Exactly. There is a big difference in saying, "i wish they fail" and "this is an idea that will probably fail". The author is lacking the humility to be aware that his analysis might be wrong. I thought twitter would fail and I was proven wrong. This is because I analyzed it from my personal perspective for witch twitter doesn't fit. But undoubtfully twitter provides a significant added value to many other people. Good for them and I still don't use twitter. But i would never say "I hope they fail". If all humains thought this way we would still be carving stone to get tools (tailler des cailloux).
Text (occidental) is not an efficient information channel. Why do all companies have a logo or distinctive simple image ? Because people can't read ? No beause one gets the message in the same time and effort it takes to read one letter.
So ther is definitely an added value to gain in this direction. It is not sure yet if Qwiki is the best way, but it is surely worth exploring and testing this. We underuse our visual and auditive senses in actual software. Technology capability has apparently evolved faster then our User interface exploitation.
I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds.
Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation, some of the capabilities demoed would be beneficial.
But I maintain that their "information experience" hype is a hustle that has not been well thought out.
"I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds."
Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic I would be impressed.
If Qwiki succeeds, some number of people like their product. If people like their product, than Qwiki added value for those people.
So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsic value proposition and offering, even though people might find it valuable? Or are you just against it because you don't think people will find it valuable?
If it is the latter, you should reword your story, title, and comment.
I explain all this in my blog post. My beef with Qwiki is that it dumbs down comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, and learning. It multimediaizes Wikipedia, an unreliable source. If it succeeds on a large scale, it and the inevitable copycats will all combined contribute to hurting society more than helping it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people like it. Of course people will like it. Just like they like 4000-calorie fast-food meals. Doesn't mean it's good for humanity.
People learn and analyze in different ways. Many sources cite three: auditorily (sp?), visually, and/or kinesthetically.
Could people who think better visually be underserved by text-only sources?
I think the fear you cite is too early to substantiate. I'd equate it to the fear of facebook/aim/texting destroying face to face (or voice to voice) communication.
It's quite possible for someone to rationally think that an action / service / startup is bad for humanity in general. How this interplays with humility is somewhat more subtle. People write what they believe. If you had written a blog post about twitter being a service that shouldn't exist (which you apparently thought), how open would you be to someone asking, "Who do you think you are to have an opinion?" He had clearly written out reasons for believing as he did. Agree or disagree with them, don't try to attack the person.
Text (occidental) is not an efficient information channel. Why do all companies have a logo or distinctive simple image ? Because people can't read ? No beause one gets the message in the same time and effort it takes to read one letter.
So ther is definitely an added value to gain in this direction. It is not sure yet if Qwiki is the best way, but it is surely worth exploring and testing this. We underuse our visual and auditive senses in actual software. Technology capability has apparently evolved faster then our User interface exploitation.