Yes, I still live. I will not tell you how busy I have been because, frankly, you would not believe me.
I was going to mention a few of the things I've learned over the past several weeks but, frankly, I'd prefer not to relive it. Let me summarize, instead: beware any company that embraces risk at every opportunity.
Much has been made, recently, about Comedy Central's decision to require YouTube to pull copies of the Daily Show, Cobert Report, and South Park. The move has been almost uniformly condemned as being foolish, and a good way for Comedy Central to alienate its fans, resulting in fewer live viewers.
But in a simplistic sense, it's the right move. Any service that uses ad impressions as their primary source of revenue must attempt to curtail any situation that reduces the number of eyes seeing those ads.
Or replace it.
Comedy Central and other services need to make YouTube part of their revenue stream ... either with the same business model or a new one. Not just as hooks to get live viewers, or free research with which to determine which episodes should be in "best of" DVD releases (the only kind of DVD release likely to be viable with a current events show), but as ad impression-generators as well. To make this desirable and successful, YouTube will need to facilitate the process ... soliciting contributions from companies like Comedy Central that have advertising incorporated in the video, preventing unapproved copies of the video, and providing verifiable metrics on viewers.
Unfortunately, it may be too late now. If this had been done instead of pulling all the Comedy Central content, fans might have embraced the convenience, even if they had to suffer through the same ads (although I'd hope Comedy Central would recognize the need for shorter ads in that context) ... but now the same act would be seen less as an attempt on Comedy Central's part to provide value to viewers and customers, and more a blatantly mercenary act done with total disregard for the viewers. Comedy Central, without extreme creativity, can only be the villain, now. YouTube can be the hero.
Tom Smith has decided to trot out both Socialist fallacies and an ignorance of the lifecycle of technological innovation, and since people are actually paying attention thanks to an Instapundit link, I felt I must respond.
There's rarely much hope in talking about creating the value in money, or the imaginary zero-sum game, or the fact that huge dreams provide huge motivation to those who can accomplish great things and provide so much value to the world (which then *gasp* pays for it), or any of the usual tripe-prevention, and I won't comment at length on the contemptible act of suggesting that Charles Simonyi and his like-minded dreamers fantasize about sexual promiscuity to rival some of Heinlein's characters. Those aren't within the scope of this blog anyway.
But I will comment on Smith's apparent ignorance of the life-cycle of technological innovation.
Most revolutionary innovation goes through a very predictable sequence. First is the basic research and commercial idea ... proof of feasability. Many people think it is appropriate for the government to finance this effort, although I do not. The first commercial idea is almost always bare-boned and ridiculously expensive. Its commercial success relies on rich people or corporations (or governments) buying the item.
Next is a period of refinement ... standardization of production methods, improved efficiency, cheaper materials. Entire industries can be created during this process, and the end result is typically a cheaper, but still bare, product available to the masses. Please note, however, that if the original customer of the item is a government, it is frequently unnecessary to go through this process, and the item remains in the hands of the government or major corporations.
The next step is to come up with desirable frills. Again, they start off expensive and are marketed to those who can afford it.
And the last phase is, again, making the new, full-featured product cheap enough for the masses. This is the point at which consequent innvoation just explodes.
ENIAC on one end, Napster's peer-to-peer software architecture on the other. Gramaphone on one end, pink leather-sheathed Ipods on the other. Otto's and Daimler's gas engines on one end, rural power generation and food transport adequate enough to support large cities on the other. Cameras. Cars. Computers. Boats. Airplanes. Telecom. Books. Electricity. Plumbing supplies. Fertilizer and farming equipment. Anything made of steel. Anything made of plastic.
And the future of space flight.
And all because a few "selfish" rich people found it worthwhile to buy something during the expensive steps. So really ... cheer loudly for every expensive purchase you consider frivolous, or give silent thanks to the value they provided to get rich and their invaluable contribution to the things you and your descendants will enjoy.
Or find a cave and some lightning-struck fire, and condemn to your heart's content.
Update: Hello folks from Instapundit. Welcome to my formerly quiet hole in the wall. Just to clarify Glenn's characterization of my position ... it's not that I thought that he was approving Smith's analysis. It's that I thought he was either approving Smith's analysis OR providing both soapbox and audience to his adversaries. I could not understand either act. Regrettable confusion ensued.
