HOME BUILDER
JAMES HEIN
I've just started looking at an in-depth video training course on ASP.NET but more on that next week. This week, finally, we get back to our examination of Web 2.0.
Our summary so far is that Web 2.0 is a collection of old technologies used in a new way that involves more con- tributions from the user community than from the in-house IT department. Another interesting aspect of Web 2.0 is that it appears that you have to go against the general consensus.
For example, the basic trend has been to keep data private, but Web 2.0 companies head out in the opposite direction and make it public so that the external groups can add value to the existing data. The approach is not to be contrary for the sake of it, but to make something out of the differences. Companies like Napster built up a collections of songs, Flickr and Facebook built up communities.
Looking at it another way, each of these Web 2.0 companies gave up something considered important and expensive, that was considered critical, to get something of value back for free. Or put it another way, giving something to get something better back, something that is even more valuable. The value of what is given is determined by the consumer, not by the company.
Wikipedia gave up editorial control for speed and volume of information. Napster gave up its catalogue for volume. Amazon gave up a shopfront for the world market. Google gave up its biggest customers to get the rest of the world (and the bigger ones came back anyway).
The process is not without its difficulties. Wikipedia is now facing complaints over accuracy, so it is starting to take some editorial control back, but it also has megabytes of data it did not have before. Napster found that the majority of its material was pirated and had to change to something else, leaving other groups to carry that material. Amazon went through some teething issues on different item types and ran foul of some suppliers so it cannot send various item types outside US borders.
For the most part though the results are considered positive and you get bragging rights over those that did not take on the challenges and the risks. If I was living in say the UK or Australia today I would be buying all my books from Amazon, in the US. The books, DVDs, CDs and so one, are typically half the price you'd pay in a physical shop. In Bangkok the issue is less one of price, but more of selection. What you can get here is close in price, but there is so much that is not available here - so the same rules still apply.
The Web 2.0 approach also lets you use your competitor's words against them. When they take the high ground and tell you that people updating a posted story can cause inaccuracies, you can bounce back and say 'Yes, they can edit them, and that is potentially bad news for you.' If you consider the current state of the major news services, allowing people to add to posted information can provide the other side of the story rather than the politically correct or management-mandated versions.
The challenge when implementing a Web 2.0 approach with whatever it is you have that is valuable to you in some way right now is what can you expect or ask back in exchange for what you have that will allow you to use for other parts of your business.
Mapping companies have maps, people have data that they can add to those maps that can then be tidied up and repackaged as data intelligent maps for use by country to highlight the wonders of their nation for tourists. Imagine if the Tourism Authority of Thailand set up a site where visitors could add information to say a set of Google or Yahoo! maps of Thailand. The TAT would start with their approved list of places and based on real world feedback these would be updated to weed out the cheats. That's just one example.
Email: jclhein@gmail.com.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Next
