Can Web 2.0 break free?
Quinton Wall's Blog |
May 11, 2007 4:52 PM
|
Comments (5)
I've been looking at the Web2.0 space over the past while like most people and just like SOA it is an amorphic beast that is defined differently depending on what article you look at or water cooler you happen to be passing by but one thing that is certain, it is growing organically and can not be ignored. No shock there I guess, its pretty hard to go past folksonomy sites like Flickr or Del.icio.us and other glamware sites like youtube that tug at the narcissist in all of us. We all want to be famous so when there is a low cost of entry way for us to do so its not surprising we jump at it.
But how and why can we leverage some of this goodness for more than self-gratification? Of course Google has managed to build an empire out of software as a service as they struck at the motherload of Web2.0, data and information. Again the paradigms of SOA and Web2.0 are similar. SOA is about flexibility, the ability to re-use services and compose applications, quicker time to market and all that stuff, Web 2.0 has mash-ups etc to cover the re-use checkbox on our 2007 demand list of must-haves in enterprise applications. Web 2.0 also leverages more light weight programing models like php to allow incredible abilities to crush existing software deployment models, perhaps even more so that traditional SOAs. Flickr for example seems to be able to deploy new features or changes every 30 minutes which is mind boggling when you cast your mind back only a few years when XP and cruisecontrol brought nightly builds and weekly releases to the masses.
Speaking of sourceforge (the site where cruisecontrol is hosted), this is a perfect example of a fantastic site born in the Web 1.0 world where consolidation of information was the central driving factor. Even Flickr, our Web 2.0 poster child focuses on consolidation of information (images in this instance). The more images that users upload to Flickr the more powerful their folksonomy becomes. Good for the users of Flickr but less effective for those not using it. Perhaps an example will help: I did a simple search on Flickr for "java" which returned many results (47,330 to be exact). Right clicking on the images to find the name revealed a confusing mix of numbers with a file extension like .jpg or .png. Doing the same search on Google images returned staggering 27,300,000 hits but none of the same ones I found on Flickr (yes I admit I didnt check all of the responses).
So what does this all mean? Is one better than the other? Definitely not but in the inclusive world of Web 2.0 I can leverage the results through a mash-up (say to obtain the a collective response of images from google images and flickr) but imho this is just the tip of the iceburg. I spoke about the OS of the future almost a year ago to the day which would leverage the immense potential of web 2.0 and revolutionize the way our computers would operate. Right now web 2.0 is still constrained by the very thing that bore it life; the browser! Imagine building an OS that natively was part of the network that you could mash-up filesystems, drivers, applications etc in some polymorphic engine that has the best of everything combined today and will have the best of everything yet to come. Such a model would leave Linux and the idea of submitting patches to a central repository looking as ancient as Eniac. Then imagine the same connectivity could be applied to appliances in our home such as TVs already connected to the internet through cable which could update software such as the ability to handle HD or you could choose the menu system you liked rather than the standard one which comes from the manufacturer etc. The possibilities are truly boundless.....
I am game...anyone else up for trying!
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment
-
Not everyone is a Web 2.0 fan. Check out this article about making design a priority that is worth reading. In my opinion, Web 2.0 is still an emerging technology, but more feature reach web clients are here to stay, and I don't think there will be a move back to simple HTML clients. This does not mean that design should not be given a major emphasis. I think Web 2.0 and good design can be complimentary and they do not have to come at the expense of each other.
Posted by: jbayer on May 14, 2007 at 11:46 AM
-
Why are we still constrained by the browser is my concern? Years ago it used to be that the browser represented an answer to the delivery of applications, upgrades etc. We no longer needed to ship new versions of code on disk or CD for each rev. Now we look at the browser as the ubiquitous platform as it resident on almost every computer regardless of OS. I predict that the OS of the future will be 'one' with internet, (sounds way too Zen doesn't it!) where your entire OS will be a mash-up of your best pick of drivers, applications etc from the web depending on your need rather than pushing feature rich applications into a single app called the browser.
Posted by: quinton_wall on May 14, 2007 at 11:55 AM
-
A part of web 2.0 is "software about the level of a single device" - ie iTunes and TiVo as examples. So I'm not sure it's tied to a browser. Indeed, the Adobe guys with Apollo and RIA and "sometimes connected" programming do a great job at this I think.
Posted by: jonmountjoy on May 14, 2007 at 6:15 PM
-
Completely agree. Apollo is one of the technologies that is blurring the lines between the browser and the computer. If you havent see it check out Adobe's Apollo site
Posted by: quinton_wall on May 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM
-
Web 2.0 is real and is being used as a solution to a variety of problems with minimal downside. Web 2.0 improves user experience, UI complexity, application performance, and it reduces server load and network load.
In various forms, Web 2.0 is used by Comcast to manage their VoIP telephony network, EMC is embedding it for console controls, Banks are performing currency trading on Web 2, and call centers are using Web 2 to simplify call center consolidation, and other highly-leveraged business features such as these.
Utilizing Web 2 in a portal solution is still minimally explored, though portals and Web 2 are often called on for similar requirements: consoldiation of applications, enhanced user experience, and personalization.
Posted by: fmikkels on May 18, 2007 at 1:11 PM
|
