THE LIGHTWEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD!!

Web 2.0 lightweight

So this will be my final blog in the series of Web 2.0 concepts. While it has been an interesting discovery, I can only see my research being cut at the stem by the ever growing possibility of early Web 3.0 release!

That being said, it brings me to an interesting Web 2.0 concept of lightweight models and cost-effective scalability.

Rather than effectively explain the concept in detail, it is much easier to relate it to a current Web 2.0 website, which is the fantastic web cartoon series Cyanide and Happiness, at the website www.explosm.net

The website is of a simple nature, with easy to use interface, which more or less allows the user to view their comic library, with a new comic added each day.

Cyanide and Happiness has seen an incredible increase in hits over the last few years, and an incredible amount of users added to the database. This addition of users and acknowledgement has seen the site introduce an advertising system with limited effect on the user, yet providing the creators with enough profit to release their own book internationally. Previously a free website, which was started as a project between a series of friends, it has turned it to a revenue generating Web 2.0 experience.

As has happened with many websites with Web 2.0, the success has most probably taken the group by surprise.

Probably the most well known website that this has happened too in the Web 2.0 timeline is Myspace.com. Over the timeline of around 3 years operation, Myspace infrastructure developed to 3 data centers, 2682 web servers, 90 cache servers, 60 database servers, 150 media processing servers, 1000 SAN storage disks, and consumes 17,000 MB per second of bandwidth. They were very close to being sunk by the popularity, however were luckily able to scale the infrastructure accordingly, as well as leverage the long tail with expansions in to music etc.

A final few questions:

Are we ready for Web 3.0

What Web 2.0 websites will fail to obtain high user volume through Web 3.0

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

 I will leave you with a piece of the best acting/line reading in the history of film.

Web 2.OHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOO

Upload/Insert body here.

Shake ‘Yer Tail

Imagine yourself as a new to market retailer. You have a group of products that you can see selling to various niche markets, and at various success rates. You open up a store, and you are forced to consider the physical properties of the products, such as shelf space, shop location etc. Each of these can have a significant impact on the success of different products in a shop, and an impact on the success of the shop overall. This retail conundrum in the past had forced many retailers to focus on one style of product rather than spread themselves thin and lose shelf or floor space to products which may have a lower purchase rate.

Enter Web 2.0 and the idea of Leveraging the Long Tail. The term long tail is exactly what was previously insanely hard to produce in a retail environment, as set out in the first paragraphs scenario. Essentially it is being able to have a small number of popular focused products, and still have an extended array of other products, which all perform successfully as a group.

A fantastic example of this is the website Yahoo.com. In its early stages (and I am talking pre-dotcom boom) Yahoo was merely a search engine. Realising the need to keep users at the site longer, its developers began to change Yahoo from a simple search engine, to a Web Portal. Essentially what this meant was providing access to a larger array of services to users. They began acquiring companies such as Classicgames.com and rocketmail.com and turned them in to Yahoo services Yahoo Games, and Yahoo Mail. This expansion allowed Yahoo to firstly build a substantial tail, and then subsequently leverage it over its competitors.

Knowing this is an ever increasing trend I would like to finish on a couple of questions

1. When is enough enough?

2. Is more really more?

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

References:

http://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/

Perpetual Beta?

We are well along our journey discovering the different aspects of web 2.0 applications, and as we enter this week, I want to discuss a growing trend: The idea of the Perpetual Beta. The concept behind this is to keep a website constantly changing to meet user demands. The reason behind the growing popularity of this approach is the focus on meeting user requirements. It creates a professional, user friendly environment that has the ability to evolve to meet user and industry demands.

To give you a better idea of the perpetual beta, I will link the concept to a Web 2.0 Application. While this theory of the perpetual beta is used by millions of websites around the world, especially the major sites such as www.youtube.com, www.facebook.com, and www.flickr.com , the site that I have chosen to highlight is www.delicious.com. I hadn’t previously heard of this site before, and its 5 million users at the end of2008 mean that chances are you haven’t heard of it either.Delicious is an online bookmarking site which provides users opportunity to tag different bookmarks, and share them with other users. It is a fantastic idea, and the way it relates to the perpetual beta is that it took around 5 years to produce a live version of the site in 2008. Even though it has been released and is being used, it still maintains the beta tag.

While I personally think that the majority of web applications and sites should be classed as in a perpetual beta phase, the question needs to be asked as to whether the perpetual beta is a viable way of improving a website. The idea of new developments being started and introduced to a product which itself is still in beta could prove to be a hindrance, and create further development complexities.

I suggest an alternative to the perpetual beta, rather a periodic release of the site or application. A site which does this is www.ign.com. The site, rather than retain a state of perpetual beta, chooses to release a new version of the website with added functionality every year, each version sustainable for at least a year.

That is just my view of it, and I would like to ask a couple of questions.

Has perpetual beta helped web 2.0

Can I use perpetual beta as an excuse for a late assignment?

Yours in web 2.0,

Cameron

Wireless Apps’ and you: The Wireless Story

After a week break in my blog due to both forseen and unforseen circumstances, I have returned! This week I find myself pondering an odd topic which involves the mobilisation of computing devices. It seems strange to me that the trend of the internet shifted so swiftly between home computing and office workstations to the global wireless phenomenon that eventuated thanks to the 3G standards.

The 3G wireless data transfer standard presented the world with efficient mobile device access to the internet, and consequently ended any interaction between strangers on public transport. While verbal communication reached all time lows, other forms of communication, especially internet based increased dramatically. This new technology meant that accessing your Facebook and MSN could be done on the run and without much hassle.

The hassle that was there however was the slow nature of 3G. While the access for 3G (in Australia atleast) is relatively high in all major metropolitan areas, the speed at which data is sent from origin to destination device was still too lengthy. Rather than improve what was still a fantastic technology, individual companies and websites decided to create mobile friendly versions of their web applications! Yes thats right, companies actually did something pro-active to help the user! These applications generally come with less functionality than the main site will offer, however the majority of features will still be present allowing a fantastic user experience.

In this blog, as you may have noticed, when I talk about a web 2.0 technology or practice, I also like to provide an example of how it is used. This week I realise that there are a large number I could choose from, such as m.ebay.com which is a mobile friendly ebay application. Or I could go in to large detain about Facebook mobile, which has been created for individual models of phones to reach the maximum amount of users. Both of these are relatively well known, and therefore explaining them is seemingly boring. Instead I will link the mobile applications to something I am extremely keen on, Fantasy Football.

Yes this year I have been swept in to NRL Fantasy football. The nrl.com.au website provides this service to the public, and people log on to create teams with their favourite, or the best players in the league. The site this year, for the first time, released a mobile friendly application for the NRL fantasy football competition. As mentioned earlier, this application also provides less functionality than the main site, however the main elements, such as live score tracking are kept in tact. All users have to do is on their mobile device, visit nrlwap.virtualsports.com and log in, its that simple. The application also allows for seemless continuity of data integrity accross a variety of devices and platforms. What this means is that any data edited on one platform, will be carried across all platforms.

So thats about it for this week, I would like to propose a few questions however.

Will the I-Pad make its way in to mainstream?

Will pricing of wireless data change with changing technology?

As far as wireless applications go, do you think their functionality is enough to eliminate the need to visit a PC?

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

But wont AJAX bleach my WEB?!?!

G’day.

So basically recently I have been toying around with a lot of things all related to Web 2.0, but this week I want to talk about the main success of Web 2.0.

THE RICH USER EXPERIENCE!

That’s right, one of the main reasons for Web 2.0 success is due to the usability and dynamic features of the web based applications. So what makes a Web 2.0 site dynamic? One word…. AJAX.

No I am not referring to the cleaning agent AJAX (while it does boast a high success rate around my house in cleaning), I am simply refering to the coding type used mainly in Web 2.0. This programming structure allows web applications can retrieve data from the server asynchronously in the background without interfering with the display and behavior of the existing page! Ever posted a comment on Facebook?! The process behind updating the underlying database is carried out with no interruption to the rest of the page! Ever completed a quiz on Facebook? (yes, they are annoying)  Have you noticed that the page constantly updates after each question? THAT’S AJAX!

The main implementation of this feature which is providing a rich user experience revolves around online word processors. In the past, people around the world have relied heavily on the standard word processor “Microsoft Word” to create and publish documents. This software involved large amounts of client side processing which ultimately lead to an annoyance to the user. Not only was the processing power needed to use the word processor annoying, the price tag was too! So it is no surprise to see the world rejoice (especially poor students such as myself) when the breed of online based word processors became available with Web 2.0. Google Docs I believe is one of the best available, as it allows the users to collaborate on a single document in real time by dynamically updating information through the database (AJAX!). All of this requires a high network speed, however with the increasingly available broadband options around at competitive prices, this is much better than paying for hardware to operate the system on your own PC!

The only downfall to the AJAX approach is there are still as yet no “standards” available. As far as I know they are still being worked on by W3C (whenever I see that I think Warcraft 3…) however I believe it will only be a short time before there are an available set of standards.

Will standards improve the usability of AJAX programming?

Will standards improve the way AJAX handles dynamic processing?!

Once standards are in place can we call it Web 2.5?!

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

API Who?

This week’s blog is going to be in relation to something which has roughly developed through Web 2.0. three simple letters which often come up when talking about the Web 2.0 Phenomenon however are rarely explained. A-P-I.

To start things off, I think it’s a fair assumption that many have seen these three letters used together with Web 2.0, yet have absolutely no idea the extent of API’s. To fund the rest of my weeks blog with useful information on API’s without clarifying what they actually are would be akin to a Richard Kelly film (Donnie Darko, Southland Tales), you would see what is happening, and have no idea why.

So here is the lowdown, an API is essentially a set of functions and interactions that can be customised to work with certain software. Many companies have various API’s available, such as E-bay. Yes the auction monster website allows developers to create API’s that can be customised to perform functions in co-operation with the E-Bay software such as:

• Submit items for listing on eBay
• Get the current list of eBay categories
• View information about items listed on eBay
• Get high bidder information for items you are selling
• Retrieve lists of items a particular user is currently selling through eBay
• Retrieve lists of items a particular user has bid on
• Display eBay listings on other sites.

The strength of API’s in Web 2.0 is the interoperability and sharing of certain information to create a new program, which then, in turn can have API’s to access and provide its information to create another new program. The idea is incredibly versatile and very exciting. One such site, ironically, that uses a large amount of API’s in a very effective fashion is http://www.programmableweb.com. The site is a hub of information relating to the world of API’s and in fact uses API’s as well.

The idea of the API’s changes the flow of software, not just online, but offline. Previously API’s have existed with such companies as Microsoft OS (Office, ASP.net) which were generally known as platforms. Now with the development of open source API’s for websites such as E-Bay, the likely hood of an Internet OS is increasing!

Unfortunately, I personally don’t thing the idea of an Internet OS is entirely viable with the current state of the broadband infrastructure worldwide. In theory it is possible, but in practice it just isn’t viable at this point. With the rapid changes in technology expected over the next couple of years, who is to say it cant happen in two years?!

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

Data IS the next Intel Inside!

Over the last week i have been browsing a recent trend, which is becoming evident in the world of data on the internet. Monopolisation. Realistically this seems like a very odd idea, with so many millions of websites running on the internet currently, a monopoly on the ownership of the data seems both unpractical and irresponsible.

I bring to your attention, the marketing approach of Intel Inside. Throughout the ‘90’s the brand Intel was known throughout the computing community, however this labeling of the chipset, and concurrent advertisement plan resulted in the brand becoming a household name. Intel Inside began acquiring contracted support from large computer distribution companies such as Dell, which gave Dell users the peace of mind knowing their PC was harnessing Intel Insides knowledge in chipsets.

So how does this relate to the monopolisation of data in Web 2.0? A largely used part of Web 2.0, and often taken for granted , are different companies mapping technologies. A few examples are Mapquest and the giant, Google Maps. Google recently acquired sole licensing rights to DigitalGlobes imagery and geodata, which has been widely regarded as the best available, in order to prevent companies such as Microsoft doing the same.

In what seemed like retaliation and desperation, Microsoft purchased Vexcel Group, a company providing a similar service to that of DigitGlobe. Stephen Lawler, general manager of the Virtual Earth business unit at Microsoft had this to offer in regards to the purchase. “Delivering best-of-breed local search and mapping offerings to consumers, businesses and government customers will depend on providing a rich, immersive and dynamic experience that mirrors what can be experienced in the real world. Aligning Vexcel’s talent, expertise, products and services with our vision, resources and offerings will enable us to deliver on our vision better than ever before.”

How does this relate to my original point of data monopolisation?

These two giant companies, have begun aquiring sole ownership of companies data for their own use. This, relating back to the Intel Inside example, has both Google and Microsoft able to justify their technology through the data purchased. So what should be about which is the better product loosly comes down to who has the bigger…….amount of data.

Personally I dont mind this approach, and am very interested to see where this is heading. I believe it will end up with two constantly competing, publicly accepted services. This sort of the competition for such a great service will generate a push for improvements on both sides, providing the public with the best services possible. This sort of data aquisition can only benifit Web 2.0 in the future!

Would I feel the same if Google purchased Facebook’s data? Ask me when it happens.

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

Harnessing Collective Intelligence

For years the internet has been used to communicate effictively across a new medium. When emails were introduced, standard mail saw a huge drop in usage as it began to catch on. It just seemed far more efficient and effective to send an email and someone be able to recieve it instantly rather than wait a working day. Then came instant messaging, which further enhanced communications between people, especially across vast distances. The internet at this point seemed to stall as far as communication with people. Many knew that it could be harnessed for more, but no one quite knew how to create something to put it in to practice.

Enter Web 2.0, and what is described as collective intelligence. Collective intelligence as i am lead to believe is a number of individuals sharing information, based on their knowledge and experience. To use an analagy to better explain this is to use what i like to call “The Aussie Homeloan Success.”

Aussie Home Loans is a company, originating in australia obviously, that instead of entering the crammed market of lendings, decided to take a different approach. While the major banks such as NAB, Commonwealth, Suncorp and ANZ all provided the lending, if you were to approach them and ask what homeloan was right for you, they would give you a homeloan that is the best that thier company can offer. This is where Aussie Home Loans approach differs substantially. Their company is designed to take homeloans and information from all lenders in australia, and harness this “collective intelligence” to provide a best homeloan for every situation.

In Web 2.0 this is applied so regularly that many people dont even recognise it, or take it for granted. The biggest of the big when it comes to harnessing “collective intelligence” is of course WIKIPEDIA. The monster, the giant, the unreferencable, the encyclopedia brittania killer (which of course is still referencable). Wikipedia provides an online every changing encyclopedia which allows contributors from around the world to include, change and delete information. The information is generally collected by staff of Wikipedia, and based on findings internally is either accepted or rejected. Due to this, Wikipedia is the largest collective intelligence in the world today.

Web 2.0 is obviously not limited to wikipedia of course. You can get an example of this, under almost any category. One of the most used forms of collective intelligence, yet still most controvertial, are the use of Web doctors. Sites like Askthedoctor.com provide an online free consultation with GP’s, and at times more than one GP. The reasons for the controversy are obviously due to the limited to no interaction with the patient, meaning the GP cant fully diagnose the patient, which can often lead to wrong diagnosis and treatment.

While this blog is to do with Harnessing Collective Intelligence, it is impossible to mention all of the ways this is being done, so rather continue with explaining the workings of it, I will finish by raising a few questions.

1. Can harnessing collective intelligence bridge social gaps?
2. Will collective intelligence ever be a referencable source of information?
3. Is there such thing as too much intelligence? (how many professors does to take to screw in a lightbulb?)

Yours in Web 2.0,

Cameron

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!