Charlie Rose

vongleichent  12/31/2012 06:27 AM Report

I love the internet. Thank god I was born in this age. I can't imagine how much it would suck to live without it.

REMant  11/27/2012 12:36 PM Report

Facebook may have a billion accounts, but I doubt they have a billion persons, nor anywhere near a billion actual users. And of them an increasing number appear to be sellers, not buyers.

Still I would not discount the fact that, like fiat money, advertising is an almost limitless, unshakable investment, which is why newspapers and television are in such a fit of pique. It has always been pretty much of a free ride for the media. The advertisers told them: you provide the audience, and we'll provide the money thru sales. Of course, every attempt was made to provide an audience that was interested in the product being hawked, and you would not likely find an ad for vacuum cleaners or lipstick on Gunsmoke.

Search engines can provide the requisite audience rather easily, by analyzing the search terms. In other cases on the Web, users make a deal with providers to either subscribe or get ads. Facebook has the means to provide audiences via its likes and posts on its commercial accounts. But I continually get stupid msgs from Facebook (fortunately not on my primary email acct so I only rarely see them) asking if I know ppl I've not only never heard of, but also am highly unlikely to have ever known, which shows how far they still have to go. And that assumes I want to be known. And for Facebook to analyze posts is, unlike the search engines, a clear invasion of privacy.

While it is nice to be known and considered by one's purveyors, to the extent profiling becomes a self-fulling prophecy or "bubble," as it appears is the direction of this thinking, it also becomes old hat, and it can't be assumed merchants are somehow above this.

Mobile devices will - surprise - increase mobility, which may increase usage, but like wireless phones in a grocery store and automobile, or email has been found to be, probably add little to basic productivity, and may subtract from it substantially.

Internet software, as far as I can see, only gets worse, more loaded up with needless and frequently infuriating features, mostly to accommodate the limitations of mobile devices, and have become more simple-minded and blank-looking. Apps, too, make more sense for phones, but only when they are limited to certain applications. And that leads me to ask where the Web itself will go if it cannot be fully accessed and utilized?

As an aside, with respect to Ms Sandberg's historical narrative, in olden days, before telephones, ppl kept visiting hours, at least those who had the leisure to, and anyone wishing to see someone else, rang the doorbell and left a card. It was considered polite - even by the US president - to receive them if possible. When they came in, telephones were objected to because the process was quickly abused, and it was not in the phone cos ability to do anything about it. But when it was, they found it not in their business interest, and I would imagine that's really why caller ID was objected to, tho there may have been some whose idea of it hearkened back to days when ppl unlike Sandberg apparently were politer. And with respect to Mr Auletta's, there was a whole lot more technological innovation in the years 1850 to 1950 than there's been since, which has often been remarked, and I would consider ours only a revolution in application.