Comments on: Facebook – The new AOL? http://west17media.com/online-marketing/facebook-the-next-yahoo-aol/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=facebook-the-next-yahoo-aol Delivering smart online marketing to Calgary businesses Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:09:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Roger Kondrat http://west17media.com/online-marketing/facebook-the-next-yahoo-aol/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Roger Kondrat Wed, 20 May 2009 14:19:41 +0000 http://mightymouthmedia.com/?p=116#comment-3 Hi Mike!<br><br>Thanks for your thoughts. Although I am not sure I follow much of your logic and therefore don't want to say 'no' just to disagree, I will point out that I never said 2004 in reference to AOL or Yahoo!.<br><br>If you look at the quote you mention e.g. <br>"But since 2004, there has been another giant in the making - Facebook - the ‘de jour’ term from as early as 2007".<br>Reading the above quote again, I am hoping you realise that this referred to Facebook's beginning not Yahoo! or AOL. <br><br>Also I was on the Internet putting up web pages in 1998 (running my own hosting company) so I know what the Internet was like, we (non-AOL users) were worried about how AOL was going to affect the future of the web. That it was so big and closed was a big concern.<br><br>Yahoo! was a fast growing portal at the time as were others, and yes closed-systems were normal but again I don't see how that invalidates my point. I spoke about IRC as an example at the "future of journalism" event as an example of how Twitter and its kin are nothing new but I have yet to see how you connect that as a way of saying I am wrong.<br><br>Mike I am truly lost because I really don't see how your point relates to my article in the least. Many of the challenges you make are seemingly irrelevant to what I was focusing on as my core argument. Would love to get a follow up comment or even a phone call if necessary to figure out what you are trying to tell me.<br><br>Thanks for commenting though! Especially a scrappy one, they are more fun.<br><br>Cheers<br>Roger<br>---<br>/// Download our "Twitter for Business 101" PDF<br><a href="http://cli.gs/tSmVdb" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/tSmVdb</a><br><br>/// Connect with MMM on our Facebook Page<br><a href="http://cli.gs/7YQ5MJ" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/7YQ5MJ</a> Hi Mike!

Thanks for your thoughts. Although I am not sure I follow much of your logic and therefore don't want to say 'no' just to disagree, I will point out that I never said 2004 in reference to AOL or Yahoo!.

If you look at the quote you mention e.g.
“But since 2004, there has been another giant in the making – Facebook – the ‘de jour’ term from as early as 2007″.
Reading the above quote again, I am hoping you realise that this referred to Facebook's beginning not Yahoo! or AOL.

Also I was on the Internet putting up web pages in 1998 (running my own hosting company) so I know what the Internet was like, we (non-AOL users) were worried about how AOL was going to affect the future of the web. That it was so big and closed was a big concern.

Yahoo! was a fast growing portal at the time as were others, and yes closed-systems were normal but again I don't see how that invalidates my point. I spoke about IRC as an example at the “future of journalism” event as an example of how Twitter and its kin are nothing new but I have yet to see how you connect that as a way of saying I am wrong.

Mike I am truly lost because I really don't see how your point relates to my article in the least. Many of the challenges you make are seemingly irrelevant to what I was focusing on as my core argument. Would love to get a follow up comment or even a phone call if necessary to figure out what you are trying to tell me.

Thanks for commenting though! Especially a scrappy one, they are more fun.

Cheers
Roger
—
/// Download our “Twitter for Business 101″ PDF
http://cli.gs/tSmVdb

/// Connect with MMM on our Facebook Page
http://cli.gs/7YQ5MJ

]]> By: Mike Spear http://west17media.com/online-marketing/facebook-the-next-yahoo-aol/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Mike Spear Wed, 20 May 2009 10:36:30 +0000 http://mightymouthmedia.com/?p=116#comment-2 Actually Roger I don't think you could be much more off base. <br>What's with the "since 2004" for a start? AOL and CompuServe go back to the eighties and Yahoo the mid-nineties. Back then there was no GUI for the Internet though some of the services offered them within their walled systems. Dial-up was pretty much the only way to access anything online and you wouldn't even recognize what was available then as being the Internet. Bandwidth was a dream so there was no such thing as streaming audio or video. While we are going a bit crazy over Twitter as our new BFF, there were such things as IRC and Bulletin Boards which did much the same thing.<br>Closed systems were the norm and apart from the 3 I've already mentioned there were Delphi, the Source, Dialog, Infomart, Orbit and a whole bunch more.<br>There was a lot of talk on many of those systems about how the Internet was ( and could truly become ) a great place for social causes, sharing of information, and as a way to do collaborative work around the world. We even had a vision for creating what we called the Web 2.0 where commercial based traffic could go. (go figure that wild idea ... )<br> Many of those old systems made the changes necessary to survive, some merged, and some simply didn't figure out how to take advantage of the new technology and disappeared.<br>Your theory is beyond short sighted. Sure we have more website than before. But then when it all started there were no web sites online, just a series of stops on the end of your dial-up connection. It wasn't even technically possible to connect and merge identities. <br>Your analysis is akin to suggesting that Alexander Graham Bell messed up because he didn't have packet switching and wireless handsets.<br>The history goes back. WAY back.<br>Of course there were 'many steps in between' but you've skipped by them in way too simplistic a manner to actually come up with any reason that digs into the hows, whys, and wherefores of Facebook and any other related service.<br>But good on 'ya for trying my boy ! Actually Roger I don't think you could be much more off base.
What's with the “since 2004″ for a start? AOL and CompuServe go back to the eighties and Yahoo the mid-nineties. Back then there was no GUI for the Internet though some of the services offered them within their walled systems. Dial-up was pretty much the only way to access anything online and you wouldn't even recognize what was available then as being the Internet. Bandwidth was a dream so there was no such thing as streaming audio or video. While we are going a bit crazy over Twitter as our new BFF, there were such things as IRC and Bulletin Boards which did much the same thing.
Closed systems were the norm and apart from the 3 I've already mentioned there were Delphi, the Source, Dialog, Infomart, Orbit and a whole bunch more.
There was a lot of talk on many of those systems about how the Internet was ( and could truly become ) a great place for social causes, sharing of information, and as a way to do collaborative work around the world. We even had a vision for creating what we called the Web 2.0 where commercial based traffic could go. (go figure that wild idea … )
Many of those old systems made the changes necessary to survive, some merged, and some simply didn't figure out how to take advantage of the new technology and disappeared.
Your theory is beyond short sighted. Sure we have more website than before. But then when it all started there were no web sites online, just a series of stops on the end of your dial-up connection. It wasn't even technically possible to connect and merge identities.
Your analysis is akin to suggesting that Alexander Graham Bell messed up because he didn't have packet switching and wireless handsets.
The history goes back. WAY back.
Of course there were 'many steps in between' but you've skipped by them in way too simplistic a manner to actually come up with any reason that digs into the hows, whys, and wherefores of Facebook and any other related service.
But good on 'ya for trying my boy !

]]>