Questioning aspects of Web 2.0

Last week I wrote about how "...if you are just mashing, you are building value for the owners of the APIs, not your own company". I also applauded Mike Rundle for his "Web 2.0 Barriers To Entry" post which inspired mine.

Today I read Russell Beattie's post on the same topic (actually he covers more topics in the post, but the gist of it is the same):

"...let’s think of some of the popular new site launches lately… web chat and IM comes to mind. WTF is the business? All those Map mashups out there? WTF is the business? Calendaring and Ajax desktops? WTF is the business? They’re just FEATURES built on top of other company’s APIs, adding very little real value, and not making a dime of profit. "

If you're not sure what "WTF" means, ask someone ;)

I'm glad that there seems to be a growing "thruth telling" trend about Web 2.0 among key bloggers. Many of them seem as perplexed and concerned about the bubble building hype as I am.

Spread the word, spread the links. The core idea of Web 2.0 is a good thing, hyping useless Web 2.0 ventures is not.

Web 2.0 Barriers To Entry

I just finished reading a large number of posts, articles and email on the broad topic of "what must web 2.0 companies do in order to prosper".

Credit to Mike Rundle for his "...separators/questions that I think all "web 2.0" companies should be analyzing and answering themselves:

Are we actually useful or just fun to play with?
Are we actually innovating or just mashing/copying?
Are there barriers to enter our market, or can anyone be us?"

This is very basic stuff, but it doesn't get said nearly often enough.

Especially point #2 resonates with me. Remember, if you are just mashing, you are building value for the owners of the APIs, not your own company.

More here.

Foldera

I always get excited when I hear of a new product or service that aims to make all our connected, project based lifes run flawlessly. Maybe that's over reaching a bit, but the topic of productivity fascinates me.

That's why I look forward to trying out the offerings of Foldera. I quote Tech Crunch:

"They’ve created an Ajax rich web application that includes email, calendaring, instant messaging, document storage and versioning, tasks and other features into a single web application. Everything is folder-centric..."

Not sure how good the slightly outdated idea of a folder centric solution is, but I'll reserve judgement until I've got my hands on an account (yepp, they're still in beta).

How do we at the O.D. HQ stay organized and efficient? With Backpack and OmniOutliner. Brilliant stuff.

Logo2.0 - The sequel

If you liked Ludwig Gatzke's first stab at Web 2.0 logo fun, you'll probably lurv the second installment. We do.

QTsaver - be click happy

Over the past months I've written a wee bit about usability, why design matters even in beta etc.

Today I came across QTsaver thanks to Emily Chang's eHub (is there anyone who is in to tech/web 2.0/current dev's that doesn't subscribe to Emily's feed?).

There's some room for improvement here! QTsaver is based on the API's from Google and Yahoo! and this "microcontent engine [...] extracts relevant multiple large chunks of microcontent from popular search engine sites."

The results are presented as one long page with ticked check boxes in front of each chunk of result content. The idea is that "When you're done removing all the results you don't find useful, click on the Save button. All the results you didn't hide will be saved in an editable format."

For this to be valuable, you have to be incredibly click happy.

I stopped counting and unchecking check boxes at 74, the other 40 or so didn't seem worth my time.

Granted, there are a few key words towards the left hand corner of the page that help cut down on the frantic clicking in your next search, but it still isn't an effective way of working.

Here are my two suggestions for improving QTsaver based on my first visit:

1) Let users tick the boxes that correspond to content they are interested in instead of unchecking.

2) When a user clicks a word in the "key word" list, let that trigger a refined search. Don't force users to hit "search" again. If you stick with it, move the search field and button to within the key word box.

I'd be curios to find out what the teams thinking was behind the functionality, the presentation of the results etc. I feel that there's potential in the idea, but the current implementation leaves me with quite a few doubts.

Office Live not so web-based

Word is coming in from all directions about Microsoft's Office Live, the company's entry in to web-based services. Turns out that it's actually not very web-based at all, at least not in the traditional sense. Jason of 37Sigs lists some of the requirements, and I quote:

To use the Edit in Datasheet feature within the Business Applications and Shared Sites areas requires Microsoft Office 2003.
To export to Business Contact Manager requires Microsoft Office 2003, Microsoft Office XP, or Microsoft Office 2000.

And, yepp, IE is a must. That I can understand (yet not agree with), it is a MS service after all. But the software requirements show that Microsoft doesn't really "get it" when it comes to doing things in a non software centric, top down way.

The positive part of MOL is the free domain, website and the 50 email accounts that can be set up (with 2 GB of storage per account). Despite it being advertising supported, it will be a boost for small businesses that want to get online, provide web mail to their employees etc.

Personally I'll focus on some of the other tools that MS has lined up for the future. Office Live isn't really my cup of tea, neither as a tool or as an interesting project to follow closely.

More here and here.

Office Live live (in beta)

Microsoft launched Office Live yesterday. Good short overview here.

Brilliant Pandora

People always ask me what I'm in to at the moment. Sometimes it's hard to explain. For example if the person isn't likely to be familiar with, say, AJAX. But this one is easy.

Right now I'm hooked on Pandora. This brilliant service helps you "find music you'll love".

You start by choosing a song or an artist. Pandora then creates a "radio station" based on your choice, playing songs that it thinks you'd like.

Ever the skeptic, I tried it out today and... yepp, it certainly lives up to its strapline! Pandora keeps feeding me songs, I say wheter I like them or not, and already after about 45 minutes I have a brilliant well tuned (yes pun intended) "radio station" based on my initial choice (Counting Crows).

What else? Via the menu system I can jump over to the iTunes store and buy the song while I'm listening to it (yes, the whole song). I can add it to my favorites page, or give it the thumb's down.

The only drawback, and this is due to licensing agreements, I can't skip more than a certain number of songs per hour (10). Then again, every song so far (with only two exceptions) has been v v good.

If you want to take Pandora outside your computer, get a Squeeze Box from Slim Devices. According to SiliconBeat "Beginning next week, the Squeezebox will do something no other hi-fi component can do: it will hook into Pandora...".

Go create your radio station, and share it with me (jorvet AT gmail DOT com) when you're done. If you don't like Pandora, try last.fm.

Web 2.0 logos

A snap shot of our time, if nothing else.



Via Laughing Squid and others.

© Stabilo Boss

Smash Hits no more

For anyone who grew up with the British pop scene in the 1980's Smash Hits magazine was the publication to read. But times change etc etc, and on February 13th the magazine publishes its very last issue. Alexis Petridis of The Guardian has written a good feature on the rise, life and fall of the mag.

"British pop music has always been about irreverence and irony, individuality and wit."

The same was true for Smash Hits. I wonder if I still have any old issues stashed somewhere?

Sannier on IT

Here's a great podcast episode from Adrian Sannier, the new-ish University Technology Officer at Arizona State University. In this great podcast he speaks about his first priority "developing a strategic plan for the application and use of information systems and technology at ASU". He also "shared his thoughts on the role of information technology in the New American University".

Sannier is a seriously engaging speaker, I highly recommend this episode.

Valleywag

Now here's a gossip blog to keep an eye on. Maybe.

Nick Denton's latest Gawker Media site Valleywag launched this past Sunday and promises to "...be Silicon Valley/the Bay Area's Gawker or Defamer--replacing Conde Nast or Fox Broadcasting coverage with that of Google or Yahoo.". This according to Nick Doulgas, formerly of Blogebrity, who's moving to California from Pennsylvania to run Valleywag.

"Fever" blogs sold

I've posted about Roger Åberg's expanding blog publishing venture on a regular basis. Most recently on January 20.

The big news this week is that Pan-European media group Bonnier, based in Sweden, has acquired all eight of the "fever" blogs for an undisclosed amount.

The deal has the potential to provide Roger & Co with an enormous audience as Bonnier publishes several of Scandinavia's leading newspapers and news sites in addition to other media interests.

This deal is the first of its kind on the relatively new commercial Swedish blog scene. Åberg is to be applauded for creating the "fever" network with its very dedicated audience. And for taking it to the next level. Snyggt jobbat!

More here (in Swedish).

Disclaimer: I am a occassional, and proud, contributor to Macfeber.

Google's $400

CNET News has put together a handy overview of Google's businesses. Nothing ground breaking, but a good reference.

Google--what you get for $400 a share