<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Googlevision: Part I</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/09/googlevision-part-i/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/09/googlevision-part-i/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:13:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.ignisfatuus.com/2008/05/09/googlevision-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 01:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ignisfatuus.com/?p=24#comment-21</guid>
		<description>I should come clean: I&#039;m shamelessly pro-Google.  I think they&#039;re generally more concerned about the user experience than any of the other media conglomerates out there.  They&#039;re also much more supportive of openness.  This is probably because, unlike, say, Time Warner or The Walt Disney Corporation, Google doesn&#039;t produce any content (unless you consider a map content; this is hardly on the same level as dozens of TV channels with hundreds of shows, scores of magazines and so on).  For this reason, protecting content isn&#039;t nearly as important to Google as delivering it is.  This model is very consumer-oriented and, frankly, empowers the audience.  There will be more on this later.

Secondly, I want to give proper credit for my description of the &quot;gift&quot; economy.  This was not my original idea, of course, but rather one described in &quot;Channels of Discourse, Reassembled&quot; a TV studies textbook.  You can get info this book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Channels-Discourse-Reassembled-Television-Contemporary/dp/0415080592/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1210381895&amp;sr=8-1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should come clean: I&#8217;m shamelessly pro-Google.  I think they&#8217;re generally more concerned about the user experience than any of the other media conglomerates out there.  They&#8217;re also much more supportive of openness.  This is probably because, unlike, say, Time Warner or The Walt Disney Corporation, Google doesn&#8217;t produce any content (unless you consider a map content; this is hardly on the same level as dozens of TV channels with hundreds of shows, scores of magazines and so on).  For this reason, protecting content isn&#8217;t nearly as important to Google as delivering it is.  This model is very consumer-oriented and, frankly, empowers the audience.  There will be more on this later.</p>
<p>Secondly, I want to give proper credit for my description of the &#8220;gift&#8221; economy.  This was not my original idea, of course, but rather one described in &#8220;Channels of Discourse, Reassembled&#8221; a TV studies textbook.  You can get info this book here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Channels-Discourse-Reassembled-Television-Contemporary/dp/0415080592/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1210381895&#038;sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Channels-Discourse-Reassembled-Television-Contemporary/dp/0415080592/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1210381895&#038;sr=8-1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

