[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: Re: UKNM: sticky portals
From: Ray Taylor
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:43:44 +0100

Steve said:

>I'm going to save Ray's comment on this topic: "...six or seven big portals
>is as many as there ever will be..." because it sounds entertainingly like
>an earlier seer's "...we anticipate the global requirement for computers
>will never exceed seven..." (paraphrase).

You're too kind Steve. And clearly I should choose my words more carefully
if you are going to take them so seriously and I should have said "six or
seven big search engines is as many as there [ever] will be," while avoided
that dread word "never", even if meant in relative terms, ie as far as we
can see into the future of the Internet (1-2 years).

So the usual 9/10 for boldness, 1/10 for content value. I should have been a

But the important point comes back to what is a portal? Other than "a place
where people go online to get somewhere else" the word has, like most such
Americanisms, no useful meaning beyond the hyping of the already over-hyped.

And I agree entirely that the perception of location of the "portal" is a
problem. We are really talking about extending the function of the
bookmark/favorites folder so why not have it live on your PC? And why have
only one media owner drive the content? If you have a need for detailed and
regularly updated information on a particular topic/subject/industry you
cannot possibly expect Yahoo to keep it up to date for you. So why not
distribute the update function so that, say, any directory level or sub
level is individually updated by a specialist firm/individual in that area,
preferably on an hourly basis?

Why not? Because this implies business partnership - something that the
Internet is not yet famous for. Though I would never say it never will be.

  Re: UKNM: sticky portals, Daniel Bambach

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]