0

Yes, it is official, the 14-year old programmers are back, that means concrete proof that we have a new dotcom boom emerging–but this time with an interesting twist.

The twist is this: The 14 year olds are not being employed by corporations, as was the case during the dotcom-hungry-for-html-skills mania of Internet 1.0. They are being employed by the 18 year olds, their older brothers, in a sense.

The battle for the last-mile heats up as GOOG, Skype and VCs fund startup FON

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher

Google, Skype and VCs working on creating planet-wide ubiquitous Wi-Fi with a $21.7m investment in startup FON.

It is a strategy that I predicted back in August:

What's Google up to? It's going to become a wireless Telco with its own fat backbone...

I think it is very clear what Google's strategy is, or rather has to be. I think it is getting ready to do a wireless Telco buy. Because everything is rapidly being walled up into gated communities, and the gatekeepers are the cable companies and the wireless mobile phone companies (the land-liners are toast).
Those walled gardens can shut Google out, or put Google a click or two away....and on a mobile phone that might as well be Siberia, you are going to use the first search box you see and it doesn't have to be Google.

This is the battle for the last-mile--whoever controls the entry into the digital home controls a very lucrative content market.

Interestingly, FON has co-opted leading bloggers such as Dan Gillmor onto an advisory board, and who have also given their official blessing through allowing their quotes to be used in the press release.

Gartner and IDC and Forrester analysts usually provide such quotes and they are always paid by the company issuing the press release(!)

From the release:

The well regarded blogger/former newspaper columnist Dan Gillmor and telecom expert David Isenberg have already signed on to serve on the company's board of advisors, as has Esther Dyson, the well-known blogger Joi Ito and many others. For a complete list of the board of advisors visit http://en.fon.com/info/who-is-behind-fon.php

Here is the statement from GOOG and CSCO:

FON SECURES $21.7M TO CREATE WIFI PLANET

Continue reading "The battle for the last-mile heats up as GOOG, Skype and VCs fund startup FON" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 6, 2006 4:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (1)

Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement

. . . a potential solution to the acquisition of the commons.

By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher

Can Larry Ellison be stopped? By which I mean could Oracle shut down the fledgling open-source software movement through a series of acquisitions??

Consider this: This week, (not) coincidentally with the open source conference at the Argent Hotel in San Francisco, Oracle announced the acquisition of Sleepycat, an up and coming open source database; MYSQL said Oracle tried to buy it; and industry insiders are saying the acquisition of JBoss by Oracle is imminent.

In one fell swoop, Oracle has drawn a square around the most active and interesting parts of the open source movement--the databases and tools. These are the platforms for applications. Applications are just skins on the database--if you own the database (Oracle) or access to the data (Net Apps) you are in the sweet spot.

Oracle isn't going to lose its customer base to challengers such as MySQL or Sleepycat. But it will lose some of the new IT business. And there is some new IT business out there--but it is all heading for open source. Become.com for example, a very successful shopping comparison web site--all runs on open source. And I cannot tell you how many startups have told me: All our IT is open source we don't pay a penny in license fees to anybody.

If you don't have a legacy requirement to run Oracle, you won't. It's as simple as that; and it's why Oracle wants to remove this option. Because it's not just the startups, it is also enterprise IT departments, that are now comfortable with using open source. That's a huge chunk of lost business if even a small number of Oracle's enterpise customers choose open-source equivalent products.

Oracle could lose tens of millions of dollars in new business from just a handful of large customers in a single quarter. It costs less than that to acquire these small, privately held companies.

Continue reading "Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 17, 2006 2:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Innovation is disruptive otherwise it is not innovation

I sparked an interesting discussion on innovation in a response to Geoffrey Moore's recent column in Sandhill.com. Please take a look at the discussion here on Mr Moore's site, and also at AlwaysOn.

And my apologies for not being in the thick of it, I've been involved in the "PR hand basket to hell" discussions the past couple of weeks, and also running around trying to get more stories and interviews for SVW.

However, I stick to my point which is that the term innovation must have within its meaning the quality of being disruptive. Innovation occurs when companies or individuals are forced to adopt a process because of the overwhelming economic value it creates and to ignore it would make it impossible to survive.

Just because the term innovation is trendy and is used by large companies such as HP or Microsoft, does not mean that they use it correctly.

I agree totally with Mr Moore when he says large enterprises have an interest in maintaining the status quo. It is called protecting your business model. And they will rail and flail against any innovation that threatens that status quo.

And just because large enterprises say they are innovative does not mean that they are. Take Microsoft as a case in point. Microsoft executives use the "i" word in every other sentence as if saying it often enough will make it true.

Let's get back to the business and culture of innovation--this is a startup world here in Silicon Valley. If you are a startup you have big dreams and you have dreams of disrupting the world--so let's not try to reduce the power of the term innovation. It is the life blood of our world.

But hey, the big enterprises can claim to be innovative--it really doesn't matter because the new "dotcoms" will eat their lunch--this time around :-)

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 17, 2006 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Where is the outrage over open source acquisitions?

By Tom Foremski for ZDNet

I am glad that some of my fellow ZDnet bloggers have caught up with this issue of Oracle buying up the open source movement. George Ou points to my Feb 16 post and references Dana Blankenhorn's Feb 17 and Feb 21 post.

George makes a good point that:"it doesn't seem to getting the kind of outrage that I expected."

There is a great comment left by one of the our wonderfully anonymous but absolutely clued in readers, Sxooter which lays things out quite well, the box of proprietary technology Larry Ellison has drawn around one his most troublesome comeptitors, MySQL.

[BTW, the reason MySQL did not take Larry's offer is that the company recently received financing from SAP and Intel and those companies have a self interest in maintaing an open source movement.]

Most of the comments on this issue continue to say that it is not possible to buy the open source movement. Yes, technically, this is true because development communities can fork off and continue on their merry way.

But this is a psychological battle and Mr Ellison is extremely good at shots across the bow, and "talking down" a competitor. In this case, actions speak louder than words.

Mr Ellison's strategy pours a bucket of cold water over the best efforts of the venture capital community to create more open source projects and companies that could be troublesome to Oracle. And one of those potential thorns in Oracle's side is the extremely well capitalized Ingres, a relational database company bought by investors from Computer Associates and staffed by a first tier management pack.

This is a company that in many ways, is typical of the VC investments being made in this sector. The goal is to recruit or acquire a developer community around an open sourced software product. Then sell services to enterprises below Oracle's costs.

The open source developer community does the development work and the company providing the enterprise services gets revenues and maybe gets sold. (If you are Ingres, you don't attract a hot-shot management team unless you promise a lot of gold...)

(Please continue reading...)

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 28, 2006 2:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Exclusive: Oracle's hostile moves in open source will fail says Ingres CTO

I've been writing about Oracle's moves to control the open source movement--or at least the database part of it. Dave Dargo, the CTO of Ingres, sent me his view on things. Ingres, BTW is a company to watch--it is likely to completely remake the traditional boundary between open source and enterprise software. And it is recruiting a top tier management team (Tom Berquist the star Wall Street analyst joins Ingres Wednesday March 1 as CFO and Jim Finn, who headed IBM North Americas communications joined recently).

- - -

Tom,

In many respects, you are spot-on. It must have sent a chill down the spine of the open source community to see the following quote in a Business Week story that preceded the acquisition of Sleepycat: "One source close to the talks [the rumored JBoss talks] says these deals may be just the beginning. 'Larry and [Oracle Co-President and CFO] Safra Catz have a clear plan to control the entire open-source [software] stack,' the person says."

I'd bet that anonymous quote did not come from the open-source camp.

Why is Oracle so interested in open-source all of a sudden? I don't think this is about Oracle moving into open-source so much as attempting to consume those open-source users into the larger Oracle machine.

Continue reading "Exclusive: Oracle's hostile moves in open source will fail says Ingres CTO" »

Posted by Tom Foremski on February 28, 2006 9:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

AMD/ATI merger: Two companies facing the same problem

Advanced Micro Devices bid to acquire Canadian based ATI Technologies is a risky strategy because both companies are facing the same issue: big, pricey, client-side chips in PCs and other devices are becoming less important than server-side chips.

Wyse Technology, for example, maker of thin computing systems, has demonstrated an inexpensive six-core ARM processor with graphics, video, sound capabilities capable of handling 32-video streams simultaneously. A chip like that can be embedded inside a monitor, a keyboard, anywhere.

And with thin computing systems, you don't need local hard drives, DRAM or Flash memory. It becomes a highly sophisticated computing platform with very inexpensive clients.

This is the trend in today's world, where there is less and less need for a big general purpose X86 microprocessor plus a highly sophisticated graphics co-processor, sitting inside a PC. Wyse's solution is much, much, cheaper and can provide the same user experience as a fully loaded Windows XP PC. The applications are run on a server and the client device renders the graphics, video, and sound.

And as we move inexorably closer to an always-connected world, the thin computing model that Wyse and others advocate, becomes more practical and more cost effective. In addition, a thin computing architecture provides much more protection against viruses, spyware, and other nastyware, because the user experience is completely controlled from a central location.

Intel (an SVW sponsor) has already begun moving away from the client side of devices with its recent sale of part of its communications chip business. Intel knows that the money is in the server, that's the sweet spot. And yes, the PC market won't change overnight into a thin computing model but that is definitely where the world is heading, especially in fast growing developing regions.

And as for Nvidia, ATI's largest competitor, staying independent might be the best strategy. Nvidia can move into the thin computing markets without the need for a microprocessor partner because client-side thin computing doesn't require an X86 processor.

The AMD/ATI merger doesn't do much to address this trend towards thin computing, it is more to do with two companies facing the same issue while neither has a clear solution.

Posted by Tom Foremski on July 24, 2006 2:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

IBM research labs foresaw the disruption from the PC

It is the 25 year anniversary of the PC and I have long wondered if the industry standard technologies that resulted from the PC revolution were accidental because the computer industry strongly favored proprietary technologies. It was good to discuss this subject when I recently met with IBM's top strategist, Irving Wladawsky-Berger.

We talked about the disruptive effect of the PC technology. It disrupted huge sectors in the computing industry, nearly all the minicomputer and mainframe companies were put out of business or disappeared through acquisitions. Even IBM barely survived--it had to reinvent itself as an IT services company.

There are many definitions of a disruptive technology, but to me, a disruptive technology is something which disrupts the business models of large numbers of companies. You can see the train wreck happening in front of you, but you cannot get out the way. Just like the minicomputer companies could see what was happening, but they couldn't change course, or downsize fast enough.

Mr Wladawsky-Berger said that it was IBM's research labs, the largest in the world, that helped save the company. "In labs, we were able to see a few years ahead and we could predict the disruptive effect of the PC but our management wasn't able to react fast enough."

He said that making the necessary changes at IBM, the cuts in staff and projects was very difficult to do. "People talk about having to 'eat your children' but those people clearly have no children of their own," he said.

I agree, as a father of two fantastic kids my instincts are to protect them as much as I can, and I can see how that kind of emotional involvement in business ventures, the people you work with, the communities created, makes it so tough to make the hard decisions.

I remember chatting with Ed Zander, the first interview since he left as president of Sun Microsystems. He said the worst thing about his job was laying off people at Sun, following the dotcom dotbust. Sun had never been in that position before, its culture was one of fast paced growth and loyalty to staff.

Mr Wladawsky-Berger said that this was why Lou Gerstner, an outsider, was brought in to run IBM. I read Mr Gerstner's account of those times in his excellent book, "Who says elephants can't dance?" He became the most unpopular person in the company, not to mention the loneliest job, but he had to be incredibly rigorous and disciplined in his ten-year-long transformation of IBM, in response to the incredible disruption wrought by PC technologies.

I asked about the PC standards created, the fact that IBM choosing off-the-shelf components and software for its IBM PC, created an open industry platform that spawned a massive industry. Up until then, proprietary computer systems were the way the computer industry made money, lots of it.

Mr Wladawsky-Berger said that IBM used off-the-shelf technologies to create the PC platform precisely because it did not take the threat from the PC seriously. "We dealt with big, complex computer systems, our management did not look to the PC as something that could seriously challenge our business."

But the researchers in IBM's labs did see the writing on the wall and eventually that message was recognized. IBM had a large enough business base that gave it time to make the changes needed for survival. Others didn't have the same solid customer base to enable such a transition.

- - -

Please see SVW: Thoughtleader: lunch with IBM's top strategist Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Irving blog: A collection of observations, news and resources on the changing nature of innovation and the future of information technology.

Business as a Complex, Continuously Evolving System
Reflections on blogging - one year later

SVW: The remaking of IBM: A chat with IBM chief strategist Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Book:

Posted by Tom Foremski on July 31, 2006 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pushbacks and trackbacks on blogging and PR

My post yesterday about my former boss at the Financial Times, Paul Abrahams, and his confessed difficulty in "getting" blogs caused a bit of stir. Mr Abrahams is a very senior figure in the PR world, he runs Waggener Edstrom's European headquarters and is one of Microsoft's strategic consultants.

Frank Shaw, a senior colleague of Paul Abrahams, and a noted blogger with his Glass House blog jumped into the fray very quickly, leaving comments on SVW, and other places, including his own blog. [This is exactly what you do in reaction to any potentially unfavorable publicity, (even if you are in the middle of moving house and family). It is a good case study.]

Ellee Seymour, a UK based journalist and blogger, also wrote about my post. In "More PR blogging shockwaves" she mentioned:

This follows hot on the heels of Colin Farrington’s shock declaration that he was not “that keen” on blogs. He is director general of the CIPR, the UK’s major PR support organisation and clearly does not have his finger on the pulse. His comments sent shockwaves among leading PR bloggers. Here is an extract:
“I’m not that keen on ‘blogs’.

“But then I wasn’t keen on DVDs, mobile phones, Ipods and Blackberries until they suddenly became an essential part of business and social life. I guess there’s a special marketing category for middle aged male professional ‘catchers-up’.

All very interesting stuff. I see this all as part of how things move forward, this is how progress is made. The pushbacks are all part of the process to achieve understanding.

I would sometimes tell people that blogging is the next big thing, and they would laugh. I say, don't confuse the content of many blogs with blogging. Blogging is the most visible part of a two-way media technology.

Internet 1.0 allowed us to publish to anything with a browser, now, with Internet 2.0, anything with a browser can publish back. It is a two-way Internet now, it is the Internet on steroids.

But as with all important concepts/ideas, the first stage is laughter and derision; the second stage is grudging acceptance; and the third is that it all becomes damn obvious.

We are all at different stages when it comes to blogging. But what I do know, is that if you have been blogging for any amount of time, and involved in the blogosphere, leaving comments, etc, then you and I have an understanding, and we are at the third stage.

And the beauty of all of this, is that there is no need to argue with Mr Abrahams, or others about the value of blogs and blogging, and the powerful nature of these media technologies. Because we can see a little bit into the future and we know what the future will bring. I know Mr Shaw at Waggener knows the future, and I know that Paul Abrahams will know it too.

- - -

Please also see Robert Scoble, the former MSFT champion blogger:

Speaking of good and bad PR, did you see Frank Shaw’s blog? He runs the Microsoft account for Waggener Edstrom and he had to clean up a mess by another PR guy in the UK who said “I don’t get blogs.” If a PR person said that to me I’d say “I don’t get why you’re still employed.”
It seems to me that if you don’t understand something you should work hard to understand it.

Source: From Google to Kaboodle « Scobleizer - Tech Geek Blogger

Posted by Tom Foremski on September 1, 2006 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Silicon Valley Watcher - reporting on the business of technology and media

Former Financial Times journalist Tom Foremski and team reporting on the business of technology and media . Silicon Valley is becoming a Tech Media Valley.

Disruptive Archives

November 9, 2005

Microsoft abandons PC-centric view but what about Intel?

November 14, 2005

What happens if the old media dies too soon? The urgent need for solid online news media business models

November 18, 2005

Heeding the call for finding the new media business models...

December 7, 2005

Another reason most IT data centers are on the way out

January 11, 2006

Skinny applications have a bright future

January 18, 2006

Scoop! Google is considering outsourcing some of its IT infrastructure

January 31, 2006

Drawing Flak from the Flacks: Transitions are always painful and emotional

Pulling out the rug: GOOG Q4 shows continued shift away from partner sites

February 2, 2006

CEO Selina Lo of Ruckus Wireless--a name to watch

February 5, 2006

The 14 year-old coders are back...that's the proof of a new internet 2.0

February 6, 2006

The battle for the last-mile heats up as GOOG, Skype and VCs fund startup FON

February 17, 2006

Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement

Innovation is disruptive otherwise it is not innovation

February 28, 2006

Where is the outrage over open source acquisitions?

Exclusive: Oracle's hostile moves in open source will fail says Ingres CTO

July 24, 2006

AMD/ATI merger: Two companies facing the same problem

July 31, 2006

IBM research labs foresaw the disruption from the PC

September 1, 2006

Pushbacks and trackbacks on blogging and PR