LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Robert Samuelson Doesn't Get It
Posted by Ernest Miller on Wednesday, January 15 @ 09:00:04 EST Governance
The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson, blinded by his pleasure at Steve Case's stepping down from AOL, doesn't get the Internet (The Internet Nanosecond: Innovation faltered, and the Web became a giant white elephant):
The obvious truth about the Internet (though one rarely acknowledged) is that it's not especially important. Of course it has grown spectacularly. We e-mail. We buy from eBay. We get homework from the Net. We have access to vast stores of information. But if the Internet collapsed tomorrow, most Americans would go on with their lives in a way that would not be true if, say, they could no longer drive their cars. (The same might not be true of businesses.)
Read on for more fatuous quotes:

This seems to be the rantings of a grumpy old man who hasn't really adopted the technology. After all, most people would be able to go on with their lives without many critical technologies, especially in their early years. Samuelson's predecessors could probably have said the same thing about cars in the early decades of this century. "This new-fangled internal combustion engine isn't all that important: most folk could get on fine with a decent horse and buggy." Access to communications networks is, apparently, just a fad. E-mail, not especially important. Seems odd that a journalist would not consider easy access to a world wide communication network and vast stores of information to be especially important. Samuelson apparently thinks that access to information isn't all that important to most Americans. This seems a very elitist, Washington-beltway mindset.

But, what are the problems with the Internet?:

First, it did not create Internet products so valuable that consumers would buy them. People would pay for the basic connection - but not much else.
By this criteria, the telephone is a complete bust. Outside of dial-a-porn, few people pay for anything via phone - they "pay for the basic connection - but not much else." Hmmmm ... and what about those cars that are so important? Don't they need a basic connection, i.e., our national highways? Cars would be much less useful without roads, but ultimately the government paid for those roads - the market wouldn't have built them. So, the usefulness of cars was facilitated by the government ... people wouldn't even pay for the basic connection (roads). By that criteria, I guess that the Internet is more successful than cars.
Thus, the Internet has become a giant white elephant. Its technological capabilities are dazzling; its commercial realities are depressing. There's huge excess capacity; many Internet services lose money.
There currently is some excess capacity, but the market will correct this and ultimately, we'll all have broadband. Does this mean that the Internet is a "White Elephant"?:
  • A rare, expensive possession that is a financial burden to maintain.
  • Something of dubious or limited value.
  • An endeavor or venture that proves to be a conspicuous failure.
If it were such a financial burden, I imagine that companies would start shutting down the Internet. The value may be dubious to Samuelson, but I'm dubious that Samuelson is the right person to ask. Some business models have been conspicuous failures, but the Internet itself has been a spectacular success. Who would have thought only 10 years ago, that the capabilites we have today would be so widespread?

Next, Samuelson borrows a page from Jack Valenti's playbook:

The ideal and desired solution of the Internet complex -- all the companies that depend on its success -- would be to let everyone freely download music, films, books and almost anything else. That would induce people to buy faster computers and faster connections. But this isn't innovation. It's saving one industry by ripping off many others.
Why Samuelson himself is being ripped off by the Washington Post which induces people to read his articles by providing them free on the Internet. I will say no more, except it is pathetic that this sort of drivel is published by a respectable newspaper.

The next complaint is a bit overblown, but has some validity (although it contradicts Sameulson's thesis):

The second failure involves simplicity and reliability. When personal computers and the Internet were techie toys, they could be complicated and quirky. Indeed, many techies enjoyed exploring the endless mysteries. But the requirements of a mass market are different. Ordinary consumers don't want to understand their appliances. They want to open the boxes and turn them on. They want them to work -- all the time, not 88 percent of the time. They don't want to discover that the Internet connection is "down" or that, suddenly and inexplicably, the printer won't print. Even now, this sort of dependability and simplicity remains elusive.
Part of the reason that simplicity and reliability have been missing is because of the constant innovation that Samuelson says no longer exists on the internet. If technology were stagnant, then it would be possible to focus development efforts on reliability. However, clever people keep inventing new stuff that must integrate with the old. Sure, companies could be spending more effort on reliability, but it take decades for reliability to achieve what Samuelson seems to expect. How many years did it take before cars achieved the reliability we take for granted today?

Furthermore, one of the design characteristics of the internet (end-to-end architecture) that spurs innovation does so by letting people do what they want on the internet. However, such wonderful, creative chaos also decreases reliability. You can't really have both Mr. Samuleson.

As for simplicity, it is coming. That is why I say that consumer electronics is the future of convergence. Convergence exists today, it just isn't easy to use. When consumer electronics manufacturers make it easy to use, it will succeed. I don't how Samuelson has missed it, but ease of use has increased tremendously in many consumer electronics products.

I suggest that, if Samuelson doesn't think the Internet is especially important, he refrain from using it (at least for personal life) and stop wasting valuable newspaper space with this blather.

 
Related Links
· More about Governance
· News by Ernest Miller


Most read story about Governance:
FBI Watch List Out

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Two points (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 15 @ 10:48:01 EST
Two points:
First, there is some food for thought in Samuelson's column. The 20% or so of the Western world that spends most of its day on-line think the Internet to be of tremendous importance. I am not so sure that the other 80% would agree. That said, Samuelson has explicitly stated in the past that he does not have a computer at home and does not use the Internet on a daily basis. While I personally agree that there are advantages to doing one's writing on a manual typewriter (which Samuelson does), his total lack of experience with the Internet does make it more difficult to take him seriously on this one.
sPh


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Robert Samuelson Doesn't Get It (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 15 @ 13:28:33 EST
I agree with the last commenter -- in fact, I think most of what Samuelson says is right and shows he does get some of it, at least more than the standard columnist.

His main points are 1) that the Internet stock bubble has burst, dispelling much of the irrational frenzy that the Internet is a cash cow (old news, but true), and 2) that the Internet is not producing some kind of saleable widget that is going to provide the basis for a new (traditional) economy. That seems point on to me. The Internet may be able to support businesses, but it isn't able to create much business deus ex machina.

Admitted: he doesn't seem to have a clue about the big cultural implications of the Internet or how it might effectively destroy businesses that continue to rely on wood pulp, etc. Of course, in this misunderstanding, he is in good company with many Americans.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.580 Seconds