Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeryan | Hacker News Reader

I read this twice - and I'm still not sure what he's trying to say.

I think he's predicting that the current resurgence of proprietary communications channels (Twitter, Facebook, et al) will inevitably be replaced by public protocols (Wave perhaps?). I hope he's right.

For the tone of the original Techcruch's article about Twitter, he must be referring to the 'world domination' flavor that those published documents have. Although in my opinion they are more brainstorm like. Lists of possibilities, ideas, etc.

He also names Schmidt & Zuckerberg as heavy players that are trying to 'fight' internet.

Google, with its resources and the data they have about all of us, certainly has the best position today to try to control/conquer the internet (as MS was in 1995). Dave is sure they'll fail (I hope he is right)

My thought exactly. I came back here to check the comments in case someone explained it more clearly...

He's trying to say that Microsoft refused to embrace the internet because it was something that they had no control over (instead, Microsoft planned to launch their own closed online service in 1995 called Marvel), and as a result they fell far behind in the internet space.

He goes on to make a comparison to Twitter, and how they are concerned that if they make the service too open, then developers might create something that competes with the service or renders it obsolete. And he's saying that reluctance to embrace the openness of the internet will result in failure in the same manner that it did for Microsoft.

(not that I agree with this piece; this is just my interpretation)

Thanks. Maybe it was building up on other posts that I haven't read...

This isn't exactly what he was going for, but I'd reduce his point to "No player on the internet is more powerful than the internet itself, and therefore no player is immune to upset."

I think it's a walled garden argument. Twitter wants to control the firehose, which is like the wall?

I think he is saying we can no longer make money out of customer's ignorance.

He's noting the arrogance of Microsoft in thinking it can out-maneuver and out-think the Internet, and to a certain extent FOSS. He then compares how Twitter's concerns of wanting to both introduce a new message platform but still be able to control/profit from it to Microsoft's fate, which is losing out to this all encompassing and continuously innovative Internet platform.

So he thinks that no one can really has control over anything once the Pandora's box has been opened.

Or, actually, he's saying that no one can beat nature. Because, you know, it just goes on and on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com