How fitting for cyberspace–a virtual controversy! But one worth visiting, since both the argument and its ultimate resolution provide a telling glimpse of the Internet as it approaches maturity.
But first, an explanation of push. It is simply software that automatically sends, or pushes, information to users, as opposed to pull, which requires the user to go out and find information. What’s pushed to users can be electronic junk mail, but more often it’s the stuff they’ve expressed an interest in seeing: if someone is passionately interested in the stock price of IBM, or the weather in Boston, or articles about the Russian mafia, it simply shows up, either via the Web browser or in the e-mail in-box. In some cases, pushed content can be an entire Web site.
Think of it this way: pull is going to the newsstand and buying a paper. Push is daily delivery to your doorstep. Venturing out to Tower Records is pull. Joining a CD club that sends you the disc of the month is push. All advertising and direct mail is, of course push. More to the point, television is the ultimate push–all that’s asked of you is to select a channel from a fairly limited set, and from that moment you can perform vegetable imitations.
So far the Web has worked with pull–the user is an active navigator, constantly making choices. But last year a clever company named PointCast figured out that it could push information to Web-connected users during the times that its computer was idle–like a screen saver–and suddenly imitators and innovators alike began developing their own push ideas. They claim push can speed up the deadly pace of Web browsing by downloading when the computer is otherwise dozing. And it can also make the Internet more attractive to advertisers, who will not only be assured that their messages will be received, but that in many cases, the readers will be ideal targets. (If someone has asked to be “pushed” stock quotes, he or she is probably a good candidate to buy mutual funds.) The Yankee Group estimates that “desktop delivery,” as it calls push, will eventually generate $4.6 billion in annual revenues, more than a third of all dollars reaped on the Net. Cool.
But push has its enemies, particularly those who see the Internet less as a business venture than a revolutionary means of widening the range of free speech. To these purists, the very essence of the Web is its openness and free-ranging choice. By definition, pull equates with interactivity. And interactivity is what the Net is all about, isn’t it? Otherwise, we’re left with television.
Sure enough, in the past few months, the big players in Internet content have been free and loose with assertions that the Web’s destiny lies in emulating the boob tube. Some of this talk comes from escapees from the vast wasteland itself; America Online has not only taken on Bob Pittman, creator of MTV, but more recently has tapped former NBC programming honcho Brandon Tartikoff as a consultant. Microsoft Network speaks of introducing its sites in “seasons,” and yanking those with insufficient ratings. And both Microsoft and Netscape are rolling out new versions of the desktop–the software that dominates the screen when you’re not running your word processor–that not only integrates the Web browser but offers specific “channels” of Internet content.
This “Webcasting” concept sends push opponents into apoplexy. They fear the emergence of the Web Potato, who limits cyberspace travels to preselected sites–mass-market channels transmitting electronic kibble much in the spirit of network TV. Meanwhile, goes the compliant, all those innovative little sites with no access to channels will wither and die.
In my mind, though, the anti-pushers doth protest too much. It isn’t the technology that worries them–they’re tortured by their own belief that the lowest common denominator will prevail. But in this medium, that need not be. The history of the Internet so far has shown that cyberspace is bottom-up phenomenon. Trends are passed along by word of mouse–not passed down from summits.
I suspect that push technology will coexist quite nicely with pull, without affecting the spirit of the Net. Here’s some evidence At last week’s San Diego conference, host David Coursey polled the audience to find that many had installed PointCast on their machines. Then came the follow-up: how many were still using it? Only about a tenth of the first group responded. That’s right–even though PointCast claims 1.2 million active users, nine out of 10 people in this bunch had turned it off. Whether the reason was that it clogged the corporate network, or proved an on-screen eyesore, or simply just didn’t deliver information as well as good old pull, this early attempt at push hadn’t captured these users. Maybe the next version will do better. Or maybe the emergence of intelligent software agents–programs that automatically search according to people’s individual preferences–will make push technology easier to take.
One thing seems clear, though. If Web surfers don’t like push, they’ll know just what to do: shove it.
