Presentation on theme: "Copyright, 2006-07 1 Web 2.0 – Tsunami or Mirage Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra Visiting Professor, ANU, UNSW, Uni HK"— Presentation transcript:
Copyright, Web 2.0 – Tsunami or Mirage Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra Visiting Professor, ANU, UNSW, Uni HK ANU DCS – 30 July 2007
Copyright, Web 2.0 Agenda Why? Web 1.0 Three Views of Web 2.0 The Marketer / Neo Dot.com Movement The Technical View The Communitarian View
Copyright, Why? Little 'serious' literature evident yet CIOs and management are 'flying blind' and falling victim to supplier hype So: Document interpretations Is it empty marketing-speak (Mirage)? Is it revolutionary change (Tsunami)?
Copyright, The Web... or Web Static HTML 1992-Ways to Discover a Web-Page HTML customised 'on the fly', using database extracts 1996-Markup; and Display Control 1995-Means to Manipulate Data, Display 1996-'Dynamic HTML' 2003-Web Services
Copyright, Late Web 1.0 Web Service Architecture
Copyright, Web 2.0 – by Marketing Cliché A way of thought, rather than a technology: The world has changed (get with it) Loosen up (you cant control) Open up (you cant stay closed) Be accessible (not just web-browsers) Involve (get users on the inside) Mutate (continuous improvement / gamma; or is that just an excuse for permanent beta?) Web 2.0 Conferences (now 'Summits') Oct 04, Oct 05, Nov 06, Apr 07, Nov 07
Copyright, 'The Long Tail' Conventional Business Models: Recognise the Pattern Avoid high-cost / low-volume business Digital-Era Business Models: Exploit low-cost / low-volume business Brynjolfsson (2003) in Mngt Sci. Anderson (2004, 2006) in Wired and airports Amazon, Apple iTunes
Copyright, Web 1.0 Web 2.0 DoubleClick Google AdSense Ofoto Flickr Akamai BitTorrent (mp3.com iTunes) (Napster, FastTrackBitTorrent) Britannica Online Wikipedia personal websites web-blogs / blogs page views cost per click publishing participation content mngt systemswikis directories (taxonomy)tagging (folksonomy) stickinesssyndication After OReilly (2005) "The Sense of Web 2.0 by Example
Copyright, Web 2.0 – by Features Content Syndication Advertising Syndication Storage Syndication The 'Architecture of Participation'
Copyright, Syndication Originally, a syndicate was a group of investors, cf. a joint venture More recently, a means of distribution esp. of media material e.g. sports photos, cartoons, and opinions by commentators Recently, arrangements by which a party that originates content (a) licenses others to utilise it, and (b) facilitates dissemination of copies of it, and of metadata about it
Copyright, Content Syndication Posts to Usenet News, Fora, -Lists Personalised eNewspapers (originally by fax, then ,...) Notification when a web-page changes Mirrors of web-page content Web-Logs / Blogs 'Who I'm Reading' feature of blogs 'Feeds' of recently-published headlines & URLs using XML/RDF-based RSS and Atom
Copyright, Defining Aphorisms of Cyberspac e The New Yorker 5 July 1993
Copyright, Prof. Dr. Miriam Merkel
Copyright, Content Syndication Categories of Content Text Image Sound esp. Music 'Multi-Media' esp. Video with synch'd Sound
Copyright, Content Syndication Categories of Content Text Image Sound esp. Music 'Multi-Media' esp. Video with synch'd Sound Good Bad Indifferent Opinion Information News Entertainment Education Paid Gratis Nicked
Copyright, Advertising Syndication From Pay-per-ad (per insert/appearance) To 'Pay-per-click (per click on an ad): Advertisers use metadata (keywords) to indicate what the ad is about They do pay to use a keyword They dont pay for an ad display They do pay when someone clicks on it Overture (2001) Google AdWords
Copyright, Maturation of Pay-per-Click 1.Web-sites that attract large visit-counts (relatively small numbers) 2.Web-sites with much smaller visit-counts (vast numbers) through Affiliation Theoretical basis: the 'long tail' dictum Practical application: Google AdSense
Copyright, Advertising Industry View Page-Owners make space on their pages available to Advertising Intermediaries (AIs) Page-Owners provide data to AIs so that AIs can select the most relevant ads to display (and/or the highest-paying ads...) Page-Owners provide data to the AI that enables the delivery of the ads into the reserved space in the requestor's browser-window (requestors IP-address) AIs can target ads into diverse communities
Copyright, Consumer View The AI pushes a transaction to the user, even though the user made no request to it The AI can include in the payload any available device, e.g. active code, web-bugs The AI can place non-consensual, long-term cookies on the unsuspecting requestor's device – in defiance of IETF RFCs If the user clicks on an ad, a substantial set of interlocking data becomes available to the AI (incl. cookie-contents, the IP-address, and associations with the original request)
Copyright, Storage Syndication From Client-Server architecture To Peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture Napster in 1998 Kazaa/FastTrack in 2001 eDonkey/Gnutella in 2003 BitTorrent in Distributed Catalogues Distributed Repositories
Copyright, P2P Differentiated from Client-Server
Copyright, P2P Supports Many Payloads, incl. Ads P2P applications: Music Software Images News Video Virus Signatures Provision of repository-space is consensual but how could the user ever really know? The Business Model for commercial P2P has been ad-based from the very beginning The ads are stored on users devices, and disseminated from users devices
Copyright, 'The Architecture of Participation' aka Harnessing Collective Intelligence and The Surging Wisdom of Crowds Self-Publishing / 'Vanity Press' Now called Content Syndication Collaborative Publishing: cf. CSCW – shared text-documents Wikis generally, esp. Wikipedia Free-Text Metadata: folksonomy', tags, tag-clouds
Copyright, Tag Cloud for Web 2.0 c. 21 Mar 2007
Copyright, Tag Cloud for Web 2.0 c. 12 November 2005
Copyright, 'The Architecture of Participation' Benefits for Business Affiliated Advertising Space Raw Material for Data Mining, esp. by Google Training Ground for Contributors People are lured into providing gratis services in pseudo-community environments, e.g. Amazon book reviews product reviews product FAQs, which are written and maintained by unpaid volunteers rather than as a supplier support service
Copyright, Web 2.0 – The Technical Perspective Additional Facilities: Mixing Mash-ups – more or less ad hoc combination of content from multiple sources e.g. maps and descriptive data 'Lightweight Programming Models' – a reaction against over-blown Web Services
Copyright, AJAX Features Server-side control over user interface, esp. to overcome the frequent blank-screen experience Proprietary features in MSIE have defeated the Web. With AJAX, a single application can/could work consistently on all client-platforms. So the Webs original universality is recovered (maybe only briefly) Corporate View: Server-side control over consumer device, data Consumer View: Subversion of the concept of the Web Hijack of the functions of the browser
Copyright, Architecture of Participation? of Exploitation? The Web era has seen continual attempts to expropriate communitarian effort, and 'monetise' it: "There will be billboards along the Information Superhighway" (Kelly 1994) Proprietisation of Internet Spaces (CompuServe, AOL, Apple eWorld, many M$ failures, ) 'Web-Casting' (1997) 'Info-mediaries' (Hagel & Armstrong 1997) Portals (1998-) Consumer Profiling (1999-) –––– The Dot.Com Implosion ( ) –––– will we ever see 'mass micro-marketing', 'mass customisation', 'one to one' consumer marketing?
Copyright, The Communitarian Perspective: An Architecture of Collaboration? Wikipedia a reference repository collaborative authorship Flickr: a photo repository free-text meta-tags hence a folksonomy (cf. taxonomy) hence tag-clouds (word-size in display proportional to frequency) Del.icio.us: a bookmark repository with free-text meta- tags on to folksonomy and tag-clouds YouTube: a video repository on to......
Copyright, What Role in Web 2.0 for Social Networking Services ? ? Plaxo... LinkedIn...
Copyright, What Role in Web 2.0 for Virtual Worlds? Board-games? MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) Trubshaw, Essex University, UK, 1979 Cyberspace Gibsons Neuromancer, The MetaVerse Stephensons Snowcrash, 1992 SecondLife Rosedale, Linden Labs,
Copyright, Three Views of Web 2.0 The Marketer / Neo Dot.com Movement incl. 3 or 4 dimensions of 'syndication' Make money by co-opting collaboration The Technical Get inside users devices and do things The Communitarian Collaborate
Copyright, A Very Few References Worth Reading The OReilly Article (30 Sep 2005): The Wikipedia Entry: but see also entries on specific topics (Flickr, Tag Clouds, etc.) Bill Higgins on Ajax and REST (2 Oct 2006): Chris McEvoys Why Ajax Sucks (Dec 2005): David Bests Web 2.0 (11 Jan 2006): For lots of Vacuity, see the Web 2.0 Summits: