Tuesday, March 21, 2006

All you need to know about WEB 2.0 (Insert choir of Angels!)

One of the most interesting thing about entering the world of blogging is that it opens your eyes to where the Internet is really heading. One little catch phrase that has been baffling me for the past few months is "web 2.0". I was convinced, for some ungodly reason, that somehow they had changed the whole infrastructure of the web or HTML or something behind the scenes to revoutionise it and that if I didn't keep up that I would be left with a cabinet of tapes when everyone else was inserting their CDs.

The reality is far more interesting.

Web 2.0 is a concept, or a change of thinking. It relates back to the dot.com collapse and is an attempt to explain and carry forward the business models that survived the devastation and rose from the ashes. tim.oreilly.com has an excellent rundown of the historical foundations of "Web 2.0" as well as a concise discussion of successful "Web 2.0" design principles as evidenced in models such as Amazon, eBay, flikr, upcoming.org and, you guessed it, del.icio.us. See, I'm jumping on all the bandwagons! (hint: this is where you will find out about "folksonomies").

The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.

Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.

Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.

Some Rights Reserved
Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."

The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are ongoing services. Therefore: Don't package up new features into monolithic releases, but instead add them on a regular basis as part of the normal user experience. Engage your users as real-time testers, and instrument the service so that you know how people use the new features.

Cooperate, Don't Control
Web 2.0 applications are built of a network of cooperating data services. Therefore: Offer web services interfaces and content syndication, and re-use the data services of others. Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely-coupled systems.

Software Above the Level of a Single Device
The PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications, and applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected. Therefore: Design your application from the get-go to integrate services across handheld devices, PCs, and internet servers.

Check out the whole article here.

Tags: , ,

4 Comments:

At 9:15 pm, Blogger D said...

It's amazing - and so elegantly simple - the way that language determines (and not simply describes) reality.

Just giving a name to what for the most part could be argued as a series of disparate technological developments, elements of social organisation, or economic trends, generates something tantalisingly tangible (which of course, it isn't).

I think there is a confusion between 'Web 2.0' functionality (i.e. the dissolving difference between computing done 'on' a pc and that done through the web), and the economics of all the new money flowing to provide this.

I am amazed by the amnesia! The latest IT startups will always promise the next revolution: that they hold the 'killer app', and that, thanks to them "The way we do things is going to change forever!'. Yawn.

I wonder if it is simply that all of those who found themselves in the gutter clinging to their failed business models after the .com crash, have suddenly learned that venture-capitalists are once again awash with more cash than sense?

 
At 10:17 pm, Blogger walypala said...

Yes, yes, yes! It is amazing. It is simple. It is elegant. But it is also true, for better or worse.

"The limits of my language are the limits of my world" (just had to wheel that old chestnut out...)

These linguistic shifts can matter though. They can be rallied around, whether it is to stupidly and absent-mindedly throw money at (and I have no hesitation in saying that that is going to happen) or to spur innovation.

Everyone with money wants to jump on a bandwagon. Entrepreneurs are like lemmings and will happily follow each other off of a precipice. It is the ones that survive that make the difference.

I think the beauty of "web 2.0" is that it is not proposing a 'killer app', it is that 'the way we do things' is actually changing. Users are driving the change not companies or applications. Users are picking up on innovative ideas and vaulting them.

This may be a naive take on it. A new dot.com boom based on "web 2.0" will be no more stable than that that of the early nineties, if anything it will be more unstable because the end user is the deciding factor and they are incredibly picky.

Look at the companies that have "made it", upcoming, blogger, flickr. Their success has come from being bought out by Google and Yahoo! I think that therein lies the rub for "web 2.0" because the focus on functionality not profit.

The money lenders will lend money freely and the spenders will spend, businesses will go out of business but the web will be all the better for it.

 
At 12:00 am, Blogger D said...

I guess I am more cynical, especially with the sheen of google and yahoo tarnishing slightly of late, and their share prices reflecting this.

I wonder, for instance, how (other than directing users through yahoo) flickr makes any money? Is it another long-term loss-leader? And if so, could the subscription fee begin any day now?

I wonder the same with blogger? Is the idea to develop the consumer demand, amass enormous amounts of data and loyal users, before the business model finally kicks in?

 
At 12:14 am, Blogger walypala said...

flickr has a "Pro" account that you have to pay for. One of those "okay you're used to using us now make it so much better and subscribe" deals.

Blogger started with a "Pro" account and now they have dropped it. I think Google now makes money through the AdSense program placing GoogleAds through pages when the blogger requests it.

With services like del.icio.us I am not sure. There seems to be no revenue except, like you say, loss-leading for yahoo.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home