[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens The internet is about convergence

Main Entry: con·ver·gence
Pronunciation: k&n-'v&r-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1713
1 : the act of converging and especially moving toward union or uniformity

That may be your definition, but I am overjoyed that it is not Chu's. I am glad that Chu is perceived as a lone voice in the wilderness crowing his own independence. And I am glad that he has kept and insists on keeping his forum a TRULY independent source of opinion and information. That's what I think the internet is about.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

No offence taken, Kelly, but as you well know you just can't have your cake and eat it, too. Nothing wrong with strong priciples, except when they may be self defeating---as you so eloquently recognised in your post.

FWIW, I got the headphone.com domain when all I had to do was ask for it---in other words a long time ago when the net was in it's infancy. So I been around for a while, too, and it doesn't appear to me that the internet was ever one kind of thing---except to say that one of the primary reasons it was opened to the public was for business, and I don't ever remember it being intended as some sort of utopian, commercial-free territory. I know that a lot of people may have seen that possibility, but I think it's rather nieve to think it would be able to do so exclusive of some type of economic componant.

Look, Chu has every right to do what he wants, And I don't think my above comments are really even aplicable in any direct way to him. If he was independantly wealthy, then go for it. There are a dozen possibilities that would allow him to do what he wants; but, evidently none exist for him. I just think that it so SUCKS that all that content---content in significant measure that other people contributed with the hope that it would be available for the long run (in fact, I've contributed content myself)---might go away, or in the best case become increasingly marginalized.

Bottom line, I don't see how he is being constructive towards headphone community or even towards of showing amateur content can survive successfully. And, I just can't help feeling very sad about the whole thing.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Jeff,

It is my definition. But I think you are assuming that the uniformity is being applied to people or something. The internet is about uniform ability to express and experience information.

It's about NOT having to experience the same broadcast ****, and is about everybody having uniform opportunity to comminicate.

But OPPORTUNITY is not the same as privilage. You have to opportunity to do things within the context of the internet, and we've all made up what that is, and it has it's prices to pay.

But we are too close to embarking on a flame war I do not wish to waste my time on:

I'M JUST SAD THAT THE HEADWISE CONTENT MIGHT GO DOWN THE DRAIN! CHU CAN DO IT ANY WAY HE WANTS, BUT IF HE CAN'T DO IT HE SHOULD SOFTEN HIS STAND A LITTLE AND GIVE THE CONTENT TO SOMEONE WHO CAN!

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Guidry And I am glad that he has kept and insists on keeping his forum a TRULY independent source of opinion and information.

What makes a forum "TRULY" independent? Head-Fi is EVERY bit as "independent" from a management and editorial standpoint as HeadWize has ever been. However, because Head-Fi accepts sponsorship, it's still going strong while HeadWize isn't.

Head-Fi, AudioAsylum, Anandtech, and other forums have demonstrated quite clearly that it's possible to accept sponsorship and still remain "truly" independent.

 

[DeanA]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Guidry I am glad that Chu is perceived as a lone voice in the wilderness crowing his own independence. And I am glad that he has kept and insists on keeping his forum a TRULY independent source of opinion and information. That's what I think the internet is about.

It would seem Chu was not such a lone voice. The forum area was definitely not the strength of Headwize. It was the library area where others donated a lot of excellent papers that took a lot of personal effort to put together. A library it would seem many others have come to depend on. In fact, when you consider the lack of published material, the Headwize library may very well be THE source of headphone and DYI project information. Whether Chu was “Truly Independent” or just too proud doesn’t matter because the end result will be the same. His decision, and it is his to make, will result in the loss of some valuable information. And I believe the availability of information is what the Internet is all about.

 

[andrzejpw]

Whaaa? Sure, the library is a VITAL part of the community. But the forums were what made headwize! That was the community! That was the head-fi before head-fi! Without the forums, where would our community be?

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF What makes a forum "TRULY" independent? Head-Fi is EVERY bit as "independent" from a management and editorial standpoint as HeadWize has ever been.

In fact, I would contend that because it has found a way to regulate the contributions of commercial interests, the users experience in Head-Fi's public forums is MORE independant of commercial content than HeadWize.

 

[tooler]

Thanks for the information on those webcrawlers. I've been looking for something like that to use on an unrelated site.

The picture of the original Altoids amp in the cmoy amplifier article is what inspired me to get into DIY and headphones. I made backups of all the projects I might do in the future.

Good work, Chu. I hope your work continues on the new server.

 

[kelly]

Tyll

It doesn't surprise me that the sponsors and moderators of HeadFi believe HeadFi's model to be superior to HeadWize's. If you were here since the beginning, you know that a lot of the internet was not only intended to be free to the public but that some of it still protected by law from commercial interest. You know that most of the internet began in universities and that even today portions of the network are hosted by universities. You also, undoubtedly, know that there are many non-commercial entities that have lived and grown to be very successful without corporate sponsorship. While it is easy for you to take advantage of Chu's predicament to make your point, you also know that just as many sites that HAD corporate sponsorship on the web have closed as those that have not. What one could argue quite easily is that Jude has managed to keep his site up and that Chu has not. Trying to extrapolate that it is therefore not possible to run a noncommercial information site on the internet is an exaggeration at best. To say even that commercial sites on the internet are better on the average than noncommercial sites would be an exaggeration.

A better point to notice with HeadWize would be that within the trend of sites that fail vs those that survive, the survivors tend to be the work and responsibility of a group of people rather than an individual. Chu is only one person and his site has always been at greater risk due to his being the only person responsible for HeadWize. There is no doubt that if Apache or the World Wide Web Consortium were run by individuals that they too would be at a greater risk of failure.

There is nothing wrong with commercial sites. I frequent many of them and I'm not here to put HeadFi down for being commercial. I just don't understand why you guys are so polar and extreme in your views of which model works when in reality there are so many successful and unsuccessful examples of each.

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF What makes a forum "TRULY" independent? Head-Fi is EVERY bit as "independent" from a management and editorial standpoint as HeadWize has ever been. However, because Head-Fi accepts sponsorship, it's still going strong while HeadWize isn't.

LOL, until Flasken gets drunk and starts posting jibberish everywhere....

 

[Duncan]

If HeadWize really does disappear, then I must admit that I will be a little sad... its where I came from, my heritage as it were.

But, if we remember back to EXACTLY this time last year, when the forums crashed, and Chu said he had no more finances... HeadWize pulled through...

If Chu is able to get more free webspace, then maybe he can carry on... It happened last year, why can't it happen again?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens In fact, I would contend that because it has found a way to regulate the contributions of commercial interests, the users experience in Head-Fi's public forums is MORE independant of commercial content than HeadWize.

Tyll, I fully agree with you on this point -- and I mentioned this to Chu in a conversation we had about the forums.


Quote:

Originally posted by kelly What one could argue quite easily is that Jude has managed to keep his site up and that Chu has not. Trying to extrapolate that it is therefore not possible to run a noncommercial information site on the internet is an exaggeration at best.

Kelly, the problem with your argument is that it does't take into account other factors that have changed over the past ten years. When the Internet first started, and even up until just a few years ago, "bandwidth" was not really a commodity -- it wasn't sold like gas or food, people weren't charged for getting too much traffic, etc. I know because I worked in IT at a major university. If we had too much traffic and ran out of bandwidth, we could upgrade our network hardware and connection to the local backbone, but the cost of the additional bandwidth was negligible. In short, if you could find a university or company that would host your site, it was cheap and easy to maintain.

Nowadays things are MUCH different. Bandwidth is now the most expensive part of hosting any high-traffic site. The more popular your site, the more expensive it is to maintain. There aren't too many "non-commercial entities" that are successful on the web anymore. The ones that are successful and get lots of traffic ALL get funding from somewhere. Whether that's membership fees, donations, backing from a non-profit, etc.... they are all getting a lot of money from somewhere. Chu's refusal to accept ANY kind of money -- from sponsors, from members, from anyone -- has really doomed HeadWize. And I agree with everyone here that losing the HeadWize news and DIY archives would be tragic.

Given those facts, I don't think what Tyll said is that much of an exaggeration -- if you want to run a popular web site (and especially a popular forum, since the data transfer tends to be much higher for forums than for normal web sites), you need to have a significant source of funding. It's very difficult for a popular information site to remain viable while remaining non-commercial, unless some other significant source of funding is available. And the truth is, people aren't giving money away like they were five years ago

Quote:

A better point to notice with HeadWize would be that within the trend of sites that fail vs those that survive, the survivors tend to be the work and responsibility of a group of people rather than an individual. Chu is only one person and his site has always been at greater risk due to his being the only person responsible for HeadWize.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, kelly. HeadWize isn't failing because of a lack of people helping him run the site. It's failing for one reason, and one reason alone: lack of funds to pay for hosting the site.

Quote:

I just don't understand why you guys are so polar and extreme in your views of which model works when in reality there are so many successful and unsuccessful examples of each.

Do you have some examples of non-commercial sites (in other words, sites that do not get funding from sponsors) that have as much traffic as Head-Fi, and are not receiving their funding from some source besides the people who run the site?

It's not that anyone is being "polar" or "extreme" -- it's that we're being realistic about what it takes to run a site like this.


Finally, to be clear: I would fully support Chu's insistence on "independence" from commercial interests if there were any evidence that sponsorship adversely affected the independent nature of discussion, reviews, etc. However, as Head-Fi, AudioAsylum, AnandTech, and other sponsored forums have clearly demonstrated, that is not the case. So HeadWize is losing the benefits (funding) of sponsorship without reaping any other benefits in return.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Do you have some examples of non-commercial sites (in other words, sites that do not get funding from sponsors) that have as much traffic as Head-Fi, and are not receiving their funding from some source besides the people who run the site?

I gave two in the only paragraph you didn't quote. There are many, many successful noncommercial sites on the net today. It really wouldn't take much effort to see them.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Quote: Do you have some examples of non-commercial sites (in other words, sites that do not get funding from sponsors) that have as much traffic as Head-Fi, and are not receiving their funding from some source besides the people who run the site? I gave two in the only paragraph you didn't quote. There are many, many successful noncommercial sites on the net today. It really wouldn't take much effort to see them.

You gave two examples of *organizations* -- not web sites. There are plenty of non-profit organizations and private operating foundations in the world. Thousands of them, if not millions. Non-profit organizations are a far cry from a discussion forum on the web, though.

In addition, the two organizations you gave (Apache and WWWC) were not really examples of what I asked for: "sites that have as much traffic as Head-Fi and are not receiving funding from some source besides the people who run the site." Apache.org accepts donations, accepts corporate sponsorships, enters into contracts with other businesses and organizations, holds conferences, etc. "Private operating foundation" does not mean non-commercial. Apache.org has many revenue streams that fund its operations.

In order to even be a member of WWWC, you have to pay. Full membership is 50 grand per year! "Affiliate" membership is 5 grand per year. So, again, they have plenty of revenue coming in. And, in fact, the very nature of WWWC means that the money coming in WILL have an impact on policy, since membership in WWWC gives you a seat on the board and therefore influence over decisions that affect the entire Internet.

I'm still looking for an example of a forum community that has extremely heavy traffic and is viable without accepting any sponsorship, donations, or "membership" dues.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Kelly, man, I really don't know what you're talking about. Forget the big picture and the miriad points of view that can be ligitimately taken. I think Chu's done a terrific job of agrigating and creating content. Do you agree? I don't care how Chu decides to succeed because he has every right to do things the way he wants. Do you agree? But I do think it's very sad if he fails and we as a community loose access to the content he is responsible for. Do you agree?