When I was interviewed by Amanda Congdon, sitting on a park bench in lower Manhattan on Monday, she asked me to peer into the future. I said I had no clue what was coming next. Silly me. Then of course I thought of all the things I had queued up for that question that I didn’t think to say at that moment. Here’s an example. When I go to Yahoo Movies to look for something to see, it should be ready with some recommendations. I’ve been rating movies for them for a couple of years now (btw, I want that data in XML, please) and they already have an opinion on whether I’d like this movie or that. So why not present me with a list of movies that are playing now, near me, that I would probably like? That’s not a feature for the future, it seems ridiculous that they don’t offer it now. Maybe I should say that nicer. Please, Yahoo, save me the hunting and pecking. You already know what I like. How about just telling me? :-)
Speaking of features for the near-future. I have become a devotee of the new HBO series Big Love. I’ve watched the first three episodes, and by this time tomorrow, I should be caught up. Okay, three guesses how I’m getting the episodes. Never mind. Now why should it be so much work? I already pay Comcast a premium so I get HBO. I just haven’t been ready to commit to the show until enough word-of-mouth confirmed that it was worth a look. (It is!) If I can prove I’ve paid, why won’t HBO send me a DVD with the first six episodes? Come on, I’m honest. Make it easy to become an addict and I’ll sing your praises far and wide. (I’ll do it anyway, it’s a great show, a fantastic successor to both Six Feet Under and The Sorpranos. Evil and weirdness all in one story line. What could be better!)
NY Times article on BloggerCon II.
Fortune called me a “notorious curmudgeon” today. Since they didn’t link to me, no link for them. Did you know they only say nice things about big advertisers, like Bill Gates, who happens to be a notorious curmudgeon himself. Probably even more notorious than moi. :-)
When these guys debate about blogs making money, they’re answering a different question: If you try to do a magazine using the same software people use to write blogs, can you get enough advertising revenue to pay your writers and also make a profit. It’s natural for people who come from the magazine and newspaper business to cast the question this way, but it’s skewed thinking, and will look anachronistic a few years from now. It’s as if they asked how many miles per gallon of oats a car gets, a few years after horseless carriages came along. The question doesn’t even make sense. A person with a blog is analogous to a source in the old publishing world. Sources don’t get paid directly, but we do get paid indirectly.