Chris has some great observations regarding the business of Free, the Long Tail, open source, some insights on the Microsoft/Yahoo deal, and (listen up my radio buddies) he gave props to broadcast media, referring to the internet and “the triumph of the media model”. I also was intrigued with his take on the difference between Google and Yahoo! He did mention a bit about production quality not being as important to a hyper-targeted group…something I take a bit of issue with.
All in all…good stuff. What would have made it great? Simple, more time. If the last topic got off the ground. Check the last two minutes…Rose: “Are we going to continue to lead in the internet age?” Anderson: “Everything I believe is written on the back of the iPhone. ‘Designed in California. Made in China.” His contention that the USA’s place in the world is that we design it and they make it.
Now right or wrong (which Rose thought he was), agree or disagree (and Rose did) this is where the interview could have really taken off. Conflict baby, that is what makes the conversation really interesting. I personally couldn’t think of better people to watch disagree than these two. Unlike the shoutfests I see, and did see this very day on CNN about the Spitzer case, I’m quite confident that it would have been a great debate (and probably was once the cameras were off).
Why is this? Why did something that had such great potential for making this encounter reach beyond a good interview into the realm of great…stop? Beats me. I don’t think there is anything afoot here, no issues, no conspiracy. It just did.
My point is that a friendly lively discussion is just fine but what creates emotion, creates entertainment, creates something memorable that we’ll all talk about tomorrow is usually a bit of conflict. Ain’t nothing wrong with it.What makes it even better is when those embroiled in the conflict can shake hands and part as friends without raising voices or leaping from their seats once the discussion is done.