::::: Welcome to Web Series Today "collaborative environment"
::::: Help get LGPedia back online!!!!! <== ACT TODAY!!!!!
::::: Welcome to new Web Series Today blog "authors". <= PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!


Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Why Umbrella is a Good Idea

Last week LG15 Today broke news that EQAL was moving into a new business area, selling its software platform, dubbed Umbrella, to other content creators. The announcement was met with immediate skepticism and disappointment by long-time fans who have experienced the platforms short-comings first hand and who had hoped EQAL would return to producing web series. Nevertheless, there are several compelling reasons why launching Umbrella is a good move for EQAL.

Due to a lack of advertising support or another viable revenue stream, EQAL has stopped producing content. The final episode of the Resistance aired more than six months ago, and Greg stated that they are, at least for the time being, moving away from producing original content. Furthermore, when Greg said a few months ago that the economy is horrible and that there simply is little-to-no money for advertising, this was not just another in a long line of excuses. Advertising dollars are scarce and in a tight job market very few corporate executives want to draw attention to themselves by spending money in an unconventional way. Now is the time for executives to keep their heads down and hope no one notices they make six figures, taking three hour lunches. In order for EQAL to survive, they must do something else and while many might disagree, Umbrella plays directly into the company’s strengths.

Lonelygirl15 was a pioneer in online entertainment; however, creativity was never their strong suit. An inconsistent narrative, numerous plot-holes, and repetitive storylines plagued the entire run of lonelygirl. Where EQAL excelled was in creating relationships and leveraging their perceived and real position as new media leaders. Aside from a knack for casting very attractive actresses, promotion is what EQAL does best. Furthermore, at a glance, EQAL has a very impressive track record: two successful web series franchises, partnerships with CBS and other entertainment companies, founding member of the International Academy of Web Television. Also, they are well connected in the web series community and have several media partners. For any company looking to build a platform for their web content, EQAL is an attractive solution. In fact, EQAL has a very persuasive pitch, if you want to launch online content, if you want to build an online community, who better to assist you then the company that pioneered the modern web series?

Additionally, EQAL’s new project might well be the solution to the growing problem facing content producers, the need to cut through the clutter. There is a gluttony of videos on the web, finding a series, let alone a good series is an arduous task. EQAL could be the solution to this problem. If they created a gateway portal for new media entertainment, which could include web series or projects like Level26, they could become the destination site for individuals looking for online entertainment, beyond the meme of the day. Being a destination is the key to online success. Furthermore, it would give EQAL a second, very compelling selling point for their Umbrella service. Rather then simply selling a website package and a domain that sits afloat the internet like an island unto itself, EQAL would be selling membership in an exclusive area, in a destination that caters to individuals seeking quality online entertainment. In addition, to a website, they would be selling exposure, a tailor-made audience, and pool from which customers can build their fan base. This is something EQAL could market that would set it apart from Ning or other web hosting solutions.

In order to be successful in this new endeavor, however, there are a few things EQAL must do. First, EQAL must fix the LG15 website, in fact, they really should have done this before announcing Umbrella. Any serious potential customer will want to see the software platform in action before they consider purchasing it. LG15 is the project most closely related to EQAL; therefore, it is the site most likely to be visited by a potential customer. Second, EQAL should consider opening up at least a portion of Umbrella’s architecture. EQAL has had a great deal of success in the past with cloud projects, with harnessing the power of its community, and there is no reason for them to stop doing so. Also, people simply like open source projects, they have built in good will and positive PR and it is something that people are expecting more often. Last but not least, it is free development, something a cash strapped company cannot afford to overlook. EQAL’s in house programmers simply cannot create every possible application potential users might need. Also, third party apps are a major component of social networking sites and are something individuals like and expect.

The future of EQAL’s latest venture, Umbrella, is not predestined. Details about the project are nearly non-existent, and as with most projects its success or failure is dependent upon the individuals in charge of implementation. What is certain is that EQAL is moving away from its comfort zone and into a highly competitive market. Hopefully, they will not end up metaphorically strapped to a gurney with the life sucked out of them by the established order.

30 comments:

  1. There is an old saying that a company should stick to its core business competency. That leads to the question of what Eqal is competent at. You have pointed out a few things. Certainly listening to feedback is not one of them. Neither is technology as we have seen.

    Eqal has a limited amount of time to make this work before their cash burn rate leads them into bankruptcy. The logical explanation for this current move is that its a play for second round financing. It was quite typical in the dot com era for companies to get VC financing and even launch an IPO with little more than a business plan.

    One after one the frauds were exposed during the subsequent market crash. For example one company went public as a "electronic middle man" in b2b. Problem is that by "electronic" they meant taking orders electronically but placing them with vendors using fax. They simply did not have the architecture they were publicly promoting.

    Now we know Eqal has software that can run a web site. So does anyone who uses wordpress mu, phpbb, mediawiki, or elgg etc. Now Eqal's is hand coded in house but that does not mean it is better. In fact the software has massive flaws and will need substantial investment to fix. This can only lead to further cash burn.

    So you end up with a chicken and egg situation. If Eqal can obtain another round of financing it might be able to deliver on this dream. If not, it is hard to see where the revenue stream will come from to pay for development. How much of the 5 million do they have left?

    That said, as with KateModern they have been lucky before so we can only hope for the best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All very good points. I wish, though, you started this article with a simple "I feel..." or "In my opinion..." This site attempts to mix news reports with opinion, and it's important to clarify which is which, because a lot of people would say the developers were pretty creative with LG15. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. See discussion: http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/07/30/eqal-sharing-secret-sauce-launching-umbrella-platform/

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anon, I am not nor do I claim to be a journalist. I guess I've always assumed people when reading stuff I write understand that it is an editorial. Even if I'm just reporting facts I tend to stick in commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In many ways the original lonelygirl15.com site was better. (not the very first blog site but the one that combined Wordpress for video/comments, Phpbb for discussions and Mediawiki for archiving information. It catered very well to the different types of humans in this world.

    Wordpress was very good for comments before LG15 Studios messed it up with their improvements. Phpbb is a very robust and full featured discussion board. And, mediawiki is still being used to day on sites like Harpersglobe.

    As we pointed out in an open letter to Miles in Jan 07 what was lacking was good social networking features such as extended profiles and groups. Eqal seems to think that simply adding twitter integration etc to a profile page is all people want/need and while the new sites do have profile pages they fall massively short of what could have been added onto the original site design.

    Yes, that still leaves you with some design and log in issues to make the site slick but those could have been solved leaving Eqal to expand the site in ways that were productive rather than chasing away its original fan base. Eventually Eqal might get there with its new software if it does not go bankrupt first, but in many ways we miss the core simplicity and functionality of the original site design.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, I never said LG15 wasn't creative, there were some very good and creative episodes. The point I was trying to make, and perhaps it isn't clear because I was trying to keep the length down, is that a lot of the creative credit belongs to people who are not involved with EQAL: Mesh, Glenn, Mary, even Luke from KM.

    Also, again I'm not saying Miles, Greg, and Amanda aren't creative. Amanda, for instance, did Nikki Bower, which was at times laugh-out-loud hilarious, I'm just saying it isn't their strong suit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I agree with the facts Math is listing (EQAL's track record, industry position, remarkable advertising skill), I come to the exact opposite conclusion: Selling Umbrella like this is a pretty dumb idea.

    Why?

    Because Umbrella is a real danger to exactly what makes EQAL "big": Perception. Everybody thinks EQAL is this great technology company who's the king of new media. But once they actually buy and see the horror that is Umbrella, they'll have a very up-close-and-personal encounter with the true nature of EQAL - and that encounter won't be good for EQAL's image.

    The more people buy Umbrella, the more people will see just how shitty and inferior EQAL's tech side actually is, the more people will realize EQAL is more marketing than anything, the more people will be very compelled to move away from EQAL.

    Basically, what I'm predicting is the very same perception divergence that exists between New Media reporters and actual EQAL community members. NM reporters describe The Resistance as a "hit show", groundbreaking and whatnot. Those of us who actually saw it describe it as a plothole-ridden example of how one shouldn't produce a web series, with the dramatically dropping view counts over the course of the series illustrating just how many people share that opinion.

    Selling Umbrella is pretty much the same as kidnapping the reporters of NewTeeVee and Tubefilter and forcing them to watch the entire run of The Resistance back to back.
    You'd have reporters who, for months, have used The Resistance as a shining example of web entertainment, who'd suddenly realize "wow...this sucks, actually".

    They are willfully destroying their image as a "technology company", by forcing into people's faces just how crappy their technology actually is.


    Their entire business right now is built on the myth that they "get" the new web and have the know-how to exploit it for corporations. And instead of working hard to bury their failures and perpetuating that myth, they're hellbent on destroying it and making sure that everyone sees that EQAL for what they really are: A great marketing team for a shitty product.

    It's just a dumb idea.


    (That being said, I would agree with Math if EQAL actually had a quality product to sell. Problem is, they don't.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. What exactly is a "media partner?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent post, Mathieas.

    I don't think EQAL has any intention of showing the LG15 site in their sales pitch. Sure, internet savvy potential buyers might take the time to check it themselves, but then again, internet savvy folks don't need Umbrella.

    I think they are trying to sell it to people who are just establishing their web presences.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If by "cloud projects" you mean the various pedias then yes those have done well. However with statements like Harpersglobe.com might be taken offline Eqal has alienated a lot of pedia users. "Crowdsourcing" is a tricky thing because it comes with expectations and when those are broken, trust is gone and that usually does not end well. Any umbrella user would decides to do a pedia would do well to learn from Eqal's errors in this regard.

    But in any case MediaWiki is not Eqal's software and it is used by many other pedias including Wikipedia.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The LGpedia is just one example of EQAL leveraging its fan base. A couple others are the various guerrilla meeping campaigns and TSIY, wherein EQAL got a group of fans to make an entire show for them. The articles point is that EQAL has had success in the past leveraging its users to enhance it products and that there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so with Umbrella. There are a whole bunch of software types out there dying to be part of a project. One that has Hollywood and new media overtones would be very attractive to the army of basement dwellers.

    The fact that Mediawiki software wasn't created by EQAL has nothing to do with any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Typically the fans do best when Eqal just gets out of the way. The fact that most fans have already chosen Ning speaks for itself. Eqal comes to the party 2 years too late. But hey, they have been lucky before, so who knows.

    What Eqal has always failed at is marketing (KateModern was really Bebo doing the marketing) and without good marketing it will be hard to get traction. What Eqal is good at doing is creating a reality distortion field within the LA web press which now and again spills over into mainstream press. However these stories rarely have a firm grasp of reality and in the end Eqal will need to deliver on a user experience way above what it already attempts to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you want to give credit to anyone for "pedias" working on the cloud it should be Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. Yes LG15 Studios was smart enough to include a very good commercially available software on their web site and for that they deserve credit. However the running of the pedia site and the creation of almost all the early material was done by fans because the story itself had interesting twists. It was essentially anarchy at its best. If we wanted to add material on Bree's religion or locations we did it because we knew from Wikipedia how a wiki worked. LG15 Studios had virtually nothing to do with it.

    In fact when they go involved with their heavy hand management techniques it drove a lot of fans way. The most recent proposed insult to wiki creators at harpersglobe.com has only added to that.

    So yes LG15 Studio did a good job in casting characters that fans identified with but I think to give them credit for leveraging their fan base is not an accurate portrayal of reality.

    Things worked best when LG15 Studios stuck to what they did best and that certainly had nothing do with LGPedia etc. I give total credit for that to the fans free and clear from any so called "leverage" from Eqal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. FYI, no one from the industry takes EQAL seriously. They're a laughing stock.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is likely the best case that can ever be made for Umbrella (even if you disagree with the proposed facts and conclusions), though i have a hard time seeing how umbrella can ever generate sustaining revenue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @anon, that would have more credibility if you weren't anonymous. In fact, I know it isn't true because I've actually talked to several people who make web series and they don't think EQAL is a laughing stock, but thank you for your broad sweeping generalization.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are assuming "the industry" means "the group of people producing web series".
    It could just as well mean "the Los Angeles entertainment industry".

    In fact, I wouldn't call an environment in which only the best of the best even make money in the first place, much less profit, an industry.
    I mean, as said: Thanks to LG15, EQAL is generally seen as the King of New Media - and yet, even they don't produce original series anymore, since there's no money in it.
    Can you really call that an "industry"?

    I have the distinct impression the anon was talking about the LA/Californian entertainment industry at large, alas, I'm guessing as much as you are.


    Note on form:
    Complaining about a "sweeping generalization" and lamenting anonymity looks just a tad hypocritical when the backup for your counter-claim are ambiguous "several people who make web series".
    Either you display the same openness you expect from the anon and name your sources, or you give him/her the same rights as yourself.

    You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. re disgrunted anon - either this anon or another one has made similar comments a number of times. it may be true, it may not. its all rumor unless someone goes on record with sources, which no one seems willing to do. we can verify whether the links on Lg15:the last have been fixed, but we can't verify whether some miles randomly pissed off some underling at CBS, who then became a religious LG15today commenter. but milo hilton is all ears = milo_went at yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ren, I didn't mention names because I hadn't talked to those people about this comment and I didn't want to drag them into it. Jumping down my throat, when all it takes is 2 seconds of thought is beneath you.

    Just take it as a logic exercise, anon said "NO ONE IN THE INDUSTRY TAKES THEM SERIOUS" that is an extremely broad and vague statement. What is the industry, define taking them serious, who counts as anyone.

    I could simply argue that the industry is anyone who has ever done anything remotely related to entertainment. I played an alligator in a 3rd grade play, does that count?

    For the sake of argument, lets assume anon meant the web series industry. Do you really think there isn't one person in the web series industry that takes EQAL seriously? They seem to get invited to a lot of events. They seem to have a lot of friends. They get good press.

    As for my counter claim being ambiguous had I named dropped ten people would that have made you happy?

    Geez, last time I write a semi-positive article around here. I promise the next one I write will be called "EQAL eats unborn babies." Granted, it will be about how they like eggs, but that's okay it seems most of you just look at the headlines then jump to conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. FYI, the industry tells poopy jokes about Miles and Greg. E.g.:

    Q:Knock knock
    A:Who's there?
    Q:Miles
    A:Miles who?
    Q:Miles of Poop!

    Q:Knock knock
    A:Who's there
    Q:Greg
    A:Jesus, not EQAL again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, excuse me for pointing out the irony/hypocrisy of complaining about a lack of names, only to then withhold names yourself.

    That entire exchange can be summed up as
    <anon> "I'm not giving you my name, but I'm telling you, everyone hates EQAL."
    <Mathieas> "Well, I'm not giving you the names of my supporters, but I assure you, they disagree - and since I am telling you my name, I win by default!"

    Both sides are making wild claims about the supposed opinions of unnamed third parties.
    Neither side is verifiable.
    The fact that you choose to post under your name and the anon doesn't makes the anon a coward, but it doesn't make your argumentation any better.

    Neither of you is willing to name the necessary names and on-record statements to back their claims up.
    As such, neither of you is able to prove what they're saying - you might as well discuss whether God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Just as pointless.


    Sure, on a pedantic level, the probability that there is not one person in "the industry" that takes EQAL serious is small - but I do believe we all read a silent who matters after it.
    Bitching about the "no one" in the anon's comment is the same as if I complained about the "any company" in "For any company looking to build a platform for their web content, EQAL is an attractive solution." - because, just as I know that not 100% of all industry people think EQAL is ridiculous, you know that not 100% of all companies who are looking to build a platform for their web content will consider EQAL's broken piece of shit an attractive solution. Do you see anyone complaining about "any company" being a "broad sweeping generalization"? No. And why not? Because it's normal. It's a rhetoric exaggeration in both cases. No one takes it at face value, everyone understands how it's meant. (See? I did it right there.)

    Trying to attack a point that barely exists due to its lack of supporting evidence based on a rhetoric device that we all use, and that you yourself used in the article leading to these comments, again, only makes you look hypocritical.

    You have made your point. The anon has no supporting evidence for what s/he says. Neither do you for your counter-argumentation.

    You both did equally well in making random claims without any value to the discussion.

    --------------------------
    And since we're on the topic of "broad sweeping generalization"s:
    model: Lots and lots of only marginally related stuff.
    1st anon: Complaint about the form of posting, not about the content matter.
    Apo: Called it an "excellent post".
    Myself: I believe I clearly said that I agree with all your base points, and just draw the exact opposite conclusion. I'm open for discussion.
    2nd anon: Random claim no one takes EQAL serious.
    milo: Called it the "best case that can ever be made for Umbrella".

    Quite evidently, if anyone, model is the only one whose argumentation is not based on your post, and of those who complained in general, only model and I disagree with your conclusion - so please spare me your butthurt implications the entire comment board is shredding your post just for EQAL-hating's sake. The evidence to the contrary is right there in plain sight for everyone to see.

    If you disagree with my disagreement, we can gladly discuss this further.
    But don't try to reduce everyone who posted on this page to model's argumentation.

    It's cheap at best, and offensive at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh please! So now we are supposed to infer a 'who matters' into the anon's post?

    Why don't we infer a no one 'on the planet Jupiter' or a no one 'in this room sitting next to me' into the post as well.

    I gave a very clear and reasoned reply why broad sweeping vague statements like no one takes them serious is silly, you chose to write it off as a pedantic argument, I suppose when one has no substantive reply simply dismissing one's argument is the only solution.

    As for my use of "For any company looking to build a web platform..." being an over generalization, it is not. That statement does not make a value judgment nor is it weighted, there is a linguistic difference between that and say if I had said "For every company..." Every is weighted term in that instance, any is not.

    Also, yes I used my name so I do win. If someone wants to ask me about people who I have talked to who think well of EQAL one can do so, I'm easy to find, so yes I do win on that point.

    As far as me being 'butt hurt' as you so eloquently put it, you will notice that I didn't say anything about your previous comments that were negative of Umbrella or EQAL. Truth be told I knew there would be many negative comments. Umbrella has numerous short-comings. You will not I never once mentioned the quality of the software in my original argument. The reason is simple based on what I have seen there is not much there to get excited about. The platform has a long way to go before it is ready for primetime.

    I did not object to you pointing those things out, negative comments positive comments I don't mind either way, what I objected to was a vague broad sweeping over generalization by an anon poster, whom you have taken upon yourself to champion with long winded attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the Creators were creative alot of the plotholes were in peoople's heads.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @anon If there is one thing I'm not happy about is that part. I was trying to keep it under 1000 words and ended up cutting that part up and I think it got short-shifted; however, since the comments section doesn't have to compete with a Maddison chat log I'll take the opportunity to elaborate.

    Unlike the driving forces behind other web series: Felicia Day (The Guild), Sandeep (Legend of Neil), Nicholas Carlton (OzGirl), Taryn Southern (Private High School Musical), etc, Miles, Greg, and Amanda do not bill themselves as directors, writers, or actors. I know Amanda played Lucy in LG15, but her twitter doesn't describe her as an actress. Also, I doubt Miles is realistically dreaming of directing a feature film or that Greg is auditioning for corps number two on CSI. This isn't to say that they aren't creative its just that, that isn't their strong suit.

    So yeah, hopefully, I've now finally cleared that up.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am service provided from (GDM)Global Delivery Model. Software development company has excellent application development services. ITsolusenz company offering software development including,Application Development Company, software development company india, Software Development Services.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Mathieas: It's hilarious, to a certain degree, that your response to everything seems to be criticizing, then doing the exact same thing.

    "[...] I suppose when one has no substantive reply simply dismissing one's argument is the only solution."
    Right there you're simply dismissing my argument as being a simple dismissing, because you have nothing substantial to reply to the number of points I actually made.

    ...unless, of course, you honestly expect me to take "In fact, I know it isn't true because I've actually talked to several people who make web series and they don't think EQAL is a laughing stock, but thank you for your broad sweeping generalization." as a "very clear and reasoned reply why broad sweeping vague statements like no one takes them serious is silly".

    The next paragraph is equally hilarious...I would love for you to show me the dictionary or rule book which states that an over generalization is only an over generalization if it has a value judgment or "weighting".

    "Any man from Africa is either a gifted athlete or rapper."
    Clearly not an over-generalization, because it uses "any", rather than "every", right?

    And no, it's not as easy as saying "I have a name, you can ask me, so I win."

    That's the same as if I stood here and said "Mathieas is wrong on all accounts. Anyone who wants proof can ask me in private, for you know my name. Therefore, I are teh winner." It's bullshit. It's a cop-out. If you claim something in public, prove it in public, or drop the point.
    Saying "yes, I do have proof, I just don't want to show it" is a weak excuse, if anything.


    As for your ending attempt to, again, cheaply dismiss my argument as trying to defend the anon - it's not about the anon. It's about you. It's about your hypocritical attempts to chastise the anon for the exact same things you're doing, only without being anonymous.

    As long as you throw around claims like
    "For any company looking to build a platform for their web content, EQAL is an attractive solution."
    "people simply like open source projects"
    "third party apps are a major component of social networking sites and are something individuals like and expect"
    you have no business criticizing others for using the exact same rhetorical device.

    In fact, I can apply the same question you used to show the anon's was "broad sweeping" to every single one of yours:
    Do you really think there isn't one company in the web content creation industry to which Umbrella isn't attractive?
    Do you really think there isn't one person in the general existence industry that doesn't like open source projects?
    Do you really think there isn't one person in the social networks using industry that doesn't expect third party applications?
    Do you really think there isn't one project in the social network software writing industry that doesn't have third party apps as a major component?

    That is your question. Your proof for existing over-generalization. Go up and read your own post if you don't believe it. And it applies to every single of your own statements.
    So either your proof is flawed, then it doesn't apply to the anon, or your proof is working, then you're over-generalizing just as much as the anon.
    Either way you're in no position to complain about the anon.

    But hey, you don't make "broad sweeping generalization"s, right? Your broad sweeping generalizations magically stop being broad sweeping generalizations, because their generality is removed by the magic of linguistics! :O
    So suddenly, "people simply like open source projects" doesn't mean any random person on the planet anymore, but it's actually 100% equivalent to "very select individual homo sapiens for which my claim is true simply like open source projects" - all through the invisible magic of linguistics, which only exists in the posts of non-anon posters.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If you are going to rise to the defense of the anon then you must do so based solely on the text of his argument “No one from the industry takes EQAL seriously” you do not get to reinterpret what it means, nor can you add things to the penumbra, your argument must be based on the text of the statement.

    My original comment, which was only a few sentences in length called out the anon for an overly broad vague statement. Let us now once again analyze that statement.

    “No one from the industry takes EQAL seriously” How, can anyone defend that statement as not being overly broad and vague. The statement can easily be defeated for over breadth if but one person in ‘the industry’ takes them seriously, it is intuitively obvious. Second the statement is vague. What is the industry? We are assuming it is something web or internet related, but we do not know for certain, it might very well be the coal mining industry or the under water basket weaving industry. Also, we do not know what anon means by seriously. Again there is an assumption that anon means ‘the industry’ thinks they are not competent or something to that effect; however we do not know.

    You then countered with the laughable argument that “ I do believe we all read a silent who matters after it.” Once again your statement is overbroad and its assumption is easily defeated by the fact that I did not read a silent ‘who matter’ after it. Also, your who matters is another vague term. Who gets to decide who matters?? You? I find it rather ridiculous that in order to make since of an overly broad statement you have to infer another vague phrase.

    Anon’s whole argument smacks of an exchange a teen would have with her mother.
    “Mom, can I have the new Miley Cyrus Cd?
    “No”
    “But everybody has it!”
    The mother sarcastically remarks, “I don’t have it, your father doesn’t have it aren’t we part of everybody”
    Then the kids storms off, CD light but with a greater understanding for the precision of language.

    Now I have to explain to you how language works, because clearly you never learned it. A word that requires a value judgment or weight is really a very simple concept which most people learn early on. A is more important than B, C is greater than D, these things require assigning a judgment and comparing them or weighing them. The phrase ‘no one’ as used by your anon friend encompasses the whole. All that is required to defeat its supposition is to find one thing that is part of the whole but does not fit the criteria specified by the ‘no one.’ In this case, finding but one person in the suspect class “the industry” that does not fit the criteria ‘not taking EQAL serious’. As I have stated several times there those who do not fit that criteria. Just because you don’t think they ‘matter’ does not diminish the fact that they exist.

    Um, let’s see you ramble a bit about Africa, don’t really get that moving on…

    ReplyDelete
  28. You mention several lines from my article I shall now go through the ones you mention and explain since obviously your third grade teacher never did how language works.

    "For any company looking to build a platform for their web content, EQAL is an attractive solution."

    The difference between any and none or every is that it is has a different value judgment. All that is required for an any is just one. I didn’t say it was best for every company or no company I said any company all that requires is one single company.

    "people simply like open source projects"
    Once again, people is a class of individuals. I did not say every person or all people I said people, it is a general term, but then that’s how language works.

    "third party apps are a major component of social networking sites and are something individuals like and expect”

    Individuals do like third party apps. Once again I didn’t say every individual or all individuals.

    The various words I used that you seem to take umbrage with – any, people, individuals – were all used in a proper context and in a proper manner. For you to pick them out and try and attack me for making vague statements without using a modicum of common sense is extremely insulting. Anyone reading those statements transposed next to that of your anon buddy can see the difference, it is intuitively obvious.

    Learn to use language properly then feel free to critique someone who knows it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ROFL
    You are trying to spin "any company" into "some companies", unspecified "people" into "a very specific group of individuals my point applies to" and generic, attribute-less "individuals" into "select individuals my point applies to" - and you are telling me to learn to use language properly?

    I don't know what's more ridiculous...that you apparently honestly think people are dumb enough to believe when you said "any company looking to build a platform" you really meant "certain companies, which by far are not all of them, but which all fulfill the necessary requirements to confirm my argument", or that you truly think that just saying "people", you're somehow silently, magically only implying a select group of people, rather than people in general.
    I mean, what you are basically saying here is that the groups "people" and "people with blue hats" are both equally narrow, and the former "people" silently transmits its true selection of people into my brain (via the invisible magic of linguistics, no doubt).
    Do you honestly expect anyone to follow you on that one? What's your next claim, that "men" is just shorthand to say "Male Homo Sapiens aged 25-35 with brown hair, blue eyes, and a BMI of 22.5", and that every person reading "men" naturally knows that?


    Interestingly, this is yet another instance of you doing the exact same thing you criticized before - when I voiced that there was likely a "no one who matters" implied in the anon's post, you scoffed at that and tried to ridicule it - and yet, here we are, with you trying to claim that a generic "people" automatically implied not just any people, but a very particular group of people for which your statement was true.

    Of course we both know you're just bullshitting around - because if you were honestly of the opinion that generic terms somehow silently transmit their accurate filter of subjects, you wouldn't have complained about the anon leaving "the industry" undefined.

    But hey, as said: Not the first time in this thread.
    "the industry" - too broad
    "people" - a very specific, magically implied by linguistics, sub-group of all people, clearly understandable to all readers and obviously and accurately narrow enough

    All hail Math's language rules.

    At least you are consistent in your hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I guess this was the most controversial story I wrote, either this one or the Spark Capital one that someone thought I'd made up.

    ReplyDelete




If you want to become an "author" on Web Series Today please read: http://tinyurl.com/becomeaWSTauthor

For more detailed information about Web Series Today please read: Web Series Today:

For other info contact: [email protected]



Join the discussion: http://www.tinyurl.com/webseriescommunity