2. Before the Web…
v … were competing computing technologies
v … some competing OS
v And then emerged Windows as a major Platform…
… with packaged software applications
… with tightly coupled APIs
… and frequent releases
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
3. Then came the Web…
v … with ClientServer technology
v … and, hyperlinking
v This saw the emergence of sites such as…
… Rediff, Geocities, Britannica Online, Directories (Yahoo)
v And this was
… One way web or read only web
… Primitive interfaces (Netscape vs. IE)
… Taxonomy (Yahoo directory)
… Pull medium (sites needed to have stickiness to get users back)
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
4. Then happened Web2.0 …
v Blogger (read + write, comment)
v Wikipedia (read + write, review, debate)
v Flickr (view, upload, tag)
v No directories: Tag content the way you want …
… Not taxonomy but “folksonomy”
… view what others have liked
… recommend to others, and view others’ recommendations
v A readwrite, participatory web
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
5. How Web2.0 Got its Name
v The concept was born at a brainstorming session between O’Reilly
and MediaLive International
v Dale Dougherty, VP O’Reilly
v Background: Dotcom bubble had just burst
v Companies that survived had something in common
v Could these be called the Web2.0?
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
6. Web2.0: An Overview
v Strategic Positioning
v The Web as a Platform
v User Positioning
v You control your own data
v Core Competencies
v Services, not packaged software
v Architecture of participation
v Harnessing collective intelligence
v Costeffective scalability
v Remixable data sources and data transformations
v Software above the level of a single device
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
7. Web2.0: Web as a Platform
v Netscape vs. Google
v Netscape v Google
v Desktop application v Web application
v Strategy: sell highend servers running v Never packaged or sold
web applications v Delivered as a service, with users
v Tried controlling standards for paying for the service, directly or
displaying content indirectly
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
8. Web2.0: Web as a Platform
v DoubleClick vs. Overture, AdSense
v DoubleClick v Overture, AdSense
v Is a web service (like Google)… v Any small advertiser can place an ad in
any small site
… but is not participatory
v They serviced the longtail
v Advertisers call the shots, and not
users
v Bulky, contractual placements of ads
on large sites, for large advertisers
v Leverage customer self service to reach out to the entire web,
not just the head, but the long tail too
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
9. Web2.0: Harnessing Collective Intelligence
v Hyperlinking: Sites are bound to the structure of the web by links
v Google’s breakthrough in search – PageRank – uses link structure
rather than type of content to provide search results
v Ebay – a collective activity of it’s users. Ebay grows as activity
grows. Ebay, only provides a platform
v Amazon – sells the same products as its competitors. But they have
higher user participation – reviews, different ways of interacting,
user activity produces better results
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
10. Web2.0: Harnessing Collective Intelligence
Companies that have extended the above concepts
v Wikipedia – an online encyclopedia: Radical change in the
dynamics of content creation. Trust.
v Del.icio.us, Flickr – pioneered “folksonomy” (in contrast to
taxonomy) – collaborative categorization.
v Cloudmark – spam filtering, by aggregation of individual decisions
v Linux, MySQL, Perl, PHP, on which most of the web runs, is relies
on opensource – collective, netenabled intelligence
v Blogging
v Usable technology (easy to publish own content, rather than using HTML or CMS)
v RSS – unique content delivery mechanism. Converts a pull medium to a push medium
v Bloggers, as the most prolific and timely linkers, have a major role in shaping search results
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
11. Web2.0: Rich User Experience
v Applet (1992)
v Java delivered Applet (1995)
v Macromedia’s Flash based “Rich Internet Applications”, many years
ago
v Full scale applications happened only with Gmail
v Technology that Google used was termed AJAX, which is a
collection of
v XHTML, CSS
v DOM
v XML, XSLT
v XMLHttpRequest
v Javascript, to bind everything together
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
12. Web2.0: Visual Design?
v Very user friendly
v Feature rich
v People are not shy to use color
v But lots of white
v More text than images
v Logos are rounded, colorful, playful?
v Again, very usable
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
13. Web2.0: Design Patterns
v Long Tail: Small sites make up bulk of the internet’s content.
Leverage customer self service and automatic data management
v Data is important: Try and create a unique hard to replicate data
v Users add value: In form of data (reviews, original content),
behavior
v Selflearning apps: Applications should be intelligent enough to
gather user behavior (top 10 views, highest clicks, etc)
v Rights reserved?: Benefits come from collective adoption and not
restriction.
v Always a Beta?: On the web one does not need to have software
releases. Change as often, if you improving the experience
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
14. Web2.0: What is proprietary? What is the biz model?
v Desktop applications were, now they are open source.
v Web applications were (advanced mail, etc), now they are not
v If for a news company, news is not copyrighted, and is freely
distributable, how does the news company make money?
v For some companies, such as MapQuest, it would be data they can
license. Companies like Google are already giving this data out
freely.
v So in the end, it is not products, not services, not data. It is the
amount of traffic you can garner. More traffic could mean more
revenue opportunities in terms of ads.
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
15. Web2.0: Beyond the web, beyond the community: Web3?
v Making it collaborative.
v Making it a web enabled service.
v Moving completely away from the desktop storage
v Moving away from desktop applications.
v Web3 – some thoughts: All pervasive, always on. For the
businesses.
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
16. Web2.0: Implications for Media
v Publishers now no longer leverage all the content
v It is now easy to create content (Blogs)
v It is now easy to distribute content (RSS, feedreaders)
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
17. Web2.0: Are we going into a Bubble?
v Yes! There is a lot of frenzy to innovate.
v And lot of money to back it with.
v And some of the applications don’t really make any sense! E.g.,
myLot. To me, even MySpace does not make much sense, when
compared to Orkut!
v But again, innovation never goes waste
v Finally, you are safe if you are thinking about the user, have a clear
reasoning of how this is useful. Don’t be a part of the fad
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
18. Web2.0: Some creative Web2.0 applications?
v Zopa: Taking money lending to the masses
v Zimbra: Messaging and collaboration
v Tictrac: Online time tracking
v World66: A wiki on Travel
v NetworthIQ: Track your networth online
v OpenID: Single identity across all applications
v Foldershare: Keep your files online
v HousingMaps: Craigslist + GoogleMaps: A mashup
enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
19. enigne noi tisiuq ca remo tsuc enilno noita re neg- txen ehT
erolagnaB | 18943 35489 19+
xilageR ,daeH aidnI
arhoV hsimiN
brevorP esenihC-
.pets elgnis a htiw snigeb
selim dnasuoht a fo yenruoj A
Thank You!
