>use "fail" loosely and with the assumption that if Natasha Nakamura's
>column was financially beneficial to its creator, then that creator
>would keep it running.
It seems to me that you use "fail" so loosely that it becomes synonymous
with "no longer continues". I have no idea why NN's diary disappeared -
and neither, apparently, do you. But columnists are notorious prima donnas
- editors too - and the demise of this or that column is no justification
for the conclusions you draw in your article or the conclusion you draw
>Conclusion - the Internet which is so far mostly free will inevitably
>influence wireless Internet users' behavior and expectations when they
>log on using their mobile phones.
NN's diary WAS free, was it not? (I forget) I certainly never paid for it
the odd times I read it.
But either way - your premise now is "free column disappears from
website" and your conclusion is....
> Users will be hard press to pay for
>content on the wireless Internet. And if a popular (here I'm relying on
>the sincerity of the quotes) wireless content provider doesn't make it
What has justified you in this conclusion that the content provider "did
not make it"? A column has stopped. Why should this be any more
significant than a column in a mag. stopping? (personally I thought she
was a depressing drip, and more tacky than sticky, but that's by the by.)
And - the nub - why compare a system in which there is NO successful
micropayment model with one in which there is such a model? Indeed, why
compare it with the net rather than AOL, or similar? Content is largely
free on the net because the alternatives are clumsy - no one has
demonstrated - and certainly the demise of NN's diary does not
demonstrate - that an elegant micropayment system - were such to exist for
the 'net, would fail. And if that is your claim, then you need to go and
find some hard evidence.
>hen the situation can only be worse for wireless content
>providers outside Japan.
WHAT SITUATION? (the "free column disappears shock horror" situation? The
"not just any old free drivel will make pots of cash" situation? What?)
But even putting NN's D to one side - your article can amount to no more
than "not all imode websites are successful" surely not a surprise even to
the more naive of your readers.
And could you not have better approached it with one or two (boring old)
statistics about site failures?
>There was definitely no intention on my part to predict the future of
>the wireless content sector, as seen in the fact the article ends with a
>question mark? It is an open ended question, readers are encourage to
>find the answer.
This is THOROUGHLY disingenuous of you Mr Chang. You lead the reader to a
conclusion through a farrago of mistruths, inaccuracies and false premises
- and use that lazy technique beloved of all all 4am/15min to deadline
journalists - the rhetorical, disownable question that prosecutes the
point of view you have been pressing throughout the article but yet allows
you to run away from it squealling "it's just a question!" when
(To see just how disingenuous Chang is being here - compare the following
"If Mike Tyson got 5 years for rape, what hope can Bloggs have?. Tell me -
does that encourage one to think with an open mind about the crimes (if
any) and fate of Bloggs? Compare and contrast....)
To those who say that there has been a lot of hype about i-mode - I say -
too true darlings - but lazy, inept journalism lies behind that hype and
it is similar lazy, inept journalism that lies behind stories like this.
That said - it is not your fault Mr Chang - it is your editor's - and it
is s/he who is responsible.
(I wonder if 'Rori Hentaiko's SchoolGal Diary" would suffer a similar fate
to drippy NN.... hmmmm.....)
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri May 11 18:45:44 2001