RSS
STORE
I know there are some of you who read this headline have just had a near instantaneous reaction to call me out, slap me across the face, and put me in my place. But before you 'flame' me, here me out...
The headline above was not written by me. It is from a republished column on DMW written by web aficionado, maverick blogster and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
In his column Cuban laments about the "stagnation of the Internet" and how it is outperformed by intranets. He's particularly upset that the lack of quality video and multimedia on the Internet. He hates when websites crash and timeout when downloading video.
“For some reason the fact that intranets can significantly outperform Internets and in particular THE Internet is a shocking concept. It shouldn't be,” writes Mark in IntraNets vs InterNets. “It’s a stagnant consumer platform (the Internet). We switched to browsers for most of our PC activity. We are getting to the point where the browser on the net as a platform is becoming stagnant.”
In theory, Cuban surmizes, the intranet can do a much better job. In theory...
Cuban rightly asserts that most Internet throughput speeds are actually much less than 1 MBS (in North America. In Europe and Japan throughput speeds are offen much faster) – even though the advertised number is 3 MBS or up to 10 MBS. However, on the corporate intranet, it is possible to soon have throughput speeds of up to 100 MBS. An equivalent rate on the Internet may be many, many years away.
The nasty truth is that the vast majority of intranets feature little to no video and multimedia because they don’t have the pipes (infrastructure) to carry and deliver video without crashing the intranet. And more pipes and infrastructure cost money. Why would executives invest more money in a cost center like the intranet when potential customers on the Internet are far more important than employees? Besides, there's all the money that needs to be spent on security to proect executives from the war on terror; there's landscaping costs for corporate campuses, etc.
Cuban therefore is talking about the ideal intranet, or for the most part, the theoretical intranet. Yes, some companies have been providing rich multimedia on their intranet for many years. But they are a rare exceptions to the rule.
Not to burst Cuban’s bubble, but the Internet is a smorgasbord of video that has exploded in the past year. In case you’ve been locked in a closet or a Taliban cave, there’s this little website called YouTube. It’s the fourth most visited website on the Internet even though it’s only existed for a little more than a couple of years.
In theory, Cuban is mostly correct. In theory, communism works.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Nice posting Guys...
Comments (3)
Thanks for reading the blog post Toby. Unfortunately you have it wrong
The internet is just intranets connected at peering points. So EVERY piece of video ever seen on the internet was transported on an intranet
m
Posted by mark cuban | July 31, 2007 7:50 PM
Posted on July 31, 2007 19:50
I appreciate the comment Mark and thank you for the interpretation, but perhaps merely our definitions are at odds. I also love the debate... but I think I have you on this one. We'll have to agree to disagree on some points because in my definition, and the most common definition within the intranet community, is that an intranet is a protected space or network behind a firewall that the world cannot access. The Internet is the opposite. I do however like your analogy of Internet being a series of intranets connected at peering points. However, you are contradicting yourself, as exemplified in your DMW headline: The Internet is Dead, Long Live the Intranet. Here's where the friendly debater kicks in (I am not trying to put you in your place but rather trying to let you see the world from my reality, and I've seen a lot of intranets): if the Internet is dead, but only a series of intranets, then isn't the intranet dead, too? Really though this is all semantics... my point really is this: the vast, vast majority of corporate intranets are really quite poor, and probably less than 5% feature any video at all (and certainly not the volumes that you can find on YouTube). Most companies just don't have the pipes to support it and don't want to pay for it. Let me finish by asking you this: do the Dallas Mavericks provide a lot of video on their intranet? How are your pipes?
Posted by Toby Ward | August 2, 2007 1:44 AM
Posted on August 2, 2007 01:44
Nice posting Guys
Posted by Intranet Portal | October 4, 2008 2:09 AM
Posted on October 4, 2008 02:09