PDA

View Full Version : Mark Cuban -- "The Internet is Dead"


Mentat
07-27-2007, 08:38 AM
Anyone else see this? I think he's a nut... :cool:

Washington -- The archetype of the Internet-bred billionaire Wednesday declared, “The Internet’s dead. It’s over.”

The speaker was Mark Cuban, who sold Broadcast.com to Internet portal Yahoo in 1999 for $5.7 billion. He is currently the owner of the National Basketball Association’s Dallas Mavericks and HDTV programmer HDNet. He is also considering buying Major League Baseball’s Chicago Cubs, out of his pocket, for about $1 billion.

The venture that made his fortune, Broadcast.com, was the outfit that legally streamed programming from 420 radio stations and networks; 56 TV stations and cable networks; and game broadcasts and other programming for more than 450 college and professional sports teams over the Internet.

And Cuban made his comments to operators of a set of high-bandwidth alternatives to the Internet, known as cable systems.

Speaking on the closing panel of the CTAM Summit here, Cuban declared, “The Internet’s for old people.”

His basic point: The Internet has gone stagnant. The only “new application” on the World Wide Web of recent vintage was, in his view, YouTube -- which, unlike Cuban’s Broadcast.com, ripped off the creative content of intellectual-property owners to build its video-based business.

Sour digits aside, Cuban’s view, as repeated in a group interview after the panel with Multichannel News and CableFax Daily, is that cable and satellite networks are now superior to the Internet as platforms for building complex, interactive services.

This is in direct counterpoint to his contention, when he built Broadcast.com a decade ago, that the Internet would -- in 10 years’ time -- have the bandwidth that would make it a superior home for the development and distribution of video programming.

“I was wrong,” he said.

Networks built by telephone companies, like Verizon Communications, and cable companies, like Comcast, do not easily talk to each other, stymieing development of services (like HD video) that require smooth, seamless transport of lots of digital stuff, he said.

By contrast, so-called clustered collections of cable networks provide an enclosed environment that allows high-bandwidth, complex applications to thrive. Developers will figure this out and develop applications to match. If, for instance, a developer wanted to build suites of office applications, he said, the better environment would be servers on local cable systems. Users would have faster response and better experiences. Such developers could “outgoogle Google,” in effect.

Google, the dominant search engine, is developing and providing a series of office applications for writing and making calculations that operate on the open Internet.

In effect, Cuban said, cable networks are “intranets,” which, by their nature, operate more efficiently than the Internet. Cable-system operators can control the quality of service they supply and the amount of bandwidth that developers can use. Plus, there is no friction in transporting services and data within their networks.

His contention harkens back to @Home, the ill-fated offspring of the cable industry that tried to create a “private” Internet that operated at higher speeds and with greater quality than the “open” Internet, which made “best-efforts” attempts to transfer information, whether text or video or other.

Using standards such as the OpenCable specifications and cooperative efforts to interlink their networks, cable-system operators, he added, could create a high-bandwidth nationwide alternative to the Internet that would attract developers of applications that needed and took advantage of greater capacity and speed of transmission.

Spore Man
07-27-2007, 09:07 AM
What a loon. If by "complex, interactive services" he means a system that takes 2 to 5 seconds to load a simple menu and has a lag of a whole second on every button press, he's barking mad.

Pyabo
07-27-2007, 01:22 PM
Bah... yup, a loon. "The Internet is dead". That's just plain stupidity. Of course it's going to evolve and change... but it's here to stay.

DFG
07-27-2007, 04:40 PM
The Internet may change significantly with extremely fast bandwidth coming online (see the one about the high speed granny in Sweden? - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/superfast.net.ap/index.html) and eventually a new protocol with better security, but these frequent announcements that this and that are dead are ridiculous. Online advertising used to be dead and Google is making billions hand over fist. TV and movies used to be dead but I haven't seen them go anywhere with blockbusters breaking new records every summer and new TV programs drawing viewers like never before.

I think if you have an ego, it must feel good to be the first person to declare the death of something ;)

Now if you told me VCRs and cassettes were dead than I would believe you :)

Spore Man
07-27-2007, 06:35 PM
The funny thing is, in a way he's right. Eventually we will have set top boxes that DO deliver rich interactive television content, on demand. But guess what? I predict the bulk of the data delivery and protocols will largely be internet based!

Bad Sector
07-27-2007, 08:09 PM
Now if you told me VCRs and cassettes were dead than I would believe you :)

I wouldn't. There are a few videoclubs around where i live which are full of VCR cassettes and everything new comes in VCR format too. Not everybody seems to want to move to DVD (and we're already entering the BluRay era)...

Oaf
07-28-2007, 12:06 AM
Obviously with that much money in the bank he's been doing shitloads of Charlie and still arrogantly believes what he says is a) right and b) of any interest to anyone else....

Has it not occurred to him that these "intranets" might possibly cache content from the outside world...?

tagged
07-28-2007, 01:33 AM
I wouldn't. There are a few videoclubs around where i live which are full of VCR cassettes and everything new comes in VCR format too. Not everybody seems to want to move to DVD (and we're already entering the BluRay era)...

Indeed, I'm an Australian and recently caught the end of a news segment involving a large bust of stolen vcr equipment, I was surprised by the fact there's still a market.

Applewood
07-28-2007, 03:08 AM
Don't forget that he's saying the internet is dead, not the www.

The internet is just a bunch of creaking old cables that providers are squeezing to the max, based on overall structure laid out in the 60's. In the UK, our avg bandwidth is 8Mb down this and that's not going to go up substantially any time soon.

When cable companies start offering us 100 Mb connections, we'll all be on that as soon as we can. I can easily see providers offering connection to the current www for porn and piracy, and a new www replacement that Cuban speaks of that is a closed system. No porn, no webpages about peoples cats and not as much lag for games playing.

They wouldn't get rid of the www connection though - it's got too much implied worth.

Spore Man
07-28-2007, 10:13 AM
No porn
Yah RIGHT!
:D

KNau
07-28-2007, 12:26 PM
It sounds like he's talking about a high speed version of what AOL was, a semi-exclusive, sanitized web within the web. If so, it's going to be a tough sell for a (no-doubt premium priced) service that has only a fraction of the content of the WWW.

It'll be an interesting development and maybe even a new opportunity (nothing like exclusive communities to let you resell old products to a captive audience) but I won't hold my breath. The cable companies still haven't gotten on demand programming figured out yet and that technology has been around for ages.

Pyabo
07-28-2007, 03:49 PM
When cable companies start offering us 100 Mb connections, we'll all be on that as soon as we can.

Don't get too excited... most cable operators in the US can't provide the paltry bandwidth they advertise. The speeds they sell go up every year, but the actual bandwidth seems to stay the same.

GBGames
07-30-2007, 07:48 AM
If so, it's going to be a tough sell for a (no-doubt premium priced) service that has only a fraction of the content of the WWW.


I don't know. I'm sure there is a market for people who want to get online without wading through all of the junk to get to the important stuff.

Karja
07-30-2007, 11:54 AM
Don't get too excited... most cable operators in the US can't provide the paltry bandwidth they advertise. The speeds they sell go up every year, but the actual bandwidth seems to stay the same.

Actually, it's getting pretty common with 100 Mbit here in Sweden. (As long as you live in a relatively big town at least.) And Sweden isn't really that densely populated, so it ought to be feasible elsewhere as well within a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, it's not a dedicated 100 Mbit line...but I can get 8 MB/s most of the time as long as the other side is able to provide it. And there's no big pond in between.

tagged
07-30-2007, 09:06 PM
Actually, it's getting pretty common with 100 Mbit here in Sweden. (As long as you live in a relatively big town at least.) And Sweden isn't really that densely populated, so it ought to be feasible elsewhere as well within a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, it's not a dedicated 100 Mbit line...but I can get 8 MB/s most of the time as long as the other side is able to provide it. And there's no big pond in between.
Oh there is always a bigpond blocking progress down-under (1) :P

damn you countries with reasonable infrastructure... Maybe in Australia if we didn't have a monopoly from tel$tra, we would be able to join the 21st century :mad:

1. Bigpond is the internet side of telstra

bvanevery
08-09-2007, 09:02 PM
I think if you have an ego, it must feel good to be the first person to declare the death of something ;)

Actually if you're an Entrepreneur, that's pretty much what you do. Get people focused on what you're saying so that you become the future. As opposed to a Futurist, who's more detached and observational in his predictions. So complained a Futurist-trained friend of mine some years ago.

The Internet is an open business model, and private networks are a closed model. We already see how the difference of business model plays out with PCs vs. Consoles. Neither will ever supplant the other. Business conservatives will routinely back Closed models and will usually make money on them. Those who need more freedom will always hanker for the Open models. Many freedom lovers will fall upon their swords and die that way, but a few will always break through with The Next Big Thing, catching the business conservatives with their pants down. The two models can never supplant each other because they're fundamentally different attitudes towards risk and profit.

One or the other could be in ascendancy or regression at any given time, however. Right now I'm making money off open source technologies just fine. Doesn't have to stay that way. So I just make my money now while I can.

Nikos Beck
08-10-2007, 08:04 AM
Get people focused on what you're saying so that you become the future.

Microsoft? Is that you? Oh. Sorry Apple. I didn't see you there.

MedievalElks
08-10-2007, 12:36 PM
The funny thing is, in a way he's right. Eventually we will have set top boxes that DO deliver rich interactive television content, on demand.

Been hearing that argument for years.

soniCron
08-10-2007, 01:10 PM
Cheap processing power and bandwidth hasn't been available "for years." :rolleyes:

Can you give a compelling argument why rich, interactive content won't happen?

bvanevery
08-10-2007, 01:19 PM
Cheap processing power and bandwidth hasn't been available "for years." :rolleyes:

Can you give a compelling argument why rich, interactive content won't happen?

Not until you define the word "rich," which in the computer industry is a pet peeve of mine.

soniCron
08-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Abundant. Diverse. Plentiful.

bvanevery
08-10-2007, 05:40 PM
Abundant, plentiful, diverse interactive content won't happen because the only commercially viable model for such content is the mainstream game industry, and they're still conservative. The cable etc. outlets are one step removed from the game industry, i.e. people who actually understand interactive content to some degree. So they will utterly botch it.

Don't expect miracles from anywhere until you see them happening in the mainstream game industry. They haven't woken up to smell the indie. They're still figuring out match-3 games.

We can hope that a convergence between film and game production pipelines will give the game industry a cultural kick in the pants, but I think the game industry will figure its own head from its ass before then. I wouldn't expect film to start seriously affecting how games are conceived for another 10..20 years.