Dear Mathias Dopfner (or: Why must we fear the Axel Springer Verlag)
we are exactly met once briefly. I knelt close to you and asked you a question, which related to what you had said a few minutes earlier on a podium. It was November 2009 and we were both guests at the Monaco Media Forum. On stage, they announced a new newspaper with relevant content from the social web. When I asked you stated, there were a relaunch of the "Welt Kompakt". When the come, I asked and they answered. "In a few weeks"
This I blogged. Shortly thereafter denied your PR department and said I had misunderstood you: It had traded to the relaunch, which had taken place a few weeks earlier (and in which it trace elements from the social web was). Well I was not alone and had the entire circle around me heard the same as me.
There is still more evidence, for example, misquotes or historical contexts. 2006 They wrote, they believed in the then already more than questionable Riepl'sche law. 2010 saw the economic future of journalism as endangered. In some bizarre interview with the "Handelsblatt" They exulted in the economic situation of media conglomerates.
A similar uncontrolled Killer Quote drone is Google Chairman Eric Schmidt. He also just babbles times going so unlike you but he says things where one suspects: "The You mean now maybe not so - but it's just extremely unwise say so."
One thing you and Schmidt common: both are unable to abstract from your own situation and your company. You are not able to think in a larger context and to speak without constantly having its own balance sheet in mind. And therefore it can only be bad if you deliver openssl a debate duel.
"Why do we fear Google" is overwritten to Schmidt, an open letter on your part, it has published the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". Here I can not link to it, that by depressed by your own company intellectual property right is such a large computational uncertainty that prohibit links to content from publishers. You will certainly understand.
Your open - and confused with all due respect - open letter starts with valid demands for a debate on the digital society. They praise Google and we suspect: That's just the fanfare openssl for the appearance of the firing squad. Honest: openssl Keep your readers for so stupid that do not recognize it? Also your lineup openssl as David against Goliath is ridiculous in its argument. Compare a global openssl corporation with many different business areas with a publisher. You know what? General Electric makes more sales than Axel Springer. The manufacturers of the computers in your publishing, Apple, too. Does this have anything to do with the topic? No. You join in the general anti-capitalist canon of many German media for any business with high profits is evil.
However, large parts of the German economy is in precisely such relationships. Even comparatively short change car manufacturers for example configurations and prices. This can bring quickly to the edge of their existence openssl suppliers. Just ask a company like Karmann. Although, up to Osnabrück you do not have to roam. Just ask freelance journalists. The advent of the Web got with new rights agreement: You should their old products just so release for digital openssl marketing. Or talk times with your profession colleagues in Dusseldorf: The "Rheinische openssl Post" commits just systematically fare evasion. Since then there is a old-serving editor in the future before the election, Will he rise, he must renounce the collective openssl agreement.
It is a common situation in the context of an economic ecosystem that dependencies arise that make a long-term planning difficult or impossible. The big question is: Will the Mighty take advantage of his situation? Or he knows that he has to rely on the smaller and therefore must recognize limits the exercise of power? And sets in the context of a functioning democracy is not the state's openssl guidelines openssl for those involved in economic life?
They demand the intervention of the competition authorities against Google. This first question would be answered is whether this is really necessary. You write of a "dominant firm", but this does not refer to a specific market. Of course, Google is in some markets just that: the market dominant. But: That alone is not prohibited. The abuse of this market position is the problem.
You behaupt
we are exactly met once briefly. I knelt close to you and asked you a question, which related to what you had said a few minutes earlier on a podium. It was November 2009 and we were both guests at the Monaco Media Forum. On stage, they announced a new newspaper with relevant content from the social web. When I asked you stated, there were a relaunch of the "Welt Kompakt". When the come, I asked and they answered. "In a few weeks"
This I blogged. Shortly thereafter denied your PR department and said I had misunderstood you: It had traded to the relaunch, which had taken place a few weeks earlier (and in which it trace elements from the social web was). Well I was not alone and had the entire circle around me heard the same as me.
There is still more evidence, for example, misquotes or historical contexts. 2006 They wrote, they believed in the then already more than questionable Riepl'sche law. 2010 saw the economic future of journalism as endangered. In some bizarre interview with the "Handelsblatt" They exulted in the economic situation of media conglomerates.
A similar uncontrolled Killer Quote drone is Google Chairman Eric Schmidt. He also just babbles times going so unlike you but he says things where one suspects: "The You mean now maybe not so - but it's just extremely unwise say so."
One thing you and Schmidt common: both are unable to abstract from your own situation and your company. You are not able to think in a larger context and to speak without constantly having its own balance sheet in mind. And therefore it can only be bad if you deliver openssl a debate duel.
"Why do we fear Google" is overwritten to Schmidt, an open letter on your part, it has published the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung". Here I can not link to it, that by depressed by your own company intellectual property right is such a large computational uncertainty that prohibit links to content from publishers. You will certainly understand.
Your open - and confused with all due respect - open letter starts with valid demands for a debate on the digital society. They praise Google and we suspect: That's just the fanfare openssl for the appearance of the firing squad. Honest: openssl Keep your readers for so stupid that do not recognize it? Also your lineup openssl as David against Goliath is ridiculous in its argument. Compare a global openssl corporation with many different business areas with a publisher. You know what? General Electric makes more sales than Axel Springer. The manufacturers of the computers in your publishing, Apple, too. Does this have anything to do with the topic? No. You join in the general anti-capitalist canon of many German media for any business with high profits is evil.
However, large parts of the German economy is in precisely such relationships. Even comparatively short change car manufacturers for example configurations and prices. This can bring quickly to the edge of their existence openssl suppliers. Just ask a company like Karmann. Although, up to Osnabrück you do not have to roam. Just ask freelance journalists. The advent of the Web got with new rights agreement: You should their old products just so release for digital openssl marketing. Or talk times with your profession colleagues in Dusseldorf: The "Rheinische openssl Post" commits just systematically fare evasion. Since then there is a old-serving editor in the future before the election, Will he rise, he must renounce the collective openssl agreement.
It is a common situation in the context of an economic ecosystem that dependencies arise that make a long-term planning difficult or impossible. The big question is: Will the Mighty take advantage of his situation? Or he knows that he has to rely on the smaller and therefore must recognize limits the exercise of power? And sets in the context of a functioning democracy is not the state's openssl guidelines openssl for those involved in economic life?
They demand the intervention of the competition authorities against Google. This first question would be answered is whether this is really necessary. You write of a "dominant firm", but this does not refer to a specific market. Of course, Google is in some markets just that: the market dominant. But: That alone is not prohibited. The abuse of this market position is the problem.
You behaupt
No comments:
Post a Comment