Did Microsoft Just Blink in Deal with O'Reilly Media?

(First draft published 9/25/09 @ 10:38 AM)

One of Microsoft's cornerstone principals - and the reason it flourished out of the split with hardware developer IBM - was that it maintained propriety rights over the software it developed. "IBM chose not to build the operating system and microprocessor internally, rather it sourced these vital components from Microsoft and Intel respectively." says Wikipedia. Or in other words Microsoft - kept hidden and profited from - owning and selling software. It was their business model then as now, and a very profitable one.

The software development community has always been larger than Microsoft's staff of developers; but Microsoft played an important part it's expansion and nurturing. But the 'Open Source Community' understood that the technology was only taking it's first steps of a jouney up a mountain, and that keeping software hidden from each other would only slow the journey. They saw the web as part of the biosphere, a nature out-growth of the culture of humans rather than a trade-able commodity. Now here we are, the top of the mountain no where in sight but the road in front of us is incredible and peculiar in ways no one could have guessed.

On September 24, 2009 Microsoft partnered with O'Reilly Media to publish both ebooks and hard books; as part of the deal Microsoft relinquished Digital Rights Management going forward.

Microsoft in my opinion just blinked, a crack has appeared in fortress Microsoft, they have admitted their business model may not be progressive - playing well with others maybe essential to a growing, healthy Microsoft, and the industries as a whole.

Which goes to show, you Can go home again.

Welcome home Microsoft.



mh

The Spectacle Of Me

Monetizing content in Web 2.0

"I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true. "

Dorothy Parker (1893-1967)
Writer

The other day I accidentally 'reTwittered' a Tim O'Reilly Tweet with out crediting the source. In his retort to the reTweet he directed me to an article he'd written in 2002 entitled "Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution"- quoting his opening discourse to make his point: "Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy".

I wrote an apology tweet, and then read the article.

Aside from learning the Latin derivatives of several words; I've been churning the following idea...

I edited these lines out of "Lesson 5: File sharing networks don't threaten book, music, or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers." I think this synopsis synthesizes the point I'm trying to spot-light.

(my high light)

"Millions of buyers and millions of sellers cannot find one another without one or more middlemen...".

"In fact, there is usually a rich ecology of middlemen. Publishers aggregate authors for retailers. Retailers aggregate customers for publishers. Wholesalers aggregate small publishers for retailers and small retailers for publishers."

"The means by which aggregation and selection are made may change with technology, but the need for aggregation and selection will not."

"If we take the discussion back to first principles, we understand that publishing isn't just about physical aggregation of product but also requires an intangible aggregation and management of "reputation." "

From P2P, Tim O'Reilly.

A friend came up to me the other day and said "Your a genius..."

Fishing for compliments? I thought

"..I was reading your blog," she continued, "and wow..."


I always avoid the 'G' word it supposes your one and in this smart-centric culture, we're headed down a slippery/stupid slope. The number of subject areas I tackle impresses people. I have a well informed and up to date opinion on many subjects (thanks Google Search Engine), and if I'm not well versed in an area I'll say, 'I haven't done my research on that yet', rather than 'I don't know' .

"Thank you" I said, "but no, I just put the work in".

In 2006 I wrote a piece entitled Web 2.0 where I attempted to gather my impressions - from my limited reading - of this new 'Web 2.0' idea. I surmised that as the content silo got higher and higher and with the cost of production falling, the price of content would eventually shrink to it's cost of production (very near Zero in my case).

So it's not the content that going to pay the rent eventually - it's a personality cult - The Spectacle of Michael Holloway. When a piece "goes viral" - when the artist makes money - the number of people who've gleaned a deep understanding of the work is few relative to the pop audience; so it's not What you write, but what people Think you write that gets you on Letterman or in the Ideas section of the Toronto Star.

I think my hero Dorothy Parker understood O'Reilly's point about obscurity when she said, "I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true. ".

Dorothy Parker Quotes



mh

Do YOU Want To Shock Girls? Add Inches?

No I don't, and I don't want to shock Women either.


And what would I be doing pulling down my pants in front of two young girls who appear to be under 18 years of age?

But this ad company thinks pushing this ad down my throat for the last two weeks will make me want to buy this product called Vimax Formula. So I thought I'd do some research on this new 'power' pill.

Here's the spiel at their website Pills Expert (pill-sex-pert; ya, I get it):

"Being a high class company, our team of doctors is always looking for ways to make a better product. Our latest achievement is a new Vimax Formula for better, faster and greater results. Instead of our old formula, the new one is more concentrated, that makes it possible to take only one pill per day instead of two and achieve even better results. Other companies make you take as many as 3 pills per day. This is ridiculous!!!. No wonder why we are rated #1."

The first line says it succinctly "Being a high class company...". Boy these guys have the best writers! Looks like a grade 8 education level to me.

Wikipedia article on Vimax says the stuff is being marketed by an "affiliate network" company based in Montreal. Affiliate network is an Aggregator company that clusters website owners together and packages the group to interested wholesalers.

Almost every site I browse these past few weeks up pops this same annoying ad, it's an indication of how hard the times are in the advertising revenue stream. The affiliate network promises websites owners half the total sales that happen on a click through on their site - a nice deal - and an indicator that the ingredients are worth very little.

I looked up Vimax in the FDA's (USA's Food & Drug Administration) Approved Drug Products website there was no result which I assume means the product was not approved by the FDA or they don't consider it a drug.

A similar search of the Canadian Government website ---> Health Canada ---> Therapeutic Products Directorate ---> Drug Product Database ---> Drug Product Database Online Query ---> enter the product name in the appropriate box (whew! - the ca.gov. sites are SO un-friendly) found no result.

Perhaps if I think it will work...


The ads Properties info:

Location: http://c13.cdn.net/wim/728x90/728x90_3.gif

Address: http://c13.cdn.net/go.php?q=wim/728x90/728x90_3.gif



mh