First coined in 2004, the term “web 2.0″ simultaneously demonstrates both the very best of marketing and the very worst.
“Web 2.0″ has defined an industry category that has driven billions of dollars of investment to bring incredible tools to the world. At its best it means “everything”, but in reality it means closer to “nothing”.
The term is most ambiguous within the context of the electronic design industry. To us, an increment means an increment in functionality. This is not at all the case with the web. There was not a new release of the internet upon the coining of the term. No new features were added to any protocols. All of the tools that have been developed that sit underneath this umbrella are based upon technologies that have been around for years. Indeed, since the very early days of the web in some cases (re. IM). So in a sense, “web 2.0″ means “nothing”.
However, “web 2.0″ as a collective handle referring to the new application of older technology is where the term begins to mean “everything”.
There are a number of definitions used that vary upon a theme of “collaboration” or “interaction” and imply tools that enable this: forum, chat, blog, social network, various software-as-a-service platforms (for the enterprise), etc. However, while useful to describe a collection of re-packaged technology (for an extreme example take a look at “Ajax“), it is still lacking.
I prefer to add a bit of wisdom from our industry. We all know that revision 1.0 of a piece of software is usually “challenging”, to put it mildly. It is when the software is at revision “2.0″ that it becomes useful and can be applied to solve a problem (without it coming back to bite you).
And this is where we are - we now have web products and platforms that are useful and can solve real problems. In the consumer space, some “problems” are debatable. However, in the electronic design industry we have some very large and challenging problems to solve.
- How to re-integrate an industry that is dynamic and geographically distributed
- How to engage with new users emerging on the other side of the world
- How to support users that exist on three or four continents without an army of applications engineers
- How to know the latest technology coming out of…everywhere!
The list is long and the problems large - they stifle growth and limit our efficiency as an industry.
So, is Xuropa “Web 2.0″?
Xuropa is an “Integrated Web 2.0 Platform”. As has been said in this blog before, there are many point tools out there that address parts of the challenges above. And these tools use various web 2.0 technologies. The Xuropa platform is the complete solution.
Posted under business, industry, marketing
This post was written by James Colgan on November 17, 2008
So, is Xuropa “Web 2.0″?
At the moment Xuropa is a “walled garden” which looks a lot more like AOL or “Dial-Up 1.0″ than the Web. You may want to re-consider this approach of requiring a login.
I think Atom and Open Social are examples of protocols that are contemporaneous with Web 2.0, each are significant for different reasons and may take off.
It’s also significant to me that Amazon, E-Bay, Facebook, FlickR and many others have very powerful API’s, this level of data access wasn’t as common in the first decade of the Web.
There are two points to consider here that you touch on: registration and data portability. And a third basic business point that you completely miss.
Firstly, registration. Facebook, LinkedIn, et al all require registration and sign-in to use. So if you consider these as canonical examples of web 2.0 (as most do), you’d be wrong to classify them as AOL-like web 1.0 “sites”. From a technical perspective, you cannot deliver “mass customization” of a web plaform experience without some sort of sign-in. This would eliminate a key ability and value proposition of delivering a service via the web. For an example, read the front page of today’s WSJ. They note a new feature on Google that enables a user to customize search results - IF THEY SIGN IN.
Secondly, data portability. As was reported in the broad media months ago, the “walled garden” phenomena was mostly related to this aspect of social/professional networks. A simple and single facet of this problem being no one wants to re-enter data time and time again. We address this issue in different ways through the import of LinkedIn profiles and contacts, for example. There are also various places where users can upload data, spreadsheets, etc. We also provide export facilities and will continue to add more data portability features as we see needs, desires and opportunities to bring additional value to our members.
Thirdly, the point that really surprised is your suggestion that we invest in a technology that “may take off”. The OpenSocial API is still in ALPHA. (Atom is a file format contained within OpenSocial.) So, OpenSocial is promising, but considering that this feature is not core to our value proposition and we’re a start-up that needs to focus on core value, the suggestion that we jump on technology at this stage of maturity is flawed. We continue to watch new technologies very carefully, and when we see adoption AND stability we’ll be more comfortably making the investment.
It wasn’t my intent to suggest that you invest effort in an API, Atom, or OpenSocial. Just that these developments were a demark between Web 1.0 and 2.0 era websites.
Xuropa will only show content to folks who are registered users and have logged in. In this sense it is a “walled garden.” For some references see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_(media)
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000898.html
The real analogy for your purposes may be access to the DAC show floor. While I can freely browse the websites of any vendor exhibiting at DAC, I have to sign up, pay and give DAC personally identifying information which they associate with my access badge.
Thanks for the clarification Sean. Your statement about adoption took me aback a bit.
We still need to explore some points though.
OpenSocial, and these types of technologies are not a demarcation between web 1.0 and web 2.0, but something else that is still evolving. Some refer to this as part of web 3.0 or “the semantic web”. (See below.)
Let me disambiguate your last statement, as I’m not sure you meant this. A fundamental difference between DAC and an EDA company’s website is face-to-face interaction. The value in DAC is not just access to data (as in a datasheet, or a paper), it is access to tools and research and the people behind them. This interaction provides deeper understanding and enables professionals to build/maintain valuable relationships.
The Xuropa Platform is an excellent support environment for events such as DAC. Online interactions build momentum and increase event activity and participation. This topic is worthy of a separate post, so I’ll leave it here for now.
But let’s get back to registration. While registration is common between DAC and Xuropa, the primary function is quite different. The Xuropa registration process and subsequent sign-in enable a more efficient and effective experience through customized functionality, content aggregation and presentation. This requires information that is not available on any other system that we could access through an API. It would be great if the semantic web existed and the Xuropa Platform could adapt to the visitor drawing upon information already made available through another platform, but that’s not the case today.
The aspect of security and “the badge” analogy could work. The Xuropa registration is needed to appropriately protect sensitive data and EDA tools that are hosted on the Xuropa Platform. The electronic design industry is predicated on intellectual property. To enable global access to tools and sensitive information we must provide control and security.
To reiterate, we’re not ruling out new technologies and use-models. We need to leverage as much as we can to efficiently bring value to our members. However, our industry has unique attributes that are not as yet fully catered to within socially oriented technologies that are still in development.
Semantics:
Chronologically your demarcation point does not track. OpenSocial
was launched in November 2007 (and almost immediately hacked). In 2006, the term web 3.0 was coined as a place holder for evolving concepts…see below. But I refer you again to wikipedia for a definition of “web 2.0″ that has evolved to a point of agreement within the web industry. “OpenSocial” is not mentioned, but more importantly nor are the concepts of identity or data portability . The emphasis is on concepts such as “participation” and “contribution”.
There is mention of distributed applications. However, this is not in the sense that there is a single application resident on multiple platforms, but that a single platform pulls in data from other platforms (as is the case with Xuropa). Applications resident on a third party platform were implementable for the first time when Facebook opened their API last year. (Again, well after the transition from web 1.0 to 2.0. circa 2004.)
When you get a chance, you will see many features that enable interaction, contribution and general participation on Xuropa. You will also see the integration of applications, but not in the way FaceBook would consider it (frivolous toys on the whole). We’ve built ways to integrate access to EDA tools.
Referring to the wikipedia definition of web 3.0. As the definition states, the phrase was “introduced to hypothesize about a future wave of Internet innovation.” It’s a place holder handle that we can hang concepts and ideas on as the internet experience and technology unfold. But there is a key phrase: “transformation of the Web from a network of separately siloed [sic] applications and content repositories to a more seamless and interoperable whole.” ie. a move away from what are called “walled gardens”.
The “walled garden” situation is well recognized and accepted by platforms such as Xuropa as a current necessity. However, it’s not a binary situation as your analogy implies.
Access and linkages are present and continue to be made where appropriate and technically feasible in the short term.