The web is dead

[disruptive]

I happened to see this and its getting a lot of publicity.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1



http://www.profitfromdomains.co.uk/?p=295

 

[Pred]

yeah, and judging from most of the comments they tjink he's talking bollox
as i do in many parts

some stuffs true obviously. like younger people have more time leass money, they'll use limwire and older people have more money less time, so will pay for music etc

the graphs at the top are completely out. made up

just on websites, there were a couple of thousands sites in 94, went throught he roof after and has been a huge spike up, and ongoing. just as one example

also 99% of apps lose money. make nothing. a few make a lot

more and more is evolving all the time. and people love searching and discovering new stuff

congrats on the bloke for getting traffic for sensationalism though lol

 

[fish]

It's all about creating effective headlines that will generate lots of comments, links, news shouts etc

That's what he's done, you wrote here about it & linked to it!

The content doesn't have to be accurate as long as it's your opinion.

It's a classic marketing ploy that's been in use for many, many years and yep, it works! (test it out, do it on your blogs / news sites ...)

Fish

 

[dotwhat]

Of course mobile is going to grow and probably at the same rate as the web did in the past but the good old web aint finished yet. We will still need it for future services like hi def video. I just can ever seeing mobile being useful for streaming blu ray 3d movies and such like.

In Asia and the States ultra high speed broadband is moving forward and I expect that will give the web the push to take it back to its rightful place at the top of the wireless and wired heap

I also expect eventuallly all your home entertainment will be piped down the line, video on demand is only just starting out.

Mobile is cool and very handy but it just wont replace being in front of a big screen surfing in hi def or later in 3d

 

[jasman]

The graph clearly is not very accurate and only seems to have data for 5 dates, hence the straight lines with sharp corners. And there seems to be no mention of what metric is used to measure the traffic. If bandwidth, one watch of a Youtube clip could inflate the video proportion of the graph as much as 1000 times more than one read of an article would, yet each arguably should contribute an equivalent increase in each proportion as each is an approximately equal 'usage' of an Internet user's time i.e. 5 or 10 minutes. Each is one unique visitor looking at one page whether it contains just HTML, or an embedded video.

But in any case the point is it shows PERCENTAGES. I'd be willing to bet that the usage of the Web is massively higher now than 10 years ago simply because substantially more of people are online now. Yet as a percentage, web traffic will of course have gone down because of the explosion of online video and P2P which was much less practical 10 years ago when most people were on dial up.

That doesn't mean the Web is in terminal decline. It means even more usage is now being made of the Internet infrastucture on top of web usage. The same can be said of email and FTP which are undoubtedly used more than 10 years ago since more poeple are online and use email, and there are vastly more websites so web designers FTP much more. But the article writer seems to erroneously read from the graph that all these things are in decline just because the massive growth in video etc has distorted the percentages.

Also bear in mind this is US data and they have a high illiteracy rate and TV-centric culture compared with other developed countries so video is probably higher than elsewhere.