3 ms·

I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what

I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds. Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation, some of the capabilities demoed would be beneficial. But I maintain that their "information experience" hype is a hustle that has not been well thought out.

cj 16y ago
"I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds." Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic I would be impressed. If Qwiki succeeds, some number of people like their product. If people like their product, than Qwiki added value for those people. So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsic value proposition and offering, even though people might find it valuable? Or are you just against it because you don't think people will find it valuable? If it is the latter, you should reword your story, title, and comment.
- brianstorms 16y ago
  I explain all this in my blog post. My beef with Qwiki is that it dumbs down comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, and learning. It multimediaizes Wikipedia, an unreliable source. If it succeeds on a large scale, it and the inevitable copycats will all combined contribute to hurting society more than helping it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people like it. Of course people will like it. Just like they like 4000-calorie fast-food meals. Doesn't mean it's good for humanity.
  - cj 16y ago
    People learn and analyze in different ways. Many sources cite three: auditorily (sp?), visually, and/or kinesthetically. Could people who think better visually be underserved by text-only sources? I think the fear you cite is too early to substantiate. I'd equate it to the fear of facebook/aim/texting destroying face to face (or voice to voice) communication.

cj 16y ago

"I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds." Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic I would be impressed. If Qwiki succeeds, some number of people like their product. If people like their product, than Qwiki added value for those people. So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsic value proposition and offering, even though people might find it valuable? Or are you just against it because you don't think people will find it valuable? If it is the latter, you should reword your story, title, and comment.

brianstorms 16y ago
I explain all this in my blog post. My beef with Qwiki is that it dumbs down comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, and learning. It multimediaizes Wikipedia, an unreliable source. If it succeeds on a large scale, it and the inevitable copycats will all combined contribute to hurting society more than helping it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people like it. Of course people will like it. Just like they like 4000-calorie fast-food meals. Doesn't mean it's good for humanity.
- cj 16y ago
  People learn and analyze in different ways. Many sources cite three: auditorily (sp?), visually, and/or kinesthetically. Could people who think better visually be underserved by text-only sources? I think the fear you cite is too early to substantiate. I'd equate it to the fear of facebook/aim/texting destroying face to face (or voice to voice) communication.