Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open and Rich Co-exist But Don't Mingle So Much (scripting.com)

Posted by msmash on from the technology-and-money dept.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Ev Williams, best known for co-founding Blogger, Twitter, and Medium, says the web is about money now -- and not creativity. According to him, the burst of creativity has repeatedly been followed by big companies showing up and locking it down. From the article: But the thing about dreaming up a future, and making it real, is then you have to live in it. Back in San Francisco, coming out of the BART station on Market Street, he admits that the web game has changed since he came up. [Editor's note: he is talking about web services that allow you to book a taxi with an app, pay for stuff you purchase with your phone]. "There were always ecommerce startups," he says. "I was never part of that world, and we kind of looked down on them when the whole boom was happening. We were creating businesses, but ours had more creativity, ours weren't just for the money. Or maybe ours were even for utility but not just money, whereas clearly there are ways for both." He laughs. "Even the Google guys -- they were trying to create something really useful and good for the world, and they made all the money." Software developer and writer Dave Winer disagrees. He believes that not all technologies are money-driven -- at least when you look at it from a different perspective. He writes: The fun is over. Now it's about money. I guess that's what you see from his perspective. And from Facebook, Apple and Google, and maybe Oracle and Salesforce, and a few others. But there are technologies that went a different way. My favorite example is Manhattan's relationship to Central Park. The apartment buildings around the park are the money, and the creativity is in the park. The buildings are exclusive, the most expensive real estate in the world. The park is open to anyone, rich or poor, from anywhere in the world. The park is the engine of renewal. It's where the new stuff comes from. The buildings are where the money is parked. In the interview Williams did with the Atlantic, in NYC, they looked into the park from a nearby hotel. That's one valid perspective of course. Or you could go for a walk and see wha''s happening inside the park. You can see a great concert at Lincoln Center or Carnegie Hall, but there's great music in the park too. It's different. But it's good music. And the price is right.

49 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. It was different in my day... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's what they always claim, anyway. Your motivation was always more pure than that of the money grubbers that came afterward.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:It was different in my day... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
      I remember computers back in the 80's being all about the money. And before that, televisions and radio before that. Piano's used to be a big thing before radio's and every house had one. At least houses of the rich people. The poor had to be content with spoons washboards and empty moonshine jugs. Oh, how things are the same but with more electricity.

      As an aside, I was watching an interview with Daniel Ash today bemoaning the fact that they were popular, but never made much money, it was all about the money for them. See also Hooker with a penis

    2. Re:It was different in my day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Piano's used to be a big thing before radio's

      Before that, it was apostrophe's.

    3. Re:It was different in my day... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Normally when a new idea gets made it is often in the "safe" environment of a college of university. Where the students are really there for learning, and for the most part all their living needs are met. They are allowed to make mistakes, and for every one excellent idea product they are thousands of failures. But that isn't so bad, because if you failed then you still have the learning experience.
      However when you leave the college and need to face having to paying off college, car, housing. If you have a family then their needs need to be met too. You will be less risk averse, while it may be creative but it would be safe, where there is a high degree of being profitable. Sure you may miss the next big thing, but it won't be a full bomb either.
      Businesses have similar issues. When a startup gets in place, if they get their initial cash they are out to change everything, take risks (as they are not spending their cash, and the risk is on the venture capitalist) However after the company continues on and gets profitable, then it is there money they are risking on crazy ideas so they will fall back to more safe concepts (Core business model).
      Google while expanding, isn't creating the awe inspiring tool any more. I remember seeing google suggestion, gmail and google maps for the first time, which pushed the limit of what the browser could do at the time. This was really cool stuff. Then Google went public, and while they are still making new things, nothing that is really that impressive anymore, just working off the technology that they had developed.

      Apple is mostly the exception to that rule as many of their most innovative concepts came after the company was well established. However before Apple was on the brink of disaster. They needed to reboot themselves back in the early 2000's, and acted more like a startup then a 20 year old company. And it worked... However now we are not really seeing anything amazing out of Apple. iPhone 7 to be released, the rumors are perhaps they are removing a button, but still it is the standard square glass block. The iPad is a larger square glass block, the Apple Watch is a smaller glass block. Now it isn't that the products are bad, but they are safe, Apple realized what worked so they kept with it. We don't see crazy attempts like the G4 iMac. The G4 cube, the Colored iMacs G3... While they had mixed reviews and some failures they were attempts to be creative. Now that apple found its groove they are going back to safe. Like they did back in the late 80's and 90's with standard Macintosh designs, even to the point while many of the newer models had full color display, iOS barely shown past black and white.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:It was different in my day... by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues who invented and developed the Web took the deliberate decision to give it away to the world, free of charge or any encumbrance. This was partly because they believed its growth would be limited if it were proprietary or if it cost anything. Instead, they sacrificed what could have been many billions of dollars - why would Bill Gates or any of the leaders of Microsoft, for example, be rewarded any more generously than those who gave the world the Web? Although the Internet (and before it the ARPAnet) existed for decades before the Web, it never became a mass medium. First the Web made the Internet accessible and easily usable, and then Web browsers and protocol stacks became available for Windows. The combination of Windows and the Web transformed the world, and today it is very hard to say which is more important or plays a bigger role. Personally, I would choose the Web, as I use Linux to access it and so I don't need Windows. But there is no alternative to the Web.

      So I resent and strongly reject any suggestions that the Web was a money-making project. Quite the opposite is the case.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    5. Re:It was different in my day... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Why did you write computers, televisions, houses, spoons, washboards, and jugs, but radio's and piano's?

      I just want a little insight into the random nature of apostrophe pluralization. It's fascinating to me.

      Well, the [ o ] key is pretty close to the [ ' ] key, so maybe there is a proximity thing going on there...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:It was different in my day... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      I liked it before it was lucrative.

    7. Re:It was different in my day... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      People seem to have forgotten that the Internet was originally called ARPANET. The research was funded by the U.S. government, for use by the U.S. government (and military). It was never any sort of humanitarian project to connect the world and allow the sharing of ideas and allow people to freely communicate or any such blue-sky, egalitarian concept. All that stuff came much, much later on, and for a while, there was a 'Golden Age' of the Internet, before the corporations really got their hooks into it, where it was precisely that: A Mecca of freely sharing information, ideas, and communication, the likes of which hadn't been seen before. For those of you who remember those days, remember them well, and revel in the memory: It'll never happen like that again, unless it's over something akin to the Deep Web, where the corporations and governments really can't control things. Of course those days are long gone now, and what we have to day is just a way for corporations to collect data on people, which they then use for profiling, which they monetize by selling to other corporations, which in turn use it to create 'targeted ads', which are inserted into your datastream, jammed into your inbox, and generally speaking shoved down your throats -- and you're paying for the privilege every time you pay your ISP for access. Meanwhile governments are also using it to surveil people, especially their own citizens. Any semblance of it being a Mecca for information, ideas, and free communication between people all over the world, exists only at the pleasure of corporations and governments, who could shut those things out completely if they really wanted to. We're even having to fight constantly to keep the most basic communication protocols, that make the Internet function, freely accessible: corporations fight against Net Neutrality principles and regulations, complaining that it's hurting their business (profits) and telling gloom-and-doom stories about how it's going to 'stifle innovation and growth' of the Internet. The Internet may not have originally been a money-making project, but that's what it's turned into, and closing that particular Pandoras Box would be very difficult now, if not entirely impossible. Corporations like Xfinity/Comcast and AT&T literally own too much of the infrastructure, for instance, and I don't know that even if the U.S. government threw it's total weight at them, they'd be able to make them change anything. More than likely they'd just threaten to shut down the Internet here in the U.S.. But there are corporations all over the world that also make up the bulk of the Internet infrastructure, and we have no control over how they're conducting things.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    8. Re:It was different in my day... by Archtech · · Score: 2

      People seem to have forgotten that the Internet was originally called ARPANET.

      People seem to have forgotten that I mentioned that in my comment, to which you were replying. As for your dire predictions, they sound plausible. But remember John Kenneth Galbraith's warning about predictions:

      "There are two kinds of forecasters. Those who don't know what's going to happen, and those who don't know they don't know what's going to happen".

      For instance, the Internet and the Web may be doomed to proprietary lock-in in the USA, as you say. But that leaves 95% of the world's population, who live outside the USA, to make things happen in different ways. Starting, of course, with dissolving the EU and rejecting TTP and TTIP.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    9. Re:It was different in my day... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Normally when a new idea gets made it is often in the "safe" environment of a college of university. Where the students are really there for learning, and for the most part all their living needs are met. They are allowed to make mistakes, and for every one excellent idea product they are thousands of failures. But that isn't so bad, because if you failed then you still have the learning experience.

      I work at the University of Washington, and I'm not sure the world you describe exists anymore. I see faculty eager to personally monetize their publicly-funded (via grants, etc.) research; a university always ready to sue to protect their IP; and a PR environment which pays much more attention to students who've developed business plans than to those who are learning for the love of it.

      I think students may indeed come in full of curiosity, and that there are some faculty who still are primarily driven by the joy of discovery; but while we pay lip service to the idea that it's a good thing... we're constantly drilling the message into them that it really is all about the money.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:It was different in my day... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      See, I don't claim to know anything. We're all just a bunch of random dudes on a more-or-less anonymous internet discussion forum voicing our opinions. For all I know there'll be a revolution and the Internet will experience a second Golden Age. Or maybe it'll all go to corporate hell, and Internet 2.0 will spring up via Onion Routing or the Deep Web, and a new Golden Age will exist there, free of corporate interference. Or for all anyone knows, the Internet will become such bureaucratic crap all over the world that people will get sick of it and just not bother with it anymore, go back to the old ways of doing things. Who knows? Nobody.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  2. making the world a better place by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Right. It was always about the money. Always.

    Even if you thought otherwise, I'm sure the other businesspeople in your company were in it for the money.

    You didn't got to SF to be poor, right?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  3. Captain Obvious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ev Williams, best known for co-founding Blogger, Twitter, and Medium, says the web is about money now -- and not creativity.

    This has been the week for tech legends proclaiming stuff that's been going on for over a decade.

    Show of hands: Who didn't know it would end up exactly like this as soon as they started monetizing the Web?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Show of hands: Who didn't know it would end up exactly like this as soon as they started monetizing the Web?

      Probably everyone working on the web. Remember: it's an industry of kids. When your gem turns black, they toss you out on your ass. It's also the reason why they reinvent the wheel every six months and pat themselves on the back for their groundbreaking work.

    2. Re:Captain Obvious by lucm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That guy is something else. He subsidized the development of twitter using the money he made with blogger, then kept a backstabbing buffoon on the twitter board because he didn't want to hurt his feeling - only to end up kicked out of his own company by the said buffoon who orchestrated a coup.

      And then instead of just bitching and moaning about the situation, he went and created medium.

      I'll always pay attention when that guy has something to say.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Captain Obvious by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      Considering that everyone on Slashdot agrees with this deep insight, it must be the case that we all took economic advantage of the situation and are now all exceedingly rich.

      I know that I am fabulously wealthy and have multiple houses in expensive locations and can go anywhere and do anything I want, which is why I spend time on Slashdot instead of going to incredibly trendy locations with the other beautiful people.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    4. Re: Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This just in - techno hipster suddenly realizes that businesses don't survive unless they make money. "New economy" stunned... "Who would have thought that paying people so that they can buy groceries would have been such a 'thing' in the business world?" Exclaim self proclaimed heralds of techno grooviness.

    5. Re:Captain Obvious by Archtech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everything gets monetized, and thus spoiled, in due course. Take something about as far from the Web or computing as you can imagine: athletics (in the sense of "track and field"). When I was young, I followed athletics religiously and I recall reading Herb Elliott's book "The Golden Mile" which was published in 1960, immediately after he won the Olympic 1500 metres in a new world record time. Elliott told, among other things, how he was nearly disqualified for "professionalism" after he was quoted speaking well of a soft drink - although no payment was involved. When Elliott broke the 4-minute mile at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, tens of thousands of fans packed in to watch. But he actually had to pay for a ticket to get in, because if he got in free that would have been "like payment".

      Then, in the 1970s, things swung to the opposite extreme. Professionalism was permitted, and within a few years athletics was cursed with drug-taking, which has haunted it ever since. Whereas a man or woman seeking to be the best in the world would usually scorn to use drugs or any other artificial aid, a professional sportsperson seeking to earn huge sums of money was often much more amenable. Nowadays it's hard to believe in any sporting hero or heroine, as outstanding performance raises such a strong suspicion of drug-taking or some other form of cheating.

      Money is a universal solvent. There is hardly any human value that it cannot corrode and, given enough time, dissolve.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    6. Re:Captain Obvious by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Money is a universal solvent. There is hardly any human value that it cannot corrode and, given enough time, dissolve.

      Well put. I would change it to, "a love of money is a universal solvent". but the idea is the same. Commerce is necessary, but should not be the goal of all human endeavor.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Captain Obvious by Archtech · · Score: 1

      I have no difficulty accepting your wording, but I submit that it's purely a linguistic change. If human beings did not overwhelmingly love money, it would not be a universal solvent. And if rubber could resist hydrochloric acid, it would be a suitable material for making containers for hydrochloric acid. But it isn't.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  4. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People are usually at their worst when interacting on the web so how can you expect anyone to put their heart and soul into web content creation. You either embrace the snark full on ala fark.com or it eventually becomes just another way to earn a buck, and nobody knows the ins and outs of turning a quick buck like big business.

  5. Re:Central Park also represents some negative sh*t by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    AC doesn't seem to realize the history is completely irrelevant to the metaphor.

  6. Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    The sooner greed is outlawed the better. But it wont happen. Greed until the end. *TruthBait*

    1. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How do you get everyone to decide on a definition of greed?

      According to wikipedia:

      [greed] may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.

    2. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by blackprint · · Score: 3, Informative

      Think that's misquoted, it's the root of all sorts of evil, not simply "all evil".

    3. Re: Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dominance without compassion is the real issue.
      Dominance with compassion is an essential part of leadership, parenting, teaching, caring and protection. Dominance without compassion leads instead to exploitation, bullying, oppression and war.
      Only with compassion can the relationship between leaders and followers be healthy and mutually beneficial.

    4. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by lucm · · Score: 1

      The sooner greed is outlawed the better.

      Yes! We badly need an Equalization of Opportunity bill.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re: Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by untoreh+ · · Score: 1

      I am not a commie! But if you live in a capitalist world, sure enough everything ends up being about money, because it is the fabric of such world

    6. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      https://www.biblegateway.com/p... Try again. Maybe if you read it yourself instead of parroting what some asshole said on a pulpit, you would have a better understanding of what it REALLY says.

    7. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing, but how would that eliminate greed? I'm fine with launching everyone from the same starting gate, but would greed disappear?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Love Of Money Is The ROOT Of All Evil. by lucm · · Score: 1

      who is John Galt?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  7. Duh--the game has changed. by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    Back in the 90's it was nerds that had some great ideas & skills, not so much on business. Some monetized (lucky ones), some didn't (most).

    In the 00's the kids got smart .... saw the sole enabler was the VCs, so they ALL when back to school and got their MBAs or teamed up with MBAs. Wall Street got burned (2001), but they learned there lesson and now manipulate the boom-busts... and even doing reality "shows" (Shark Tank, TechCrunch, Kickstarter, even the kids are getting into it with their national competitions, etc...)

    In the 10's the MBA's (which the VCs LOVE) now run Silicon Valley. Wall Street is heavily involved to tie ideas into existing corporations (Facebook, Google, etc...) for efficiencies of scale and funnel ideas back into the execs that run those companies since there's a lot of investor bulls that "long" those stocks. Some of the old school 'change the world' attitude is still there, but most of it are in VCs that have partners that ran those companies in the 90's.

    1. Re:Duh--the game has changed. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Funny how that works though. Everyone is expected to excel at business or they supposedly deserve to not make any money. We don't expect VCs to excel at auto mechanics, carpentry or IT. We don't claim that people deserve their flooded basement if they didn't learn plumbing along with their chosen profession.

    2. Re:Duh--the game has changed. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of ~2000 when I worked a project that was overdue, and our PM came in and handed each engineering team lead a binder with cost information. She was expecting us to manage our teams financials. I spoke up, saying we all went to engineering school, and wouldn't it be less expensive to pay a business analyst to track all of us. The famous quote from our CEO was "Cash is king". We evolved from a fun engineering company to one that worried about quarterly results.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  8. Some people care about money, others... by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

    Some of us don't care about money, but rather about making the world a more fun place to live in. We enjoy hanging out with the accidentally rich way more than the intentionally rich.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  9. Re:Sorry by lucm · · Score: 1

    would you be less sad if it was true but you didn't agree with it, or if it wasn't true and you did agree?

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  10. It's always about money by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    Reading that, I can't help but feel it's more about some dude writing about his own disillusionment as apposed to society's.

    It's always about money, it's always about the economy. *ALWAYS*. VCs let you pretend otherwise for a little while, but ultimately you either a) start making money or b) go out of business.

    Economy, or greed, rules.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:It's always about money by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's always about money, it's always about the economy. *ALWAYS*. VCs let you pretend otherwise for a little while, but ultimately you either a) start making money or b) go out of business.

      Yes and no.

      Yes, you have to make money or you'll be out of business. That is completely obvious... and it's a good thing in nearly all cases. Money is our proxy for utility. If what you're building isn't useful enough to enough people that it can generate revenue in excess of costs, it's probably something we shouldn't bother with. There are exceptions, of course, which is why there are charitable organizations, government funding, etc., but to a first order approximation, stuff that can't be profitable probably isn't worth the effort from a the perspective of society as a whole.

      But that may or may not have anything to do with the motivations of the people actually doing the work. In many cases, people are motivated to do what they're doing because they think it's important and valuable, regardless of the profit potential. They recognize that it has to be profitable if they're going to be able to continue doing it, not least because they need to eat themselves, but that doesn't make money the motivation. For many people, including the sort I want to work with, profitability is a means, not an end.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Yeah they do by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    The poor, hungry artists and students are usually hot and, well turn a trick for a rich person and there is an income. That's our equitable society in action.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  12. True... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    I was here when the internet started, I saw how it was a wild west of creativity and innovation... and I watched the assholes lock it all down and squash it by lobbying for patents and copyrights on things they should never be allowed to have.

    3d printing right now is that same wild west, so if you want creativity go there before the assholes discover that they are not squeezing every penny out of that and shut that down too.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:True... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You sound like that Radio Shack Manager I talked to back in the late 90's about broadband access.

      "Bah, nobody will want that!" Today I think he has a prestigious job as a used car salesman.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  13. Wise Man Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” -- Eric Hoffer

    The web is clearly at Stage 3.

  14. Capitalism by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Capitalism isn't about creativity, so why would anything associated with capitalism that is on the internet be about creativity? Capitalism lets artists starve except for the very best, and then what you have left isn't very creative because it was usually designed specifically for profit.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. That's not the generally recognized definition by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    of greed. Greed is wanting something selfishly. You can't selfishly want for the betterment of someone else. That's a pretty obvious contradiction. I'm surprised something as silly as that made it into the Wikipedia article on the subject. It must be really confusing for anyone who isn't a native English speaker looking up the subject.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:Maybe they meant... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Okay, I've gotta ask. I've been seeing Captcha stuff from you and wondering why? And why anyone would give a shit about them, yet you post them all the time. Do you find it interesting, or funny? Am I missing something?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  19. Re:What a bunch of hooey! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Creatively speaking. Old people should get off the internet. NOW!

    Creatively speaking, you can kiss my ass, and get the hell off my lawn. NOW!

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  20. Dominant minority by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Expel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... from your country since http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10...

    --
    Casteism