>An article written by you entitled "Internet is hot, but technology can't >deliver what users expect" appeared in the Houston Chronicle of 2-25-96. >It sure sounds like you got stung by the Internet, and you've been on a pout >ever since.I'm not in a pout at all! Out of 7 messages I've received, two of you have mis-read my main message. I am very PRO-INTERNET! What I don't want is for us to blow this one big time.
We say there are wonderful things out there (and there are) but violate some important human factors guidelines in delivering them. I have fun on the web, but when I try to communicate my excitement to (for example) my neighbors, they look at me like I'm from Venus or something. We have a long way to go before we should hype the Internet to Mr. and Mrs. General Public. That's all. I use the internet heavily, every day, perhaps too much! I preach the Internet everywhere I go! We still have something like 80% of the population to get to, and they might not be as tolerant as we are.
>I don't know what other people are saying that the Internet can deliver, but >I'm not telling them any more than what the varying levels of associated >technology can deliver. No one's ever complained that it's not what I said >it was. And I installed internet sites in Central America back in the late >80's.It sounds like you're being responsible. Nice job. The press isn't so responsible. (I'm not being sarcastic).
>Also, you're examples of previous fallacious computer "hypes" are ludicrous.My point in the article was that the previous 3 hypes did not turn out to be failures, but instead that they took longer than the salespeople predicted. They were not permanent failures, just overhypes. Re-read the editorial: the trouble with each hype example was that the benefits were promised AT THAT TIME, and it instead took years for the benefits to hit. Your expert systems examples serve as striking evidence that we are now finally getting benefits out of what hyped in the early 1980s. It's now well over a decade after the real expert systems hype started (we studied it in 1981).
>Possibly your personal experiences with students losing interest in the >Internet after a few weeks might speak more to their levels of foresight. >When I installed the first Internet site in Nicaragua in 1988, it was only a >few days later that one of the members of the Sandinista Directorate told me >the Internet will do more to contribute to global democracy then anything >thing else.They didn't "lose interest" (your quote). Their "use ebbs" (quoting from the article). They lose their obsession, is all I was trying to say.
Please don't read negativism into the article. I'm trying to protect some of us from the effects of journalists who are going to give us some sensationalistic negative press in the next few months.
The internet is healthy, its prospects are very bright, and it's use will grow over the long term. Our culture will change significantly over the next decade.
Just not overnight, like the journalists will have us believe.
>I read your op-ed piece, "Doomed to Disappointment", which was (re)printed >in the Washington Post about a week ago. At the time, my reaction to it was >"I hope he is not the only (Associate) Professor of Information Science in >the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh, >because he doesn't know what he is talking about. His students are very >likely getting a lot of misinformation from him."No comment here. I would hope that you wouldn't spread this around without meeting me and judging by more than just an op-ed piece!
Let me be constructive in my answer, although a flame session is very tempting.
Perhaps my REAL message wasn't clear enough. I am extremely PRO-Internet. In fact, I'm so interested in the internet that I don't want some sensationalist journalist reporting that it has failed when such a judgement is premature. Just look at the following key parts of my piece: "there is genuine reason for excitement," and "...speed will increase, and other problems will be addressed. Then we will have a real winner." I just don't want the 90% of the people (Find/SVP study) or the 83% of the people (Nielsen study) who don't now use the internet to jump in thinking it's paradise out there. Nothing can stand up to the hype currently being bantied about regarding the internet. Stocks are being sold for incredibly inflated amounts just because the word "internet" is there. I don't want people to be upset, and the press feeding on it and overreacting.
We obviously have an incredible resource, and I believe that it is a real culture-changer. But it will take some time for very stodgy people to get into the technology. I'm not optimistic about how we convince the 90% (or 83%) to jump in, and then guarantee them value. I'm not sure my values (extremely pro-technology) match theirs (very doubtful about it).
I'm always trying to push everyone around me to try each new technology. I want them to make their decisions for use or non-use based on real experience, not ignorance. I've been extremely impatient with people who don't try, or try without proper orientation or training. After spending 15 years dealing with people who want "bottom line, results now" I'm learning about the dangers of overhyping. I want technology to have a fair shot. And I want the internet to have a fair shot, without an out-of-control press making promises that our chips can't keep!
By the way, I must defend myself at least a little. I do all of the things you speak of (except that I have not yet been able to do CU-CMe because my new computer hasn't yet arrived), to great advantage. I get around on the Internet quite well, thank you. In fact, you might enjoy my Web pages; I've had some good comments about them. (see the URL in my signature below)
>Getting back to your dim view of the future of the Internet, you could not >be more wrong, in my opinion. Considering your alleged specialty, >information science, maybe you should give serious thought to retiring and >making room for someone who understands the role of the Internet and Web in >communication.I answered this one earlier.
>Examples of the value of the Internet to individuals: > >1) Communication by typing text into email, or in real-time bilateral or >multilateral "chat" sessions, is much more informative and precise than >talking on the telephone. You end up with a retrievable, rereadable record >of the discussion. Participants can continue a thread of exchange of ideas >over an extyended period. As more than one commentator has poitned out, the >art of written communication is having a rebirth, thanks to the Net. I can >personally attest to this, because it is the main way I now keep in touch >with members of my family around the country. It is vastly superior to >"voice mail".I agree, except for the real-time chat sessions. They would work well for a 200-word per minute typist. I only type 90 words per minute and there is a lot of dead space even when I type my responses to others. When they type at 20 words per minute, this is sheer torture! But asynchronous e-mail is heaven!
>2)With an Internet access account, you have the freedom to make an unlimited >number of world-wide long distance communications for a low flat fee, much >less than phone calls to the same places and people would cost.Agree!
>3)Many people who use the Internet are "reaching out", and welcome >opportunities to make new acquaintances and form mutually rewarding >friendships. I have developed such relationships with people as far away as >Lithuania, Australia and Arizona, and as near as fellow users of the same >Internet access service for Baltimore county.Agree! So have I!
>4)You can publish on the Internet. Visits to a page in which you have >presented your ideas have a similar impact as receiving reprint requests by >traditional mail. (I spent 15 years on the faculty of Michigan State >University, during which I published a lot of papers and received a lot of >reprint requests.) Three web pages in which I am "teaching" about some web- >related technology are currently attracting, in aggregate, more than 1,000 >visits per week, about 30% from sites outside the U.S. While not a >commercially signifacnt hit rate, it still impresses me that every week, at >more than a 1,000 sites around the world, people are taking the opportunity >to examine some ideas I wanted to disseminate.Please see my AIS home page (http://www.pitt.edu/~ais) and you will see that I was the chair of a conference with all papers available on line. This is absolutely, astoundingly valuable! I'm afraid, however, my non-academic local neighbors (near my house) just look at me with a "ok, so what?" in their eyes when I speak excitedly about this.
>5)People and companies with web pages which attract large numbers of visits, >especially from people with a focussed, well-defined interest area, can and >do sell advertising space on their web pages. Such advertising seems to be >an increasingly important part of the economics of the net. (Perhaps you >should study the financial and conceptual growth of this aspect of the net).Yes! Advertising is booming, as it well should. But the advertisers have to know their market! It's presently 10% (17%) of the population!
>6)I can find information I am seeking very quickly on the Internet. Everyday >examples include: zip codes, area codes, company addresses, market value of >used cars, definitions, synonyms, quotations, good restaurants in a town I >am visiting, theatre and museum events, latest news, etc., etc.Agree! I can tell you stories where it has saved my hide, and I'm sure it's saved yours, too!
>7) One can make purchases at "stores" around the world. For example, after >trial periods, I recently made software purchases from one company in >Australia, and another in San Jose, California, from my home in Owings Mills >, Maryland, using my encrypted credit card number to make the payments for >the purchases. They "delivered" their products to me by providing decrypting >keys which enabled me to use the full range of features in the software I >had licensed. The available merchandise is not limited to software.I agree!
>Enhancements of Internet features are being developed very rapidly. There is >now available, for example, real-time voice communication, optionally with >images of the conversants (personal videoconferencing), at a fraction of the >traditional cost of such services. With the addition of java interpreters to >browsers, and the incorporation of applets in web pages, it is now possible >to have all sorts of real-time interactivity over the net. There is a >creative explosion, which I suspect is of unprecedented proportions, in >progress.Yes, and it is very exciting, I agree!
And you might want to debate the "crash of the internet" itself with Bob Metcalf (correspondent for PC Week who has been predicting its death in 1996; wholesale abandonment by vendors and other content providers). I would join you in disagreeing with him!
>As someone who has made deep personal investments in the Internet, I strongly >disagree with the message you are sending in your article.Please note that I have also made deep personal investments in the Internet (but not financial). So I'm also pro-internet. I maintain Web pages for myself and about 4 other purposes.
>The Internet and World-Wide Web are not merely new technologies, they are a >radically new social paradigm.Absolutely. Our entire culture will be changed by the internet in the next decade or two. But not until the years begin with a "2".
>You article assumes that the mass public is stupid and willing forever to be >spoon-fed Marshall McLuhan's video pablum.Not at all. I assume that the mass public is too smart to sit and wait 60 seconds for each page to load, only to find highly variable material after the wait.
>The Internet is the combination of television, telephone, picture-phone, >computer and video production studio. The Internet can do things no broadcast >television network will ever do. If you say the public cannot use it if it >does not run at broadcast speed, they you are saying the public has no >imagination.Well, patience is more the word. Their imagination and curiosity causes them to surf at first. But some of us torture them enough to make them disappointed.
>On the Internet, the medium is not the message - the content is. Please see >my Web site for an example of content. It is visual, but not image-heavy.Nice site. Unfortunately, it took 30 seconds to load (at home) and one image didn't load until the second try. Not your fault, just the slow backbone's.
>I think your article is extremely damaging to the capital influx the Internet >needs to keep up with the demand. Higher speed is only the next generation of >servers and routers away.
You must understand that not everyone is a Mensa member as you are. Not everyone has published sculptures in books and movies as you have. Most people have very basic information needs and for now, are fairly satisfied with their current modes of information access. I'm saying that we aren't yet ready to disturb these patterns. If we try now, we will disappoint them to the extent that they will be harder to sell once we are ready. But once we're ready, we'll have a blockbuster for them, and they'll be instantly sold as long as they have open minds.
>There are also monopolistic pricing strategies on the part of the regional >telephone companies for higher speed ISDN service which is a serious barrier >you fail to mention.This is certainly an important issue, but beyond the scope of the editorial. The editorial was meant as a warning to not overhype the technology today. A discussion of barriers to speed would be a separate (and valuable) article. And by the way, I firmly believe that ISDN isn't fast enough.
>Professor Galletta, the Internet is not like print. You cannot sit in your >ivory tower spouting dictum.And I'm not trying to spout anything. I'm just trying to do a tiny bit to prevent another avalanche of overly-negative press. Finally, thank heaven the Internet is not like print. We might begin saving trees after all, and providing more valuable service at the same time. I think that this is the most exciting time for technology since my first Apple II computer in 1980!
> I was quite ammused after reading your article in the news paper >about how the internet will become obsolete in more words than one. You >seem like a very logical man. After all you are a computer science >professor. Do you honestly think that the use of the internet will >"crash"? Your opinion is so far fetched that I really cannot believe >that these are your words. The internet does have it's problems I admit. >I have used and continue to use the internet in spite of these problems. >I've had times when one of my bookmarks doesn't work or the information >that I want is too slow. The internet is just like every other new >piece of technology that has been introduced to our society. The >pentium processor chip wasn't perfect when it first came out. Why >should we downplay the internet? It is new technology that is trying to >incorporate itself into our ever changing society. The present day >internet is a base for new technology to arrive. The problems of >today's internet will be solved. You cannot say that just because >it is not perfect now that 10 million people are just going to turn >their backs on the system. The system will be improved and the >improvements will come quickly. There is no need for patience. The >answers are right around the corner and no one is going to miss >out on a thing. Of all the people in the world I would hope that you >would understand what my position is. I am an undergraduate in computer >science here at the University of Delaware. I hear about changes in the >internet everyday. The internet will not cease to exist. You can count >on it.Thanks for your message. I believe that you paid too much attention to the word "crash" and the difficulties, and not to phrases like "then we will have a real winner." I believe 5 million people ARE "turn(ing) their backs on the system" (using your words). If you look at the statistics, fully a third of the people haven't logged on for 3 months!
Yes, the problems will be solved. But I was just worried about the bad press that I've seen so many times before regarding new technologies.
I have placed on my web site a summary of 3-4 e-mail messages criticizing the article, and my responses to them. In most cases, we ended up agreeing on principle as long as we focus on what is really a positive, defensive stance in my article! If I wanted to attack the internet, I'd just sit back and watch people discover for themselves that it can't live up to the hype. Nothing humans build can possibly live up to the hype (actually, frenzy) that is out there right now. It's crazy, absolutely crazy.