Carl Malamud: Internet Talk Radio, flame of the Internet.


Malamud: This is Geek of the Week. We’re talk­ing with Tim O’Reilly, who’s the pub­lish­er of O’Reilly & Associates. O’Reilly & Associates of course is one of our spon­sors. This isn’t just a shame­less plug for one of our spon­sors. As you’ll see, Tim is actu­al­ly inter­est­ing per­son to talk to. Welcome to Geek of the Week.

O’Reilly: Hi Carl. Thanks.

Malamud: Tim, you’re a pub­lish­er. You take lots of paper, and you pro­duce it and you sell it. Granted, a lot of that paper is about the Internet and it’s about Unix and things like that. But is online pub­lish­ing gonna destroy your paper busi­ness? Is this is a dif­fer­ent world we’re get­ting into here? Is it gonna replace you?

O’Reilly: Well, I don’t know what’s going to hap­pen to pub­lish­ing as a whole. To me it’s…for our busi­ness it’s per­fect. We’ve always been real­ly an infor­ma­tion com­pa­ny. We start­ed out in tech­ni­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion doing con­sult­ing. And one of the things you do as a doc­u­men­ta­tion com­pa­ny is you pla­gia­rize shame­less­ly. You know, you go in, some­body says Oh, we need a man­u­al in two months” and you go, What do you got?” And you take what­ev­er they’ve got and you build on it. 

And real­ly our pub­lish­ing busi­ness real­ly got launched in that same way. We found that we were— We did man­u­als, for exam­ple our X books, which were built on top of the free doc­u­men­ta­tion from MIT. We added val­ue. We went in there, we took some raw mate­r­i­al, we improved it, we arranged, we added to it, we built on it. And turn it into some­thing that we’re able to sell. So here was some­thing that was essen­tial­ly free, and we added val­ue to it in such a way that peo­ple were will­ing to buy it. And for exam­ple, we license it to com­pa­nies, who could have done the same things them­selves. In fact some of them did and they said Gee, it’s cheap­er just to buy it from O’Reilly. Why should we bother?” 

And the Internet pub­lish­ing real­ly fits so com­plete­ly to us because there’s a big ocean of infor­ma­tion out there. There’s so many free resources. But they’re gen­er­al­ly poorly-organized, poorly-maintained, and often rel­a­tive­ly inac­ces­si­ble. So we see enor­mous oppor­tu­ni­ties in what is in a way a very tra­di­tion­al pub­lish­ing activ­i­ty, which is act­ing as a fil­ter, as a selec­tor, as an enti­ty that brings focus in par­tic­u­lar areas.

Malamud: Well but let’s say you’ve come up with the ulti­mate one-page descrip­tion of what send­mail is. You’ve just added some val­ue to the basic man­u­al pages and things. How are you going to sell that? What hap­pens— You know, you put one copy on the net and then every­body else copies it. How do you actu­al­ly base a busi­ness on value-added on an Internet?

O’Reilly: Alright. Well, that’s a good ques­tion. And cer­tain­ly you know, mov­ing tan­gi­ble goods is a very proven eco­nom­ic mod­el. It’s some­thing that every­body knows about, and in fact you know peo­ple, are very com­fort­able with the idea of oh yeah, I bought this book. And they think that they’re buy­ing the hard prod­uct. They don’t real­ize that actu­al­ly that book prob­a­bly cost about two bucks to man­u­fac­ture, even though it may sell for $25. The real cost is in two things: the devel­op­ment of the infor­ma­tion, and the distribution. 

Now, in the Internet, dis­tri­b­u­tion is a lot eas­i­er but it still does­n’t go away. In fact in some ways it’s more dif­fi­cult. People think about the fact that you could put up a serv­er any­where. But the fact is if you real­ly want to get that infor­ma­tion to a lot of peo­ple, you’ve got­ta have a big pipe. So they’ve got to pay for the pipe. And so there are infra­struc­ture issues that need to be devel­oped. By the time you’re serv­ing you know, tens of thou­sands of peo­ple you need a big com­mu­ni­ca­tions pipe, you need a lot of com­put­er equip­ment. So there are real costs and then the ques­tion is how do you recoup those costs. 

With our online pub­li­ca­tions we’re real­ly look­ing at a wide range of mod­els. And we don’t know which one is real­ly going to be the tick­et in the end. Our first online pub­li­ca­tion, some­thing called The Global Network Navigator, which is a World Wide Web-based infor­ma­tion ser­vice, in some ways you can look at it as a com­peti­tor to America Online, with a big dif­fer­ence: we don’t own a lot of the infor­ma­tion that we point to. It’s a lay­er. It’s oil on the water, so it floats on top of the Internet. 

And you say well, gee. How do you get added val­ue? We’re look­ing at three things. One is we’re try­ing to cre­ate areas of edi­to­r­i­al focus that will attract adver­tis­ers, some­thing that’s very anal­o­gous to a tra­di­tion­al print pub­lish­ing. You know, online—not online… Printed mag­a­zines. You know, Communications Week, InfoWorld. Their adver­tis­ers sup­port a pub­li­ca­tion. Somebody says We’re going to cre­ate edi­to­r­i­al con­tent that will attract a cer­tain class of read­ers, and there­fore will get peo­ple to adver­tise because they want to reach those read­ers.” And real­ly we’re look­ing at is an advertiser-supported business. 

A very good exam­ple with­in the mar­ket­place, which is one sec­tion in GNN, we cre­at­ed a trav­el sec­tion to pro­mote a new line of trav­el books we’ve launched. And before long we had a lot of oth­er trav­el pub­lish­ers who want to put their infor­ma­tion and were will­ing to pay us to basi­cal­ly put infor­ma­tion up so that the peo­ple who come to this area on the net say Oh yeah, this is the best resource for trav­el. We’ll come there.” And then they can go to the catalog. 

People right now think oh, it’s easy you know. You just put up a Gopher cat­a­log, or even put up a web serv­er. But the fact is that once you Get past the nov­el­ty val­ue and you have tens of thou­sands of servers on the net, nobody’s gonna notice but your own cus­tomers. And so there’s still a role for edi­to­r­i­al con­tent to draw adver­tis­ers. And what’s more, there’s a real­ly much bet­ter mod­el there than there is in the tra­di­tion­al print pub­li­ca­tion. Right now, you read a mag­a­zine and you cir­cle read­er ser­vice #69 and send off the Bingo card, and six weeks lat­er comes back a pack­et and you scratch your head and say, Why did I get that?” Or maybe it arrives, by then you bought a com­pet­ing prod­uct. Now, with some­thing like the Web with active hyper­text links, you can col­lapse that entire process. There can be an adver­tise­ment, some­body can click on the ad to read it, they go Gee, I want more infor­ma­tion,” they retrieve the spec­i­fi­ca­tions, they go yeah this is real­ly the prod­uct they want, they can click some­where else, and send an order by email. You can col­lapse that entire process. 


Malamud: Well with direct mail­ing, one of the things you ask is what per­cent­age of the peo­ple you send these things out to actu­al­ly both­er cir­cling the Bingo card, or look­ing at your sem­i­nar brochure. In an elec­tron­ic world it’s much eas­i­er to skip over things. You don’t even have to phys­i­cal­ly turn the page, you can just not both­er click­ing on that ad. What makes you think that peo­ple are gonna actu­al­ly want to go in and look at advertisements?

O’Reilly: Well, our evi­dence is that in fact they do. Part of it is there’s a big bias in a lot of peo­ple who think about the Internet where they Oh, gee, com­mer­cial infor­ma­tion. This is bad.” But it’s all infor­ma­tion and peo­ple want it. Particularly if you’re inter­est­ed in a par­tic­u­lar sub­ject, com­mer­cial infor­ma­tion may be what you want more than the stuff that’s there for free. So, peo­ple do in fact vis­it the mar­ket­place sec­tion of GNN more often than they vis­it the detailed mag­a­zine part that has the in-depth pol­i­cy arti­cles about the Internet, for exam­ple. Because they want com­mer­cial information. 

And a lot of the prob­lem is an edi­to­r­i­al prob­lem. And for us, for so long adver­tis­ing has had only the abil­i­ty to do quick hits. So to try to shake some­body by the lapels and get their atten­tion. And it’s become bas­tardized. In fact if you think about it, the job of an adver­tis­er to get infor­ma­tion that peo­ple want out to those peo­ple, it’s actu­al­ly very very inter­est­ing. We have a cat­a­log that we’ve put out in print. We call ora​.com that’s basi­cal­ly a cat­a­log of our books wrapped in a mag­a­zine. And peo­ple want that mag­a­zine. People have asked us if they can buy it. You know, we’ve made our adver­tis­ing so attrac­tive that peo­ple con­sid­er it worth pay­ing for. And there’s a real edi­to­r­i­al chal­lenge there. So that’s one thread of how we’re try­ing to devel­op an eco­nom­ic mod­el for online pub­lish­ing. In oth­er words, to have peo­ple who want to get their infor­ma­tion out work with us to cre­ate valu­able edi­to­r­i­al con­tent that will draw peo­ple to their prod­uct offerings.

Malamud: Now, the oth­er mod­el in the tra­di­tion­al world is you have adver­tis­ing and you have sub­scrip­tion. Are you going to ask peo­ple to pay per bit of infor­ma­tion, or per month­ly access or some­thing of that sort?

O’Reilly: Well, we’re look­ing at the idea of month­ly sub­scrip­tion fees. This is main­ly dri­ven by anoth­er prod­uct we’re work­ing on called Internet in a Box which is an attempt to make it very easy for peo­ple, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the PC world, to get Internet access all in one. Not every­body wants to be a net surfer,” as the phrase goes now. And GNN real­ly pro­vides a point-and-click inter­face to use­ful Internet infor­ma­tion. At the same time our part­ner in this project, Spry, has put togeth­er a very easy way for peo­ple to get an Internet set­up so that you can basi­cal­ly fill out a form, click, [crosstalk] and the whole thing will set up an account.

Malamud: Several ven­dors are work­ing on a sim­i­lar project.

O’Reilly: So we’re real­ly look­ing to make a prod­uct there that we can sell that will make added val­ue. That’s again anoth­er pos­si­ble rev­enue stream. You actu­al­ly asso­ciate that infor­ma­tion with a tan­gi­ble prod­uct that peo­ple are will­ing to buy. 

But any­way, in con­nec­tion with that we felt that it may be nec­es­sary for us to offer GNN as a priced prod­uct so that we can then bun­dled it in with the prod­uct, just sort of— In many ways it’s estab­lish­ing the per­cep­tion of val­ue as it is the actu­al val­ue you offer. 


Malamud: You’re a busi­ness­man on the Internet. The Internet start­ed out as an ARPA research project. It start­ed out with a very…populous, non-commercial, research…flair. Is it good to have busi­ness­men in this world? Are you going to be able to suc­cess­ful­ly fit into this cul­ture of a non-commercial Internet? Or is a non-commercial Internet just a myth?

O’Reilly: Well there’s two sep­a­rate issues there. One is I don’t think that the Internet has ever been non-commercial. It was just whose goals was it serv­ing. You know, in the old days of the ARPANET, it was serv­ing the goals of the peo­ple who were work­ing with the gov­ern­ment on the var­i­ous projects. Those are very def­i­nite­ly com­mer­cial activities. 

Now it’s sort of gone out, and by cross-fertilization with Usenet it’s sort of seen as the uni­ver­sal access medi­um. And in my opin­ion, that is its real strength, the fact that indi­vid­u­als can play, that busi­ness­es can play. And the fact is this is a pro­found­ly demo­c­ra­t­ic medi­um, and I think it’s great for every­body to be on it. And it real­ly is a lev­el play­ing field in a way that we have not seen in a long long time.

Now when you say I’m a busi­ness­man, I’m some­body who basi­cal­ly did the tra­di­tion­al start in the garage” kind of thing. And in a way we doing that with our Internet busi­ness­es. We’re not com­ing in as a big busi­ness, we’re sim­ply try­ing to devel­op a prod­uct that peo­ple will find valu­able enough to pay for. 

And I guess that gets onto one of my kicks. I’m real­ly inter­est­ed in find­ing a new mod­el for busi­ness going for­ward through the 90 and into the next…next cen­tu­ry, real­ly. Business by so many peo­ple is seen as exploita­tive. And in fact, you know, there’s no rea­son why busi­ness ide­al­ism is not possible. 

The real chal­lenge of any busi­ness is in fact to pro­duce things that peo­ple val­ue enough to pay for them. And that’s fun­da­men­tal­ly a humane activ­i­ty, you know, if you’re real­ly try­ing to serve peo­ple’s needs. Now, things get caught up in dynam­ics that’re beyond those orig­i­nal goals. But I find that a lot of peo­ple who work in the non­prof­it sec­tor are very…sloppy-minded, in a way, because they’re not sub­ject­ed to that rig­or of the mar­ket­place. I start­ed out with­out an inkling about busi­ness, but I real­ly came to like it. Because it forces you to think through what you’re doing and to real­ly serve some­one. You know, if you can go get a grant to do some worth­while activ­i­ty, all you have to do is con­vince some admin­is­tra­tor some­where. But if you’re actu­al­ly sell­ing a prod­uct you’ve got to con­vince a lot of peo­ple. And you’ve got to real­ly pro­duce some­thing that they want. And I think that’s a real­ly good thing to be added to the Internet mix. 

Now, I’d hate to see it all get con­trolled by a few play­ers. And that to me is a very very dif­fer­ent proposition.

Malamud: Now, you talk about a lev­el play­ing field like we’ve nev­er seen before. What does that mean, and what do we need to do to keep that lev­el play­ing field in place?

O’Reilly: Well, the biggest part of it is simply…when you have a gov­ern­ment peo­ple talk­ing about the National Information Infrastructure or the nation­al infor­ma­tion super­high­way, there real­ly I think are two com­pet­ing mod­els. And one is the Internet, and the oth­er is the cable broad­cast tele­vi­sion mod­el; they talk about the 500 chan­nels. Well, I don’t real­ly— Even 500 chan­nels is not ter­ri­bly inter­est­ing, as long as it’s got one gate­keep­er who sits there and says Oh yeah, you want to put on a pro­gram? Sell it to me.” The Internet is a peer-to-peer medi­um. The fun­da­men­tal nature of it is the same tech­nol­o­gy is used to be a cus­tomer as to be a provider. You know, to be sure run­ning a serv­er is dif­fer­ent than run­ning a client. But, it’s a bidi­rec­tion­al com­mu­ni­ca­tions medi­um. And as long as that’s main­tained as we go for­ward, that we have an infra­struc­ture where the dif­fer­ences between provider and con­sumer are rel­a­tive­ly small, we have an incred­i­ble oppor­tu­ni­ty for it to be a medi­um that empow­ers peo­ple instead of makes them pas­sive vegetables.

Malamud: Well the con­nec­tiv­i­ty to the home appears that it may be pro­vid­ed by the cable com­pa­ny; they may give you tele­phone, or tele­vi­sion, or oth­er ser­vices. It might be pro­vid­ed by the tele­phone com­pa­ny; per­haps ISDN, per­haps fiber. It might be some weird thing like an elec­tri­cal com­pa­ny. But in any case, how do you ensure that every­one can talk to every­one in that envi­ron­ment? Are there laws we need to pass? Do we need the equiv­a­lent of anti-trust laws for the Information Age that says You must have an open inter­face for the set-top box, or you must allow peo­ple to pro­vide service.”

O’Reilly: That’s a tough one. I’m not a good per­son ask ques­tions about laws, because so often laws pro­duce the oppo­site effect from what they intend. I think I’d rather see it sim­ply be that the tech­no­log­i­cal solu­tions that we adopt are open solu­tions. Whether or not… I don’t think the dan— I think the indus­try will pro­duce open solu­tions, in the absence of laws. I think the greater dan­ger is that some­body will…in an ill-advised attempt to get this thing launched, will back a tech­nol­o­gy which is fun­da­men­tal­ly a closed tech­nol­o­gy instead of an open one.

Malamud: Is there a role, then, for the gov­ern­ment to be play­ing? Should they be wor­ry­ing about gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion online? I mean, are there things that our pol­i­cy­mak­ers in Washington should be focus­ing on?

O’Reilly: Well, one of the things that I would love to see gov­ern­ment focus­ing on is how to use the Internet as a com­mu­ni­ca­tions tool. Most peo­ple who are new to the Internet, par­tic­u­lar­ly in big com­pa­nies or in gov­ern­ment, don’t real­ize the full range of its capa­bil­i­ties. They think either of Well we’ll put up an email address and we’ll be flood­ed with mail” or We could put gov­ern­ment data online,” but not real­iz­ing that there’s a con­tin­u­um between those two, and that the Internet is unique­ly suit­ed to play along that con­tin­u­um. For exam­ple when I was talk­ing to some peo­ple at the House and they’re say­ing What should we do?” I said don’t just open the flood­gates for mail. What you want to do is start pub­lish­ing on the Internet, putting out infor­ma­tion about ques­tions that you want feed­back on. You know, putting out your pol­i­cy papers, ask­ing for feed­back about par­tic­u­lar things. Creating direct­ed com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Opening the chan­nels in a way so that it’s guided.

Right now, the noise lev­el on the Internet is pret­ty high and that scares away a lot of the peo­ple who are…I say in big com­pa­nies or in gov­ern­ment, and that’s what dri­ves them towards that mono­lith­ic mod­el where they like to keep it all under con­trol. And in fact, what I think we’re try­ing to devel­op in my busi­ness are mod­els for how do you cre­ate infor­ma­tion spaces in which dia­logue can hap­pen, in which there is direc­tion, there is focus, there is added val­ue, and yet at the same time you keep that won­der­ful qual­i­ty of the Internet where every­body can participate.

Malamud: So just putting vicepresident@​whitehouse.​gov” up as an email address is not real­ly cre­at­ing a very sophis­ti­cat­ed infor­ma­tion space because you’ve only got one avenue to com­mu­ni­cate with the Vice President. It sounds like you’re say­ing that you need a more sophis­ti­cat­ed approach to the Internet if you want to live on that world?

O’Reilly: Well, I guess I’m say­ing that in any con­ver­sa­tion, there are two sides to it and you have to real­ize that there are two sides. When you sim­ply say Here’s my email address, send me mail” you cer­tain­ly open the pos­si­bil­i­ties of get­ting ran­dom input. But heck, you get that with let­ters. And there’s noth­ing real­ly added. The respon­si­bil­i­ty of peo­ple who are in posi­tions of pow­er or in posi­tions of infor­ma­tion high ground, if you like, is to cre­ate invi­ta­tions for par­tic­i­pa­tion. In oth­er words to release infor­ma­tion that gen­er­ates feed­back, to start dia­logues going. So for exam­ple, the kinds of things that I think that any Washington pol­i­cy­mak­er who want­ed to be involved in the Internet would be to try to devel­op con­stituen­cies, peo­ple who are inter­est­ed in the kind of issues that they’re inter­est­ed in get­ting feed­back on, and try to har­ness some of the ener­gy and enthu­si­asm of those peo­ple. People do need direc­tion. And real­ly the activ­i­ty— This kin­da brings it back to pub­lish­ing and my busi­ness. You know, there’s a shap­ing activ­i­ty that peo­ple need to per­form. Now, whether it’s some­body in busi­ness say­ing I have a vision of some­thing that peo­ple want and I’m going to try to build it for them,” that sort of direct human ener­gy, in a way. And in a sim­i­lar way, you know, one of the goals of gov­ern­ment needs to be lead­er­ship. You know. They need to basi­cal­ly have a vision of going some­where. They need to artic­u­late. They need to bring peo­ple in to the dis­cus­sion and get buy-in. And you get buy-in in a way by what you put out as much as by what you take in. 


Malamud: Tim O’Reilly, you talk about build­ing infor­ma­tion spaces. You talk about that hap­pen­ing in gov­ern­ment. You talk about GNN as an infor­ma­tion space. Are we sim­ply talk­ing using Mosaic and the World Wide Web, or are we talking…a whole range of tools that could be brought in to build that space? Are we archi­tects in try­ing to build these vir­tu­al rooms that peo­ple can talk in?

O’Reilly: Well I cer­tain­ly think that the Web is the most inter­est­ing tool, at least from a pub­lish­er’s point of view, that’s cur­rent­ly avail­able on the net. Because it does allow you to put togeth­er infor­ma­tion spaces that map— Basically I think of the Web as a tool for tak­ing a small infor­ma­tion space and map­ping it onto a much larg­er space with hyper­links between the two. Good exam­ple, if you can imag­ine sort of a legal analy­sis doc­u­ment that sort of talks about the case law on a par­tic­u­lar area. And that real­ly becomes a user inter­face to a body of infor­ma­tion. And real­ly that’s one of things that I find most inter­est­ing about the Web, is that— 

Maybe this is jump­ing a lev­el, but I believe that we’re on the verge of a new kind of soft­ware, if you will. You might call it infor­ma­tion­ware.” They used to give away soft­ware so they could sell hard­ware. And then for a long time they gave away information—the man­u­als, the whatever—that went along to sell the soft­ware. Information is the next fron­tier. Well, where’s the val­ue in that infor­ma­tion? What it real­ly is is in cre­at­ing spaces where rel­e­vant infor­ma­tion is grouped, orga­nized, framed, in a way that makes it more use­ful. And the Web I think is very well-suited for that task. 

What peo­ple thought about the prob­lem of online pub­lish­ing, the biggest prob­lem is that the damn book is such a suc­cess­ful medi­um. It’s very hard to think how to do it bet­ter. And peo­ple have tra­di­tion­al­ly looked at how to add val­ue to the book. And the first thing they found was…um…well I’m not sure of the order but, mul­ti­me­dia. You can do won­der­ful things with mul­ti­me­dia. You can do won­der­ful things with hav­ing search inter­faces. And the Web real­ly pro­vides a third thing. Or the Web style of hyper­text tech­nol­o­gy. That is real­ly this idea in which you cre­ate small, man­age­able infor­ma­tion spaces that map into much larg­er spaces. And in fact, what you’re cre­at­ing is a user inter­face to a very large body of data. 

Good exam­ple, GNN includes an online ver­sion of the Whole Internet Catalog from Ed Kohl’s book. And we orig­i­nal­ly did that as a demo, and then we look at it and we said heck, this is a prod­uct. What it is is a point-and-click inter­face to the Internet. The Internet in this case is a very large infor­ma­tion spaces, and what we’ve done is we’ve put togeth­er a small mod­el that is rel­a­tive­ly easy to nav­i­gate through. You can look through it, you can read it. And when you find some­thing you want, you click on a but­ton, and you go to the real thing. And there are a lot of infor­ma­tion prod­ucts that I see pos­si­ble using that mod­el. You know, where you have a large body of infor­ma­tion and then you have a small infor­ma­tion inter­face. And what’s excit­ing to me about this is that it’s a real oppor­tu­ni­ty for pub­lish­ers, because that’s all they’ve ever done. They fig­ure out who are the good authors, what’s the good infor­ma­tion, how do you get to it. And so it becomes a clas­sic pub­lish­ing prob­lem to put those kinds of things together.

Malamud: Are the pub­lish­ers tak­ing to this tech­nol­o­gy? Are they com­ing online?

O’Reilly: Uh…it’s slow, because most pub­lish­ers are tra­di­tion­al­ly not very up-to-date with tech­nol­o­gy. You know, we spent a lot of time when we were first work­ing with this tech­nol­o­gy try­ing to pros­e­ly­tize to pub­lish­ers because we felt the more peo­ple who were using the same kinds of tech­nol­o­gy, the more we cre­ate an inter­est­ing mar­ket­place. And…a lot of them, cer­tain­ly we’re still fight­ing the bat­tle of No no, we want it to have fideli­ty to print.” And in fact that bat­tle is still going on. Products like Adobe Acrobat, which basi­cal­ly guar­an­tee to a pub­lish­er We can make it look just like the print­ed book” are in fact— I think are gonna hold back the indus­try. I think that SGML the markup lan­guage which allows the appear­ance to change depend­ing on the brows­er, the—you know, the way the thing is dis­played, real­ly makes much more sense for an online envi­ron­ment. And that’s where again that fits right in with the Web, which uses HTML as a markup lan­guage. HTML is a DTD for SGML, essentially.

Malamud: Are we going to see a new gen­er­a­tion of pub­lish­ers? Are you the next McGraw Hill, or are they gonna— Are you eat­ing their lunch? [chuck­les]

O’Reilly: Well, I would­n’t say that. Some of these com­pa­nies are so large that— I don’t know that— It’s very dif­fi­cult to aspire—even if one thought it was possible—to want to become that big. But, I think we’re cer­tain­ly being a mod­el for a lot of those pub­lish­ers. We know that in the pub­lish­ing indus­try we’re very very well-known, a lot of peo­ple are study­ing very care­ful­ly what we’re doing, and they’re very very inter­est­ed to hear from us. 

And I think a lot of the com­pa­nies are mov­ing in that direc­tion. Certainly there are ones who are mired in the past, but there are a lot of oth­ers who real­ly see them­selves in the infor­ma­tion busi­ness. And often even own var­i­ous online prop­er­ties as well as print properties. 

Malamud: So do they stomp on you when they come into busi­ness? Are you going to be able to survive?

O’Reilly: I don’t think so. I just… People ask those kinds of ques­tions and they don’t seem that rel­e­vant to me. You know, we grew up in a very com­pet­i­tive mar­ket with our Unix books. There were play­ers who were much big­ger than we were, and the idea was well gee, how are you gonna com­pete? We just did— We did some­thing that was a lit­tle dif­fer­ent. We’d do some­thing that was bet­ter. But it was­n’t head-to-head. It was typ­i­cal­ly in the spaces. You know, we looked and said what are they not doing? And in fact, as areas become more com­pet­i­tive my inter­est is to go some­where else. Similarly, I just start­ed this trav­el com­pa­ny. And in fact, despite the fact that it’s a very com­pet­i­tive mar­ket­place with a lot of play­ers, we’re off to a real­ly good start because we found a dif­fer­ent kind of prod­uct and in fact were able to devel­op coop­er­a­tive rela­tion­ships with some of the lead­ing trav­el pub­lish­ers to help pro­mote our books. We’re doing trades with peo­ple like Lonely Planet where we’re help­ing them to get their stuff on the Internet in return for them pro­mot­ing our books to the trav­el trade. Because there’s syn­er­gy every­where. And so I think that the idea of being stomped on, or stomp­ing, are…not at all where I like to focus. I think that there’s end­less pos­si­bil­i­ties for coex­is­tence and cooperation.

Malamud: And do you think it’s going to be easy for indi­vid­u­als to become pub­lish­ers in the Internet? You know, we hear the AJ Liebling quote that Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one?” Is every­one going to be a pub­lish­er, or is there still a spe­cial­ized group of peo­ple that fill that role?

O’Reilly: Well I think there’s two issues there. One is peo­ple have to real­ize that pub­lish­ing is not as sim­ple as it looks. A lot of the ser­vices that are put up on the net are thrown togeth­er hasti­ly. They’re not main­tained. And yes, you can put some­thing togeth­er but there’s a lot of work that goes into pro­duc­ing a qual­i­ty prod­uct. So, yes the oppor­tu­ni­ty is there, but you have to work at it. You know, it does­n’t just come nat­u­ral­ly that you can throw some­thing up there. You have to build infra­struc­ture to sup­port it, to make it real­ly worth having. 

Malamud: So it’s not mag­ic. You actu­al­ly just got­ta roll up your sleeves and do some work.

O’Reilly: That’s right.

Malamud: That’s a nov­el con­cept. Well there you have it. This has been Geek of the Week. We’ve been talk­ing with Tim O’Reilly.


Malamud: You’ve been lis­ten­ing to Geek of the Week, a pro­duc­tion of the Internet Multicasting Service. To pur­chase an audio cas­sette of this pro­gram, send mail to audio@​ora.​com. You may copy this file and change the encod­ing for­mat, but may not resell the con­tent or make a deriv­a­tive work. 

Support for Geek of the Week comes from Sun Microsystems. Sun, mak­ers of open sys­tems solu­tions for open minds. Support for Geek of the Week also comes from O’Reilly & Associates. O’Reilly & Associates, pub­lish­ers of the Global Network Navigator. Send mail to info@​gnn.​com for more infor­ma­tion. Additional sup­port is pro­vid­ed by HarperCollins and Pearsall. Network con­nec­tiv­i­ty for the Internet Multicasting Service is pro­vid­ed by UUNET Technologies, and MFS DataNet.

Geek of the Week is pro­duced by Martin Lucas, and fea­tures Tungsten Macaque, our house band. This is Carl Malamud for the Internet Multicasting Service, flame of the Internet.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.