It's been a little while since I read "The Long Tail", but I'm pretty sure that Anderson specifically says that the blockbuster isn't going away. The head will always be there. What's interesting is the development and lengthening of the tail.

Anderson is so incredibly misunderstood. He makes the same, single point over and over: interconnectivity makes niches easier to reach. That's it. No "the blockbuster is dead", no "throw away everything you've ever learned about running your business", nothing even all that profound. He simply points out that niches are easier to reach, that they function a little differently than blockbusters, and by the way, there is a long history of established business techniques to address them. I don't understand why anything he says is even controversial. He's not saying anything new, simply making an observation. Weird.

Andrew Orlowski is no hack. The Register (which he writes for) just holds a view against the U.S. mainstream, being a British publication.

I don't know exactly what a hack is, but the article uses a writing style that makes me think the author is short on evidence. For example: 'the Wired editor’s theories have no sticking power and the backlash against him has begun"

"have no sticking power" is an untestable claim, and "backlash" can be as little as one person writing a blog post that says "Chris Anderson's long tail theory is wrong, wrong, wrong." The only specific examples cited of evidence are a reference to Rupert Murdoch and the discussion of a study by Page and Bud.

To me, it's pretty unimpressive article, but I will confess to holding a previous conviction that Orlowski is a pinhead. I'd be glad to hear counter-arguments.

It might be more accurate to say that the Register just goes around denigrating everything popular, well-known, or well-liked...being a British publication.

Seriously, I've never read anything in the Register that wasn't an attack piece on something popular. It's the tech equivalent of the type of tabloid that that revels in airing the dirty laundry of the rich and famous, with some sub-par trolling added as "commentary".

Well, one man's hack is another mans journalist.

Unfortunately, after a reading various pieces by Andrew Orlowski over the course of the past decade, my conclusion is that he has low standards for fact, and poor taste in opinions. Ergo, a hack.