Weekly Edition
Return to the Letters page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
CNET succumbs to FUD or were allways part of it
(Log in to post comments)
CNET succumbs to FUD or were allways part of it Posted Jun 5, 2003 4:14 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] I don't think FUD has much to do with it. They're just scaling back immensely. They also sent me e-mail (an unsolicited advertisement, when it comes right down to it) telling me that they wanted to charge me a "one time fee" of $79 to have my app remain listed in their MS Windows software directory. No thanks, guys.Stabbing your content-providers in the back isn't exactly the best business model, and I expect the whole thing to fail pretty shortly. But it's a real shame that com.com bought up all the various freeware/shareware listing sites that used to exist -- consolidate and then collapse, and then there's nothing left.
CNET succumbs to FUD or were allways part of it Posted Jun 5, 2003 13:34 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] I've always thought that grabbing 'com.com' was a bit pretentious anyway... almost as much as 'we are the dot in dot-com', which I suppose isn't much of a slogan these days, hey? :-)
CNET succumbs to FUD or were allways part of it Posted Jun 5, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] It's not pretentious, it's slimy. They do it so all of their sites can share cookies.
"com.com" Posted Jun 5, 2003 23:27 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] And it's worse than that, cause it makes some things (like sites with misconfiguredDNS :-) violently ill. Not to mention the training aspect.. People *never* think.
|
|
||||||||||||