Relay #70, Panel F

don't just know technology, understand it

Friday, July 28, 2006

Domain Resellers HATE Web 2.0

They're cute (somewhat), abstract (a whole lot) and sound like they fell from the mouths of two year olds. The names being taken on by the new breed of online services that tout themselves as Web 2.0.

The thought process behind these names baffle logical thinking, but one thing is certain, because of it one of the early institutions of Internet commerce is dying a slow death.

The business model of domain resellers has always been to think of domain names or buy up expired ones that have a certain sound and feel to them. For instance, in 2005 the domain went for a not so paltry sum of $750,000.00. This is by no means the norm, most domains will go for a lot less, but there are those that go for a lot more. The long and short is that it was a thriving business.

With the advent of Web 2.0 however, there's no longer a surefire way to pawn off domain names on services wishing to establish themselves on the www. Take, the web based, multi-protocol IM client. What on this green earth could have inspired such a name and what space-time altering event could have caused a domain name reseller to think of it first? We still don't have an answer for part A of that question, but we know without a doubt that part B could not happen in this reality. And what if it did? What if someone had the forsight to pick off that name before someone with a legitamate use did? The creaters of meebo would probably just call it meebu, because at the end of the day there's no logical consequence leading to the arrangement of those letters.

The list goes on; Trulia, Jookster, Spurl, Twttr (does anyone else find that one funny?), these are all names that have no meaning outside of the mind of the guy that thought of it. So abstract have these names become that it's an exercise in futility to try and beat someone to the punch in hopes of selling it later for mega wealth.

In the end, we have what may be our first casualty of the new internet. RIP DNR's, RIP.

BTW, if you're interested in your own Web 2.0 name and business, check out this site. It's done all the work for you.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Vegetables are bad for you

Growing up we all heard the constant banter about eating your vegetables. They'll make you stronger; they're good for your eyes; they're good for your digestive system, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not denying nor do I have a problem with the proven health benefits of vegetables. What I do have a problem with is the mindset that it gives those individulas who aren't willing to follow through with the lifestyle. They feel that eating their vegetables means they don't need to excercise, they can read in low light and they don't need to chew their food thirty two times (non-Jamaicans needn't try to understand that last bit). People who eat vegetables think they're invincible, when the truth of the matter is they've done little more than excercised their jaw bones for the time it takes to eat it.

A similar situation exists in the world of IT. The false sense of security that hugs individulas that employ tools that propose to make them safer. I'm not denying nor do I have a problem with the proven security benifits of such tools. What I do have a problem with is the mindset...

The pervasiveness of virus scanners, firewalls and the like have pushed many into feeling that they can take unnecessary risks. Unsafe browsing practices and the lack of operating system and application updates are just a couple examples. What shold be done without a second thought is now put aside because of the blanket of perceived protection provided by these programs. Again, virus scanners and firewalls are worth their weight in semi precious metals, but they're pretty innefective when you invite trouble in the front door.

In my opinion anything that causes people to put common sense aside because they think the work is being done for them, it doesn't matter what it is or how it's packaged, is no good for you.