3 ms·
What I'm tired about reading are these startups who actually have invented no technology whatsoever, being called innovative technology companies. Qwiki didn't
by dstein 16y ago
What I'm tired about reading are these startups who actually have invented no technology whatsoever, being called innovative technology companies.
Qwiki didn't invent the Text-to-Speech system they're using. And they didn't create any of the content. They made a flash file that plays back audio and video -- a technology they also didn't invent. What is remarkable is that technology investors (even really rich ones like a Facebook co-founder) are investing money into things that aren't even technological innovations at all. It's like even they don't know the difference.
- melvinram 16y agohttp://www.google.com/search?q=define:technology http://www.google.com/search?q=define:technology Technology - the practical application of science to commerce or industry Looks to me like they have applied the knowledge of Text-to-Speech, audio/video playback, content curation, etc. to the practical problem of communicating information. Innovation is not only doing something new but also using existing knowledge and tools to solve a problem differently. I'd wager good money that if you gave a random sample of 1000 people the option of either reading a wikipedia page or watching a qwiki, a majority would choose qwiki. If that's not proof that they are solving a problem differently, than we'll just have agree to disagree.
- dstein 16y agoJust because you use technology doesn't mean you're inventing it. Very few startups would qualify as truly innovative, and disruptive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
- wippler 16y agoAlso in that sample of 1000 people the people who chose Wikipedia will have better understanding on their subject rather than the disjoint pieces spitted out by Qwiki.
- alain94040 16y agoGreat. You just proved that TV has no commercial potential :-)
- StavrosK 16y agoNot to sound snarky, but I liked this sentence: > I'd wager good money that if you gave a random sample of 1000 people the option of either reading a wikipedia page or watching a qwiki, a majority would choose qwiki. If that's not proof that they are solving a problem differently, than we'll just have agree to disagree. It basically says, "I think Qwiki is solving a problem, and if you don't find my opinion proof enough, then we just can't agree on it."
- melvinram 16y agoI agree that it's not the most elegant way to state what I was saying. What I meant to say was: I'd wager good money that if you gave a random sample of 1000 people the option of either reading a wikipedia page or watching a qwiki, a majority would choose qwiki. If you don't think that assumption is a safe assumption, than we'll just have agree to disagree.
- msiedlecki 16y agoHow much would you like to wager? I'm game. Most people I've witnessed interacting with Wikipedia went there to use it as a quick reference, or to learn about something they heard somewhere and wanted to learn about. In the first group, speed is key--they're squeezing the learning process into a very brief window of curiosity. Qwiki is a time drain, and it's not competitively entertaining compared to something like television, which it somewhat mimics. In the latter group, Qwiki is also too slow and these users jump around the Wikipedia page looking for the details and specific sections instead of the general idea. Qwiki looks cool because it resembles something that looks like entertainment, perhaps a documentary, but if you release that as a Wikipedia replacement instead of a learning device for the younger crowd, I doubt its competitive potential.
- mike-cardwell 16y agoI'd wager the opposite. People looking up information like to scan well presented text, not watch a slide show.