Lightweight Models and Cost Effective Scalability

“Lightweight Models and Cost-Effective Scalability. Agile software-development techniques are ideally suited to support rapid release cycles, so they have a readiness for change. Integrate lightweight development and deployment processes as complements to the perpetual beta. Combine this with low-cost, commodity components to build a scalable, fault-tolerant operational base.”  (John Musser, 2006)

Google Buzz
It feels like there is not a day where Google is not updating or publishing a new service. Google Buzz is the latest service that is being rolled out on to all Gmail users. It is a social networking service to share updates, photos, videos and more with contacts. Google Buzz is a direct competitor to both Facebook and Twitter. Basically, Google Buzz is a social networking.

“Our belief is that organizing the social information on the web — finding relevance in the noise — has become a large-scale challenge, one that Google’s experience in organizing information can help solve. We’ve recently launched innovations like real-time search and Social Search, and today we’re taking another big step with the introduction of a new product, Google Buzz…..We focused on building an easy-to-use sharing experience that richly integrates photos, videos and links, and makes it easy to share publicly or privately (so you don’t have to use different tools to share with different audiences).”  (Todd Jackson, 2010)

The Mobile Aspect

“On your phone, Google Buzz is much more than just a small screen version of the desktop experience. Mobile devices add an important component to sharing: location. Posts tagged with geographical information have an extra dimension of context — the answer to the question “where were you when you shared this?” can communicate so much. And when viewed in aggregate, the posts about a particular location can paint an extremely rich picture of that place.”  (Todd Jackson, 2010)
According to Todd Jackson, Product Manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, they relied on other services’ openness in order to build Buzz.  He highlighted that you can connect Flickr and Twitter from Buzz in Gmail, as Google Buzz itself designed NOT to be a closed system. He also added that Google’s goal is to make Buzz a fully open and distributed platform for conversations.
Google buzz will be accessible via mobile in three ways:

1. from Google Mobile’s website,
2. from Buzz.Google.com (iPhone and Android)
3. from Google Mobile Maps.

The Google Buzz page contains buzz posted by the owner of the account and by the followed users. This is similar to Twitter. Google will automatically pick a few contacts that will be followed automatically and will post Google Reader shared items, Picasa Web public albums, and Google Chat status messages automatically on that page.
Although it seems that Google buzz functionality may have been similar to other application, but there are some things the competition doesn’t have.  “They’ve got some of the best mobile updating support around with an emphasis on location sharing.  The ability to pull images from an included link for sharing, in-stream video sharing, and inbox integration all make Buzz as, if not more appealing, than Twitter.”  (Techno Buffalo, 2010)

Issues of Google Buzz
One of the major obstacles to Google Buzz’s growth is that of the ‘privacy issue’. Since it’s linked directly into Gmail, people can potentially figure out your email address. Compared to a non-public Buzz account without a username would be more difficult to figure out. In respond to this issues, Google has made some serious privacy tweaks, making auto-follow into auto-suggest and giving the user the ability to completely kill Buzz if choose to do so.
“In that sense, Google will get the best of both worlds: it has seeded Google Buzz with people and content via the auto-follow and automatic opt-in features, but it won’t feel the heat for privacy issues due to the recent changes to both.”  (Par, 2010)

Future of Google Buzz

The popularity of Google buzz has been increasing day by day. We can connect with our friends’ right on Google’s Gmail home page. Google buzz is based on the idea of collaboration, and that is the vital point of emphasis for many social networking sites moving forward. It has been designed to collaborate with other Google applications and tools.All the problems related to privacy issues will become viable once the Google Apps version is introduced.
While it’s still very early into Buzz’s life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands. Linking Buzz to Gmail’s millions of users has clearly brought people into the company’s new social domain.
To give a clear indication of what to expect in the future of Google Buzz, “Google has only released two numbers so far: there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours, amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour. The other number: over 200 mobile check-ins per minute, nearly 300,000 mobile check-ins per day.”  (Par, 2010)
It is worth noticing that this figure was generated recently bearing in mind, Google Buzz was only launched in February 2010. Pretty impressive if I may say so.

Sources

• John Musser, T. o. (2006). Web 2.0 Principle and Best Practice. Retrieved May 2010, from O’reilly Radar: http://oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdf
• Par, B. (2010). Google Buzz Has Completely Changed the Game : Here’s How. Retrieved May 2010, from Mashable.com: http://mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/
• Techno Buffalo. (2010). This Social networking fragmentation has to stop. Retrieved May 2010, from Technobuffalo: http://www.technobuffalo.com/blog/google/this-social-networking-fragmentation-has-to-stop
• Todd Jackson. (2010). Introducing Google Buzz. Retrieved May 2010, from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/introducing-google-buzz.html

Leveraging The Long Tail

Chris Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, has been discussing a concept he calls The Long Tail for quite some time now.

“The theory of the Long Tail is that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of “hits” (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve and toward a huge number of niches in the tail. As the costs of production and distribution fall, especially online, there is now less need to lump products and consumers into one-size-fits-all containers. In an era without the constraints of physical shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly-targeted goods and services can be as economically attractive as mainstream fare.”  (Anderson, 2004)

The Long Tail is about focusing on the less popular content that previously couldn’t be accessed because of some physical limitation: most often shelf space. (Porter, 2005)

An example of the long tail is Netflix. Netflix is the world’s largest online movie rental service, providing more than 13 million subscribers access to more than 100,000 DVD titles plus a growing library of more than 5,000 choices that can be watched instantly on their PCs. The company offers four subscription plans, starting at $8.99 per month. The good thing about Netflix is that there are no due dates and no late fees.

“Among the large and expanding base of devices that can stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix right to members’ TVs are Microsoft’s Xbox 360 and Sony’s PS3 game consoles and, this spring, Nintendo’s Wii console; Blu-ray disc players from Samsung, LG and Insignia; Internet TVs from LG, Sony and VIZIO; the Roku digital video player and TiVo digital video recorders; and Apple’s iPad tablet .”  (Netflix, 2010)

All Netflix plans include both DVDs delivered to subscribers’ homes and, for no additional fee, movies and TV series that can be started in as little as 30 seconds on subscribers’ PCs. DVDs are delivered free to members by first class mail, with a postage-paid return envelope, from over 100 U.S. shipping points. Netflix claims most titles arrive at a subscriber’s address ‘about one business day’ after shipping. There are some complaints, however, that Netflix engages in “throttling” or servicing customers that rent fewer titles first, over more frequent renters. Netflix says it loses money on customers who are paying less than $2.00 per rental.  When this occurs Netflix most likely punishes them by

1) slowing down their rental shipments,
2) reporting returned rentals as received days later than they actually were,
3) giving them lowest priority for movies in high demand.

Whether for this or other reasons, at times titles on a subscriber’s list might be shipped out of order or delayed.

Several issues of Netflix are:

• Poor/nonexistent customer service
• Monthly subscription fee (even if you don’t rent anything)
• Slow turnaround time (from the time you return a movie and get one back is approx. 1 wk.)
• Frequent renters get penalized with even slower turnaround time
• service deteriorates after free trial (bait and switch)
• Long waits on new releases
• No shipments on Saturday, Sunday or holidays
• Most DVDs are badly scratched and may not play (advice)
• Broken & lost DVDs through the mail
• Rentals do not arrive in the order requested

The above information has been adopted from http://manuelsweb.com/netflix.htm#throttling
(Villanueva, 2010)

The future of Netflix.

According to an article entitle “Netflix:Smart Website Design and Long Tail Strategy Will Drive Growth (NFLX), Barry McCarthy, the Chief Financial Officer of Netflix expressed that Netflix will make it to 20 million subscribers by 2010 – 2012.  “He pointed out that a key driver to their growth will be the superiority of their website design and proprietary algorithms. He also points out that “among online retail businesses we have been rated the best website on the internet and as we grow, our objective is to become an iconic brand.” He sees brand loyalty, strong customer satisfaction and personalization as being key components to their growth.”  (Seeking alpha, 2005)

According to the article “The future of Netflix is all about Streaming” by Daniel A.Begun, “Netflix is gearing up to move all of its eggs from the mail-distribution basket to the online streaming basket.” (A.Begun, 2009) According to the article, Netflix might start offering online-streaming-only subscription plans. Although there are no indication of how many customer have opted for this streaming only option, but this plan represents the beginning of where Netflix is headed.

      

Sources

• A.Begun, D. (2009). The future of Netflix is all about streaming. Retrieved May 2010, from hothardware: http://hothardware.com/News/The-Future-of-Netflix-is-All-About-Streaming/
• Anderson, C. (2004). The Long Tail. Retrieved March 2010, from Wired: http://thelongtail.com/about.html
• Netflix. (2010). How it works. Retrieved May 2010, from Netflix: http://www.netflix.com
• Porter, J. (2005). Long tail and Web 2.0. Retrieved May 2010, from Bokardo: http://bokardo.com/archives/long-tail-web2/
• Seeking alpha. (2005). Netflix: smart website design and long tail strategy will drive growth (NFLX). Retrieved May 2010, from Seeking Alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/4352-netflix-smart-website-design-and-long-tail-strategy-will-drive-growth-nflx
• Villanueva, M. (2010). what is Netflix. Retrieved 2010, from Manuelsweb: http://manuelsweb.com/netflix.htm#throttling

Perpetual Beta

One common theme across many Web 2.0 services is that the services are in what is referred to as ‘perpetual beta’. What this means is that the service will not  leave the development stage.

According to Tim O’Reilly,  the classic software release cycle is becoming too slow and self-focused for modern companies and that companies should never stop to enhance their applications and services with help from community. This brings back to last week’s notion that software is not a product but a service. A service can be outdated in several months, which bring us to the question of who want a service that becomes outdated in several month? Companies should improve their service constantly which means having to release new functionalities every couple of weeks.

Google is a great example of perpetual beta as Google is known for keeping their products in beta. Some notable Google products that are still in beta which includes Gmail, Google Docs, Google Finance, Orkut etc.

“Gmail is a free, search-based webmail services that combines the best features of traditional email with Google’s search technology.  Gmail makes locating messages so easy thay you’ll never need to shuffle mail in your inbox again.  Besides offering an entirely new way of reading and tracking messages, Gmail includes over 5 GB of storage space – and we’ll keep giving you more space as we’re able.   Best of all, it’s free.”  (Gmail, 2010)

Back in the days, “Gmail used to be available by invitation only.  The growth was limited by only allowing users to invite a limited number of their friends to open account.  This let Gmail maintain a reputation as being elite and created demand as well as limiting growth. The limited invitation system however was officially ended on February 14^th 2007.”  (Karch, 2009)

Storage spaces have been Gmail’s main feature. When it was first introduced, Gmail offer 1 GB of storage in an era when few web-based email providers offered more than 50 megabytes.  As other email service provider added more storage to compete, Gmail added other feature such as chat, draft auto save, keyboard shortcuts and of course continually increasing the available storage space.

Besides providing huge amount of storage space, Gmail also provide spam filtering which is a very effective one I must say.  “It also includes virus protection which cannot be turn off and prevent you from sending an executable file as an attachment.  This limits some of what we can do with a Gmail account but in a way it would prevent more mischief that it causes.”  (Karch, 2009)

“Gmail is one of the best, if not the best free email services out there.”  (Karch, 2009)

So is perpetual beta an issue? Some of above example are a very well known and use product but why are they still label beta? Maybe Google are trying to redefine the word beta itself.  Typically, the beta label is only used for product that are not considered fully tested or that still lack important functionality. Now when it comes to Gmail, it has been around since April 2004. Similar with Orkut, it has been around since January 2004 and yet there are still in beta after more than six years. Well, no one really knows why.

Back to the original discussion, Gmail as you can see is a great product so does it really matter if the developers want to consider it beta? It seems that beta labels are there to specify how much consumers should trust the software they are using and how much input they may have in its development.  The beta stages of the release process consist of developer trying to narrow down the scope of their features. It is where debugging and optimizing really become important.  However, the system is still in web application and thus still alive and changing.

To conclude, I don’t really think perpetual beta matters too much.  At the end of the day beta labels are just semantics.  The argument can be made that by keeping ready software in a perpetual beta will eventually worsen the notion of what a beta really is.

Resources

• Gmail. (2010). What is Gmail. Retrieved April 2010, from Gmail: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6554
• Karch, M. (2009). What’s so great about Gmail? Retrieved April 2010, from Google: http://google.about.com/od/emailandchat/fr/gmailrev.htm
• Lapidos, J. (2009). Why is Gmail still in Beta. Retrieved 2010, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2215622/
• Web Developers Notes. (2010). What is Gmail. Retrieved April 2010, from Web Developers Notes: http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/tips/gmail/what-is-gmailo.php

Software Above Level of Single Device

One of the key principle and core ideas of Tim O’Reilly Web 2.0 is “Software above the level of a single device”.  According to Tim, it is for software that you interact with across multiple devices, basically it is a software that functions on more than one device.

“But as with many areas of Web 2.0, where the “2.0-ness” is not something new, but rather a fuller realization of the true potential of the web platform, this phrase gives us a key insight into how to design applications and services for the new platform.”

“To date, iTunes is the best exemplar of this principle. This application seamlessly reaches from the handheld device to a massive web back-end, with the PC acting as a local cache and control station. There have been many previous attempts to bring web content to portable devices, but the iPod/iTunes combination is one of the first such applications designed from the ground up to span multiple devices. TiVo is another good example.”  (O’Reilly, 2005)

I agree that iTunes is a great example and a popular one I may say. as it has the potential of a new application model beyond the web browser, where our computer acts as a control and management station for a handheld device, managing that device’s access both to our computer’s data and the internet cloud. But let move away from iTunes and talk about other application such as Microsoft Windows Media Player (WMP).

Windows Media Player has been recognize to be the all-in-one entertainment player of choice on PC, laptop or workstation. WMP allows users to store, view and access their downloaded media files in one place. At the same time allowing music video, movie clips from many freeware sites, MP3 files, other free and subscription-based music clips, and other digital media files to be viewed on the latest Windows Media Player.

Lots of efforts are made by Microsoft into creating a seamless digital-media environment for the user, the software, the service and portable devices. The interface has been made much simpler and more visual, pretty much like iTunes.

Users can also listen to numerous Internet radio stations by clicking the relevant tabs. The media player can do a lot more than just play media, it can also rip music from assorted formats that you would like to add to your MP3 and MP4 player.

WMP will also play streaming videos, DVDs, and all sorts of digital video formats.  iTunes is only concerned with music playback.  To be fair, downloading iTunes will also give you the latest version of Quicktime, which will handle all of your video files.  But WMP puts everything in one place therefore you only need to familiarize yourself with one program to play all of your media.

Having the ability to interact with almost any portable media device. WMP can interact and sync music and videos with devices such as Sony Walkman MP3, Creative Zen players, and many more. It can also burn movies and music onto discs. And it can also be used to record live TV.

click here to see a short review of Windows Media Player 11

ITunes vs. Windows Media Player

“ITunes has the benefit of being compatible with the most popular portable digital devices–iPod and iPhone. It is the premier software tool to update these devices. Many other MP3 players cannot communicate with iTunes. But if you are an iPod or iPhone user, the iTunes software is the most convenient. Windows Media Player and Real Player can’t sync with iPod or iPhones, they can only sync the requested media to iTunes. ITunes then has to complete the task of syncing the media to your device. ITunes can also play media files just as well as Windows Media Player 11 and Real Player can.”  (Bmart, 2010)

Software that function across many device is not only convinient but cost effective.  No longer is it necessary to purchase multiple product.

The web is changing the way that application are being deployed.  We are moving away from the client-server model to using the internet as the means to access technology. Basically, we are seeing the concept of software not as a product but as a service which provides the user with the latest model all the time. Basically, software ensure user are working with the latest version, simplifies maintenance of the application, and allow for faster deployment of incremental upgrades to the software.

Ø Bmart. (2010). Real Alternative to Media Player 11. Retrieved April 2010, from eHow: http://www.ehow.com/about_6016442_real-alternative-media-player-11.html

Ø Kim, J. (2006). Windows Media Player 11 an iTunes contender? Retrieved April 2010, from ZDNet: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-148058.html

Ø O’Reilly, T. (2005). what is web 2.0. Retrieved April 2010, from O’Reilly: http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=4

Rich Internet Application

One of the main reasons for the success of Web 2.0 is the improvement in user experience. This improvement is the outcome of the evolution from HTML User Interfaces (UI) to a more usable and richer UI. Rich Internet applications (RIA) have become one of the many overhyped buzzwords in the web 2.0 community and it seems that most company (e.g. Google, Adobe, Microsoft, etc) seems to have a different definition of what a rich Internet application is.

According to the Wikipedia, RIA is a cross between Web applications and traditional desktop applications, transferring some of the processing to the client end. RIA can provide opportunities to design much better user experiences. One selling points of RIA’s is that they provide many of the benefits of HTML based Web applications, but without the limiting HTML interface, instead replacing it with a richer user interface framework that allows presenting of a more desktop like user experience. They can be faster, more engaging and much more usable.

“Another benefit of RIAs is that data can be cached in the client, allowing a vastly more responsive user interface and fewer round trips to the server than with HTML” (O’Rourke, 2004). RIA makes websites closer to desktop applications and moves away from pages that refresh every time the user changes the data or update it. “Applications running on laptops can be designed to work offline or to at least degrade gracefully when connectivity is lost” (O’Rourke, 2004).

A good example of RIA is “BuzzWord”. Buzzword is a web based word processor, built with Adobe Flex technology. Buzzword looks and behaves like a normal word processor but it operates inside a web browser. It combines the rich user experience of desktop word processors with the access and collaboration capability of other web based word processors.  Basically, it’s a fully functional word processor that feels every bit as responsive as a desktop application.

As good as it sound, of course the new way of working has some limitations and drawbacks.  Since all browsers and client machines are not created equal, the issue of performance and functionality may depend on the actual client-side configuration. For example, Flex is built on Flash technology, which requires a flash plug-in to run. Not all browsers start out with the Flash plug-in installed, and Flash is also updated from time to time. In either case, the end user is required to download a new version if he or she reaches a page that requires it. This is seen by some as a drawback since not all users will download the plug in, most of the time will navigate away from the page entirely.

We can’t ignore the security flaws RIAs tend to introduce. RIA not only place more control into the user’s hands, they also broaden the attack surface and open previously non-existent entry points into networks.

Rich Internet applications (RIA) represent the next evolution of Web based applications that will bring the end user new experiences by leveraging the computing power of not only the server, but the client. While there is an explosion of activity amongst major players delivering RIA frameworks, there seems to be just a single major use case , “support of the offline mode”.

Source

1. Adobe. (2010). BuzzWord. Retrieved 2010, from Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/acom/buzzword/
2. Helium. (2010). Uses of RIA. Retrieved March 2010, from Helium: http://www.helium.com/items/1625389-uses-of-ria-applications-on-web-20
3. O’Rourke, C. (2004). A Look at Rich Internet Applications. Retrieved from wolfpaolus: http://wolfpaulus.com/theodore/doc/richinetapp.pdf
4. Wikipedia. (2010). Rich Internet Application. Retrieved March 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Internet_application
5. Works, I. (2008). Rich Internet Application Alternative. Retrieved March 2010, from IT Works: http://www.itworks.be/event.php?id=RIAD1

Innovation in Assembly

“Innovation in assembly” is another element of the Web 2.0 movement.   “When commodity components are abundant, you can create value simply by assembling them in novel or effective ways”.  (Tim O’Reilly, 2005) Web 2.0 will provide opportunities by harnessing and integrating the services provided by others.

The part where Web 2.0 is different from Web 1.0 is the abundance of useful APIs. Web 1.0 application were as they were, which means that there was no extending in them. You would not be thinking of mash-ups back then. As the Web 2.0 rolls around, people starts to see a lot of advantages by making their data and functions open. As highlighted by Tim, one of the fundamental principles of Web 2.0 is the treatment of the Web as a Platform. The Web is seen as a programming platform upon which developers create software applications. The main catalyst for this is Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs, allowing communication between two or more software applications.

An application programming interface (API) is a set of definitions, procedures and protocols of the ways in which one computer software communicates with another. APIs are used by software developers in their source code of their program to open doors of other applications. Programmers can then take advantage of the API by making use of its functionality, saving them the task of programming everything from scratch.

Companies with data stores such as eBay, Google, Amazon, etc create APIs for developers to hook into. By doing this, they can provide public access to information that would have been private previously. This changes completely the way that people interact with the site. The practice of publishing APIs has allowed web communities to create an open architecture for sharing content and data between communities and applications.

eBay’s API offers plenty of functionality for creating powerful and interesting applications. Typically, users buy and sell items using the eBay online interface, interacting with eBay directly. But with the eBay API, you communicate directly with the eBay database.

Andale.com is a great example of an interface built on top of the eBay API. Andale can track the selling activities of products previously sold on eBay, which would create a much clearer picture of what items actually sold for, and it is functionality that eBay doesn’t provide itself.

“..the core value of Web APIs are their ability to produce and/or consume information or functional behavior, machine to machine, server to mashups, or server to any Internet-connected application.” (Linthicum, 2009)

As we can see, Web 2.0 has been the main reason for the rise of new distribution models to drive online products across the Web to the largest audience possible. Along with Web widgets, social networking applications, open Web APIs have been one of the most consistently interesting new models derived. Under an open API, absolutely no security or authentication methods are used. A query is received from the wild, and the system makes its best effort to respond to it appropriately.

Growth and innovation are both direct outcomes of APIs since it allows others to connect their audience to your products elsewhere on the Web (growth) and it allows products and services to be re-imagined and transformed into entire new products, services, and especially mashups.

With every great innovation come several issues and disadvantages. Firstly there is the issue of control or “No Control” I should say. Basically, with an open API, anyone, anywhere, can use the API, and while this may sound like the goal of web services, it significantly limits the response if abuse requests begin pouring in. Talking about abuse, unfortunately systems with little or no security or authentication make main targets for abuse by some less ethical elements out there. You may feel that the risk is minimal, somehow you’ll end up surprised at what others can take advantage of.

Future of API

According to Dion Hinchcliffe in his article titled “Open APIs Mature Into a Next-Generation Business Model”, APIs are an important new business channel in the same vein as storefronts and even Web sites were in years past. According to Dion, APIs require the same investment as older traditional business channel which includes marketing, relationship management, partner support, and legal permission to create derivative works.

“Because APIs provide the technical and legal framework for reuse in other products and services, a businesses providing APIs gets embedded across the network in often countless 3rd party applications (mashups), internal IT systems, and destination sites. Depending on how valuable your data is (if it’s close to best-of-breed you can even charge for it), this will grow marketshare as well as directly drive revenue.” (Hinchcliffe, 2009)

The best way to learn about APIs is to use them. After you’ve gone through the process once, the concepts become a lot easier to understand.  While the new “connected” generation presents us all with many challenges, there are some great opportunities as well. The popularity of Web 2.0, mashups and social networking applications will allow in ways and with reach not possible before.

Web 2.0 comes with changes and upgrades. These changes and benefits not only alter (in a good way) the way usability is perceived, but it can also help developers deliver desktop quality applications via the Web.

Sources:

• @rticles, e. (2010). top ten API application. Retrieved march 2010, from ezine @rticles: http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-10-Essential-Application-Programming-Interface-%28APIs%29&id=3990575
• ezine @rticles. (2010). differences between web 1.0, web 2.0 and web 3.0. Retrieved march 2010, from ezine @rticles: http://ezinearticles.com/?Difference-Between-Web-1.0,-Web-2.0,-and-Web-3.0—With-Examples&id=3683790
• Hinchcliffe, D. (2009). open API mature into the next genereation. Retrieved 2010, from Ebiz: http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/enterprise/2009/12/open_apis_mature_into_a_next-g.php?rss
• Linthicum, D. (2009). why web apllication directories cloud. Retrieved 2010, from ebiz: http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/linthicum/2009/11/why_web_api_directories_cloud.php
• Porter, J. (2005). two kind of interface. Retrieved march 2010, from bokardo: http://bokardo.com/archives/two-kinds-of-interfaces-for-web-20/
• Tim O’Reilly. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved March 2010, from Oreilly: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Data is the next “Intel Inside”

Perhaps the most important principal of Web 2.0 is that “data is the next Intel inside.” Tim O’reilly refers to as Data is the Next Intel Inside, meaning that most web 2.0 applications are essentially data-base driven. O’reilly emphasizes that the challenge here is to create a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.

I came across an article by Mark Oehlert, 2008, which helps me understand the origin of this statement. Based on the article it highlighted that back in the early 1990’s, the “Intel Inside” marketing and branding campaign made Intel a household name. Besides producing central processor units (CPUs) for computers, “Intel Inside” also began manufacturing motherboards. With these productions, it made it possible for smaller companies to compete with large computer manufacturers by using Intel’s CPUs and motherboards. Basically what this does is that it was no longer as important what brand was on the outside of the computer case, as what is important is the brand on the inside of the case.

As the article highlighted, until Web 2.0 began to dawn, elements such as the computer and operating system we are using for example, Windows or Linux, Mac or PC, and the speed and power of that computer, were pretty much important. The main foundational technology in the Web 2.0 world, from the end user’s point of view is the browser and a fast broadband connection to the Internet. “Suddenly, the computer and the operating system don’t matter nearly as much as the browser. The functionality and the data all live out on the Web, and the real race now is about who will own and control that data”. (Mark Oehlert, 2008)

Another statement by Tim O’reilly on Data is the Next “Intel Inside” is that “The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. In many cases, where there is significant cost to create the data, there may be an opportunity for an Intel Inside style play, with a single source for the data. In others, the winner will be the company that first reaches critical mass via user aggregation.” (Tim O’ reilly, 2005)

It is said that the core functionality of many modern information systems is not software but the valuable data within it. Consider Google’s search database or YouTube’s videos. While the services these sites provide are important, the data they possess is their most valuable assets.

A good example where data is the next Intel Inside is Facebook.  Facebook was originally designed for truly social connections but is expanding to include more and more business relationships. It currently has over 300 million members, 70% of whom are from outside the United States. One key feature of all social networking applications is the ability to join and create groups of people with similar interests. Facebook allows people to organize groups easily.  It is easy to see how a Facebook could be used effectively to generate data or information.

Interestingly, for the sake of argument, I came across an article “Data should be Intel Outside” by (Paul Kedrosky, 2005).  According to Paul, “Tim’s (correct) point is that data is the special sauce in Web 2.0 software. It isn’t the logic; it isn’t (necessarily) the UI. What makes Gmap/Flickr/del.icio.us great is the data. Granted, the data can come from all sorts of places, ranging from community contributions to licensed stuff, but it is still the data that puts the bums in the Aerons.” (Paul Kedrosky, 2005).

The problem according to Paul is that when more people that figure out that it’s not about proprietary applications, instead it’s about proprietary data, which basically means we are moving from one walled garden to another.

“Because a walled garden of data, however pretty, still has walls, just like old algorithmic garden of shrink-wrapped software. All that we are doing by over-focusing on data being the Intel inside is ensuring that data becomes the Intel inside in every sense — another proprietary layer for litigation, instead of something that can be readily extracted and combined to create better apps & services.”….“Where should we be going? Call it “data as the Intel outside”, where the innovation engine is how easily data can be recombined outside any one application. Turning things inside-out should be the Web 2.0 goal.” (Paul Kedrosky, 2005)

I guess this brings us on the issues of “open data”. When we say data should be made available without restriction, It may not be that the data is restricted (not open), but restricted (not well known). Here’s an example, If Google finds a great source for data, it’s not like they are going to tell MS where to find it, even if it is publicly available. They will keep the information to themselves until they figure out how to exploit it. When they announce the project, it probably wouldn’t take long to figure out the source of the data. Then the other companies have to figure out if it is worth launching a competing project.

To summarise, according to Tim O’reilly, “as the applications become apparent, the data will be valuable in new ways, and the company with the most data wins.”  (Tim O’reilly, 2007) Therefore, in the Web 2.0 world, data is the next “intel inside”

Sources:

Mark Oehlert. (2008, september 15). Change 2.0: How Does E-Learning 2.0 Affect Organizational Culture? Retrieved March 10, 2010, from Learning Solutions Magazine: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/86/change-20-how-does-e-learning-20-affect-organizational-culture

Paul Kedrosky. (2005). InfectiousGreed. Retrieved March 2010, from Data should be the intel outside: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2005/06/data_should_be.html

Tim O’ reilly. (2005, september 30). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved March 2010, from O’reilly: http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

Tim O’reilly. (2007, December). Google Admits “Data is the Intel Inside”. Retrieved march 2010, from O’reilly: http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/12/google-admits-data-is-the-inte.html

Social networking applications are the most familiar Web 2.0 application. The most popular include Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and XING. There is even an application called Ning (http://www.ning.com/) that enables people to create their own social networks.

Social networking applications are still in their infancy. It’s clear that they are important, but unclear exactly how they can be used most effectively. However, in spite of this problem, social networking is a powerful tool that can improve two-way communications with all types of users and thereby help improve the development and operation of all types of transport systems.

There are three main types of social networking applications: purely social, professional and social networking tools that are provided on application websites designed to create a “community” around the application-specific purpose (e.g. a social network of people contributing to the StreetsWiki website). This chapter describes each type of application using an example site.

Web 2.0 can be summarised thus:

• the web is a platform: just as software is released for Microsoft Windows so to will software be released for the web;
• data is the focus of everything;
• build an architecture of participation: that is, systems are designed for user contribution;
• sites are composed of features pulled from distributed and independent developers;

Harnessing Collective Intelligence

As defined by Wikipedia, “Collective Intelligence (C.I.) is a group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration and competition of many individuals.  Collective intelligence (C.I.) can also be defined as a form of networking enabled by the rise of communications technology, namely the Internet. Web 2.0 has enabled interactivity and thus, users are able to generate their own content. C.I draws on this to enhance the social pool of existing knowledge.” (Wikipedia, 2010) C.I. is not merely a quantitative contribution, but qualitative as well.

We are now in an era, which has been called “Web 2.0”. One of the essential elements of Web 2.0 is harnessing the collective intelligence.  The article “The Hype and the Hullabaloo of Web 2.0” by  Ellyssa Kroski  define harnessing collective intelligence is achieved by:

“Companies that adhere to Web 2.0 principles understand how to harness the collective intelligence to make their systems better. A collective intelligence is achieved when a critical mass of participation is reached within a site or system, allowing the participants to act as a filter for what is valuable.” (Kroski, 2006)

In the article, Ellyssa highlighted that the new generation Web offers a two-way communication with the user, in which it involves both reading and writing. Ellyssa further highlighted that no other technology demonstrates this better than the blog and that through blogs we can access the collective intelligence.

Harnessing collective intelligence is critical to web-based business strategies in the Web 2.0 world. According to Tim O’Reilly, 2005, defining the core characteristics of a Web 2.0 application, Collective Intelligence is positioned as a critical element.

Based on Ellyssa article, a guy name Dion Hinchcliffe, whose name seems to be pretty famous when discussing about the hype of web 2.0 and came out with an article “five great ways to Harness Collective Intelligence” (Hinchcliffe, 2006).  He outlined some potent ways that web software can leverage collective intelligence. The five ways Hinchcliffe list for harnessing the collective intelligence of Internet users are becoming the hub of a hard to recreate data source such as Wikipedia or Ebay or Google; seek collective intelligence out; trigger large-scale network effects such as taking advantage of the network of users to build attention and connections; provide a folksonomy which is the patterns through tagging and social bookmarking to create feedback for most popular information; and create a reverse intelligence filter, a filter that sift through data to determine which bits of data are most important to raise to the top of the lists.

An example of collective intelligence is Google’s PageRank.  Throughout the years, Google has become the most used search engine because of how fast the results are and the quality of the web sites based upon your search query. Google PageRank is a numeric value that represents how important a page is on the web. Google figures that when one page links to another page, it is effectively casting a vote for the other page. The more votes that are cast for a page, the more important the page must be. Also, the importance of the page that is casting the vote determines how important the vote itself is. PageRank is Google’s way of deciding a page’s importance. It matters because it is one of the factors that determines a page’s ranking in the search results.

In conclusion, “The unique element that Web 2.0 brings is that of social networks and community which are typically enabled by blogs, discussion groups, and wikis. This harnessing of the collective intelligence creates systems which have more and better information than any one person could generate; it provides the “wisdom of the crowds””.  (Platt, 2010)

Sources:

1)       Hinchcliffe, D. (2006). Five Great Ways to Harness Collective Intelligence. Retrieved from Dion Hinchcliffe web 2.0 blog: http://web2.socialcomputingjournal.com/five_great_ways_to_harness_collective_intelligence.htm

2)       Kroski, E. (2006). The Hype and Hullabaloo of web 2.0. Retrieved from Infotangle: http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/the-hype-and-the-hullabaloo-of-web-20/

3)       Platt, M. (2010). Web 2.0 in the enterprise. Retrieved from MSDN Architecture Centre: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb735306.aspx

4)       Wikipedia. (2010). Collective Intelligence. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

5)       Tim O’Reilly. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved March 2010, from Oreilly: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Hello world!

Hello everyone.. Welcome to my blog.. My name is Haji Anifa Nazree Haji Abdul Ghani.  Im an international student from Brunei Darussalam studying in QUT. I’m currently doing my Post Graduate in Master of Information Technology, majoring in “Information Management”.

Enjoy your stay..