http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/ Technology, politics, culture Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:30:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Santiago Bustelo :: Detrás de las pantallas » Blog Archive » Digg y la fiebre del oro Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:46:32 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-132 [...] Traduzco las palabras de Scott Rosenberg: …seguí un link a la nota de tapa de Business Week sobre Digg y su fundador, Kevin Rose, y leí el título publicado en la tapa: “Cómo este chico hizo $60 millones en 18 meses”. Epa, pensé, me perdí la historia de cómo vendieron la empresa. Bien por ellos. [...] [...] Traduzco las palabras de Scott Rosenberg: …seguí un link a la nota de tapa de Business Week sobre Digg y su fundador, Kevin Rose, y leí el título publicado en la tapa: “Cómo este chico hizo $60 millones en 18 meses”. Epa, pensé, me perdí la historia de cómo vendieron la empresa. Bien por ellos. [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-131 Bill Gates’s Retirement » Why Introduce New Intellectual Property Rights In A Highly Competitive Market? Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:34:44 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-131 [...] I also heard through the grapvine Almost exactly three years ago, we had an article noting how many in the fashion industry, unlike the entertainment industry, had realized that a lack of intellectual property protection actually benefited them. While big name designers saw cheap knockoffs hit the shelves quickly, that only helped to drive more innovation. The designers would keep on innovating, trying to outdo each other, while building up their own brand reputation — which would justify some of the premium they charged for the “genuine article” (quality also plays a role in the price — the knockoffs generally aren’t nearly as well made). Many in the industry seemed to admit that it helped drive creativity and innovation — which seems like a great result. Unfortunately, however, some fashion designers have moved in the wrong direction since then. Last summer we had an article about how some designers were increasingly getting upset about the knockoff issue. It seems like this year it’s gone one step further. David Levine alerts us to a Wall Street Journal article about those in the industry now pushing for a change to copyright laws that would allow fashion designers to copyright their clothing designs. As people in the article note, this would have the effect of slowing down fashion innovation, because designers wouldn’t have to continue innovating. That’s the opposite goal of the intellectual property system — yet very few people seem willing to point this out. If you subscribe to the theory (as many people do) that the government should only intervene in markets where there is a clear market failure that needs to be corrected, then you have to question why this law would ever make sense. You have what is clearly a competitive industry that is making a ton of money and continues to thrive and innovate at a rapid pace. That’s great. Now, people want to introduce additional government regulation to slow down the rate of innovation by letting those already at the top of the market stop innovating and rest on their laurels. That doesn’t sound good for the overall industry, consumers or the economy. What a wonderfull idea how A Little Editing Inflated Some Web 2.0 Hype Last week, we were among those who were fairly shocked at BusinessWeek’s dreadful coverage of Digg. Despite what some folks at Digg and in the comments seemed to think, our piece was nothing against Digg at all — but it was about BusinessWeek’s reporting on the topic. They claimed Digg founder Kevin Rose had “made $60 million” when he’s done no such thing. A number of others have noticed the same thing. Rather than admitting to really shoddy reporting, it seems that the BusinessWeek team is trying to defend the article or claim that the reason people are upset is the breezy language used in the article. However, one thing is becoming clear: there were a few last minute changes that made this article seem a lot worse than it may have originally been. First, apparently those “higher up” pushed editors to change the cover and throw in the totally made up $60 million number at the last minute, replacing a slightly less ridiculous cover. [...] [...] I also heard through the grapvine Almost exactly three years ago, we had an article noting how many in the fashion industry, unlike the entertainment industry, had realized that a lack of intellectual property protection actually benefited them. While big name designers saw cheap knockoffs hit the shelves quickly, that only helped to drive more innovation. The designers would keep on innovating, trying to outdo each other, while building up their own brand reputation — which would justify some of the premium they charged for the “genuine article” (quality also plays a role in the price — the knockoffs generally aren’t nearly as well made). Many in the industry seemed to admit that it helped drive creativity and innovation — which seems like a great result. Unfortunately, however, some fashion designers have moved in the wrong direction since then. Last summer we had an article about how some designers were increasingly getting upset about the knockoff issue. It seems like this year it’s gone one step further. David Levine alerts us to a Wall Street Journal article about those in the industry now pushing for a change to copyright laws that would allow fashion designers to copyright their clothing designs. As people in the article note, this would have the effect of slowing down fashion innovation, because designers wouldn’t have to continue innovating. That’s the opposite goal of the intellectual property system — yet very few people seem willing to point this out. If you subscribe to the theory (as many people do) that the government should only intervene in markets where there is a clear market failure that needs to be corrected, then you have to question why this law would ever make sense. You have what is clearly a competitive industry that is making a ton of money and continues to thrive and innovate at a rapid pace. That’s great. Now, people want to introduce additional government regulation to slow down the rate of innovation by letting those already at the top of the market stop innovating and rest on their laurels. That doesn’t sound good for the overall industry, consumers or the economy. What a wonderfull idea how A Little Editing Inflated Some Web 2.0 Hype Last week, we were among those who were fairly shocked at BusinessWeek’s dreadful coverage of Digg. Despite what some folks at Digg and in the comments seemed to think, our piece was nothing against Digg at all — but it was about BusinessWeek’s reporting on the topic. They claimed Digg founder Kevin Rose had “made $60 million” when he’s done no such thing. A number of others have noticed the same thing. Rather than admitting to really shoddy reporting, it seems that the BusinessWeek team is trying to defend the article or claim that the reason people are upset is the breezy language used in the article. However, one thing is becoming clear: there were a few last minute changes that made this article seem a lot worse than it may have originally been. First, apparently those “higher up” pushed editors to change the cover and throw in the totally made up $60 million number at the last minute, replacing a slightly less ridiculous cover. [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Trying to Be like Bill Gates » How A Little Editing Inflated Some Web 2.0 Hype Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:48:11 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-130 [...] We should also add this Last week, we were among those who were fairly shocked at BusinessWeek’s dreadful coverage of Digg. Despite what some folks at Digg and in the comments seemed to think, our piece was nothing against Digg at all — but it was about BusinessWeek’s reporting on the topic. They claimed Digg founder Kevin Rose had “made $60 million” when he’s done no such thing. A number of others have noticed the same thing. Rather than admitting to really shoddy reporting, it seems that the BusinessWeek team is trying to defend the article or claim that the reason people are upset is the breezy language used in the article. However, one thing is becoming clear: there were a few last minute changes that made this article seem a lot worse than it may have originally been. First, apparently those “higher up” pushed editors to change the cover and throw in the totally made up $60 million number at the last minute, replacing a slightly less ridiculous cover. [...] [...] We should also add this Last week, we were among those who were fairly shocked at BusinessWeek’s dreadful coverage of Digg. Despite what some folks at Digg and in the comments seemed to think, our piece was nothing against Digg at all — but it was about BusinessWeek’s reporting on the topic. They claimed Digg founder Kevin Rose had “made $60 million” when he’s done no such thing. A number of others have noticed the same thing. Rather than admitting to really shoddy reporting, it seems that the BusinessWeek team is trying to defend the article or claim that the reason people are upset is the breezy language used in the article. However, one thing is becoming clear: there were a few last minute changes that made this article seem a lot worse than it may have originally been. First, apparently those “higher up” pushed editors to change the cover and throw in the totally made up $60 million number at the last minute, replacing a slightly less ridiculous cover. [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Phoenomi - Surfing the Longtail » Blog Archive » The new young tech entrepreneurs Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:11:44 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-129 [...] BusinessWeek has a great article on the new face of the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Their article focuses heavily on Digg and its founder Kevin Rose and portrays a thrilling success story chock full of inspiring quotes for budding netrepreneur superstars. There has been major controversy about the article’s claim that Kevin has “made” $60 million. Both Jason of 37Signals and Scott Rosenberg (cofounder of Salon) have called BusinessWeek on their flub, saying basically that a business is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, not what some unspecified authority estimates it is worth. Both Jason and Scott are also quick to point out that they like Digg and this reporting flub isn’t their fault at all. Apart from the estimating flub, the rest of the article really is inspiring. Here are the best parts: [...] [...] BusinessWeek has a great article on the new face of the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Their article focuses heavily on Digg and its founder Kevin Rose and portrays a thrilling success story chock full of inspiring quotes for budding netrepreneur superstars. There has been major controversy about the article’s claim that Kevin has “made” $60 million. Both Jason of 37Signals and Scott Rosenberg (cofounder of Salon) have called BusinessWeek on their flub, saying basically that a business is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, not what some unspecified authority estimates it is worth. Both Jason and Scott are also quick to point out that they like Digg and this reporting flub isn’t their fault at all. Apart from the estimating flub, the rest of the article really is inspiring. Here are the best parts: [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-128 IKI NIKI .org » Blog Archive » Seriously flawed journalism in Business Week Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:41:50 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-128 [...] I thought it was mostly Time’s specialty to feature very bad stories. I should have read Business Week more: do not read this cr*p. Pure fiction; though Digg.com is a helpful service, this story pictures it using fictouous information. Anyways, no publicity is bad publicity. Others have discussed the problems with the story: one, two. [...] [...] I thought it was mostly Time’s specialty to feature very bad stories. I should have read Business Week more: do not read this cr*p. Pure fiction; though Digg.com is a helpful service, this story pictures it using fictouous information. Anyways, no publicity is bad publicity. Others have discussed the problems with the story: one, two. [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-127 yashke.com » Business Week dmucha bańkę Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:27:58 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-127 [...] Tekst powstał w oparciu o notki: “Don’t believe BusinessWeek’s bubble-math” Signal vs. Noise, “Business Week on Digg: Smells like bubble spirit” Wordyard i How Paul Scrivens, Mike Rundle, Colin Devroe, and Tyme White All Made Billions In 12 Months  [...] [...] Tekst powstał w oparciu o notki: “Don’t believe BusinessWeek’s bubble-math” Signal vs. Noise, “Business Week on Digg: Smells like bubble spirit” Wordyard i How Paul Scrivens, Mike Rundle, Colin Devroe, and Tyme White All Made Billions In 12 Months  [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-126 Christopher Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:34:40 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-126 Thanks. Exactly right. Thanks. Exactly right.

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-125 sonitus.org » Blog Archive » Smells like bubble spirit Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:02 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-125 [...] Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard [...] [...] Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Is Digg Worth $200 Million? Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:42:15 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-124 [...] Scott Rosenberg: “There is a word for this kind of business journalism, and it is: awful.” Scott and Jason Fried call Business Week on it’s ridiculous Digg cover. [...] [...] Scott Rosenberg: “There is a word for this kind of business journalism, and it is: awful.” Scott and Jason Fried call Business Week on it’s ridiculous Digg cover. [...]

]]> http://www.wordyard.com/2006/08/04/businessweek-on-digg/comment-page-1/#comment-108 tech.no.philia » Blog Archive » Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:27:50 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1088#comment-108 [...] Apparently, 37signals is not the only one who has taken BusinessWeek to task. Scott Rosenberg, writer and editor and co-founder of Salon also has something to say about this sensational headlin in his blog. [...] [...] Apparently, 37signals is not the only one who has taken BusinessWeek to task. Scott Rosenberg, writer and editor and co-founder of Salon also has something to say about this sensational headlin in his blog. [...]

]]>