Re: UKNM: Re: Portals?

[Mike Bracken]

-----Original Message-----

>>>This constant recycling of information that has characterised the early

>>>years of the Web will not survive 1999.

>>

>>Errm, I'd ask PA/Reuters et al what they think of that.

>

>Right, but there's information and *information*. In portal terms it these

>organisations that are providing some of the (the only?) original daily

>content churn in the form of news and share prices. Another side of their

>business then re-sells this archived data.


I'd question this and also say - 'so what.' This point doesn't seem to have

any relevance to the previous post.


>You can always charge for business critical information (historical or not),

>but I doubt whether you could build a successful subscription-model business

>(like Reuters & PA) around archiving puff & spam.


This doesn't follow the thread.


Correct, but that's not the point. My point is that the previous post said

that recycling of information will decrease by the end of 1999. I disagree.

It's getting worse. The value of information is falling and information is

becoming ubiquitous. Rather than it ceasing to be recycled I think recycling

will increase while making much information value free. Of course you can

charge for high quality info, but then I didn't say otherwise.