April 1997, Vol. 8, No. 4

Push-me, pull-you

Are the Internet technology companies being two-faced about 'push'?

Dr. Dolittle, that fictional physician who could converse with the creatures, eventually encountered a two-headed animal in one of Hugh Lofting’s classic illustrated books. The beast, called a pushmi-pullyu, attempted to show children the dichotomy of duplicity.

As the various technology and publishing industry periodicals have thundered out over the last few months, "pull" technology -- the most familiar being the browsers of the World-Wide Web -- is dated, if not archaic, whereas "push" technology -- the most familiar being the print version of this very newsletter, but which also includes Internet technologies such as PointCast -- is the current cat’s pajamas.

More than 18 months ago, I had the opportunity to start looking at push technologies -- it’s one of the perks of living so near Silicon Valley. I was mildly interested, but not so swayed that I was ready to throw out my browser.

But the technology has taken off in the last few months, and traditional publishers are piling on to get the various systems available. Thus, it seemed worthwhile to point Christopher J. Feola (correspondent, educator, columnist, web master -- oh, and business editor of the Waterbury Republican-American in Connecticut) at the issue of Push v. Pull.

Inside, you can pull at his thoughts, which, strangely enough, appear to coincide with my own. (I didn't push him. Honest.)

Also inside is a look at another confab -- this one the RealMedia Conference sponsored by Progressive Networks of Seattle, the developers of the RealAudio and RealVideo data formats. Using these products, Internet publishers can distribute "streaming" audio and video that appear on the users' computer in "real time" -- that is, the user doesn't have to wait for the entire data file to download before the information can be replayed.

In attendance was Houston Chronicle Interactive’s David Galloway. When he let me know some important issues were being discussed, I assigned him to give you the RealScoop. (I'll also note that Galloway details methods for giving good video on the Web; this is a Cole Papers first, but I don't expect it to be a last.)

It’s all well and good to develop different distribution methods and different data types, but how do you build an information organization that can operate effectively at the end of the 20th century? Correspondent L. Carol Christopher, who has looked at team-oriented newspapers before, turns her gaze toward The Oregonian in Portland, the Tampa Tribune in Florida and the Wichita Eagle in Kansas.

All have recently implemented team organizations in their respective newsrooms, and all report a degree of success from the alterations. This contrasts with the e-mail I got from the managing editor of one major metropolitan daily, who said, "I'd rather rub [excrement] in my hair than organize a team-based newsroom."

Lastly, we give a trio of suppliers the opportunity to respond to an article we printed in January, Michael Tucker’s "Crossroads for the industry: toward growth or the exit ramp."

First to deliver his thoughts was David Tenenbaum, the president of T/One Inc. of Quincy, Mass. Next up was Steve Nilan, formerly the vice president of marketing and business development of System Integrators Inc. of Sacramento (he is currently a consultant for many companies, including SII).

Last in was Richard Cichelli, the president of the venerable Software Consulting Services of Nazareth, Pa.

All quarrel with Tucker, to a greater or lesser degree, and all make good points.

Is push technology really feline sleepwear? Some might find that the comfort of such a familiar concept doesn't outweigh its inherent problems. But they might put their publication on a push system anyway.

Kind of like the pushmi-pullyu.

-- David M. Cole