Good analysis, as far as it goes 

Mike Arrington's take on "bubble or no bubble" makes sense, as far as it goes, but it contains a couple unstated assumptions, doesn't it? I buy the Network Effect argument, but it assumes that eyeballs equal revenue -- and underneath that assumption is another one that revenue comes from ads.

It doesn't seem to me that the bottom will fall out of web advertising anytime very soon, and lots of entreprenuers and investors will make money while it holds up. That will be enough for gamblers who think in 18-month chunks. I'm just not sure about the sustainability of the ad market longer term, and I think the smartest startups with wider fields of vision will be experimenting with other ways to earn their keep.

The PC isn't closer to the TV? 

Michael Gartenberg has to know more about convergence than I do, but when he says "A year later, the PC isn't much closer to the TV," it doesn't feel true to me. Is there some subtlety or irony I'm missing?