Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (17629)	11/8/2006 3:18:05 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank - Sure, we can accept the concept of Web 1.0 and 2.0, as arbitrary generational divisions. But we all know that the process of change is a continuum. People didn't wake up after 1300 AD and say "Holy crap - it's the Renaissance! NOW what do we do?" "What's next? Fisherman 2.0? Coal Miner 2.0?" Exactly ;) Those of us who watched the rise, fall, and resurrection of Netscape (and the accompanying market gyrations around the stock) - and its more successful reincarnation as MS's Internet Explorer - saw some innovative practices, not least of which was giving away the software to create the market. McAffee followed, albeit for a different sort of product. Which strategy exploited the "freeness" of the medium as a distribution mechanism. Both Google and Skype have used the same technique. Search engines are hardly a new concept: there used to be many. Is Google a Whole New Thing, or a successful recombination of old ideas, with some tweaks - and a better understanding of what it takes to attain commercial dominance? Mating advertising with a search engine wasn't a new idea, either: it was just done differently, and done better. Parent to the success of each innovation or recombination, each service and application, is the network itself. Which is, of course, no more than an extension of the air we breathe and the light we see, waves of which allow us to speak, hear, signal and see. The 'net's increasing penetration is the spread of a recombinant communications catalyst spanning print, video, voice, graphics - almost every major medium of human communication. A huge accelerant to change: a subset of greatly improved communication. "Remember CB radio, good buddy? Think about those paragons of adolescent social networking, MySpace, Facebook, and others of their ilk. Like television, they've all become a vast wasteland that makes Geraldo Rivera look profound." CB radio has a parallel with the SMS in that they both evolved a curious code or jargon peculiar to the medium. Broderick Crawford's Highway Patrol probably contributed to universal understanding of The Big Ten Four. OTOH, U R probably aware of how much SMS borrowed from early messaging on the 'net ;) And CB jargon took something from "hamsters", too... cbgazette.com It's this constant recombination and reiteration that reminds me so much of Mandelbrot bulbs, and makes one question just how long an Internet Life will be. Web 2.0? Telco 2.0? Enterprise 2.0 ? Obviously a concept whose time has come, which almost guarantees imminent disappearance of the descriptor's usage by good writers. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (17629)	11/25/2006 10:06:25 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

[Web2.0 Taken to Task] Here's yet another view, not so kind in this case, of Web 2.0. I found it refreshing to see another perspective, although I haven't any clue as to the author's motives, except to guess that he'd prefer a more architecturally sound approach to application building. --- Web 2.0 : The Way Forward 123suds.blogspot.com [ all bolding being the author's ] Bill Thompson in an excellent essay tinyurl.com writes that the time has now come to decide whether to put our faith in Ajaxified snakeoil or to look beyond the interface to distributed systems, scalable solutions and a network architecture that will support the needs and aspirations of the next five billion users. Pointing out that we must not be fooled by the cool sites and apparently open APIs, he says that most of the effort is – literally – window dressing. As he sees it, Web 2.0 marks the dictatorship of the presentation layer, a triumph of appearance over architecture where Ajax is touted as the answer for developers who want to offer users a richer client experience without having to go the trouble of writing a real application, but if the long term goal is to turn the network from a series of tubes connecting clients and servers into a distributed computing environment then we cannot rely on Javascript and XML since they do not offer the stability, scalability or effective resource discovery that we need. He is spot on that there is a massive difference between rewriting Web pages on the fly with Javascript and reengineering the network to support message passing between distributed objects, a difference that too many Web 2.0 advocates seem willing to ignore. He warns that to realize the vision of network as the computer it is a real danger if we stick with Ajax as the mantra. While agreeing with Bill, i think that organizations need to study how to integrate web 2.0 initiatives with other value focussed IT initiatives. Nicholas Carr in an article titled "The Amorality of Web 2.0" tinyurl.com , Carr slammed overeager Web 2.0 proponents as hyper-hyped. The problems of Web 2.0 may have more to do with human nature, and less with the qualities of bottom-up, online media. After all, the postal system has junk mail, the phone system has 419 scams and telemarketers, and stock markets constantly attract cons. Earlier in response to his criticisms about Web 2,0, I wrote that Nicholas carr has rightly picked up the holes in the Web 2.0 hype tinyurl.com - but cut the rhetoric, I do believe in the idea of Web 2.0 and that its time has come – for the simple reason that the web has to see advancements and it has to begin to impact normal life in more ways & means that what it is today and I do not subscribe to the media vs blog battle and that the media is losing the battle – the media may be seen to be losing as like other industries it has not looked in terms of cutting costs through means like offshoring, globalization – theres no one single global newspaper, global TV channel – also it has faced maximum technology changes in its ecosystem. – But to say that the web has threatened it to the extent of killing is wrong – as this note shows, adaptation is the key to succeed – online Wall street journal earns more than print version. So in essence it is just good models always win – with or without Web 2.0. I strongly beleive in the potential of Web 2.0. As I see it with mashups transcending known frontiers tinyurl.com , Web 2.0’s impact shall be felt tinyurl.com more with the emergence of platforms for the development of rich Internet applications and services. Ajax is enabling the creation of plug-in free Web apps that rival the performance of client-based desktop applications. These developments represent the very tip of exciting innovation to come — innovation that will require a new approach to venture investing led by a new breed of angel and venture investors that are able to successfully balance irrational exuberance with prudent funding to fuel the creation of new platforms for growth. But I agree with Bill that web 2.0 is not the solution to all issues and enterprises need to look far beyond in investing ad harnessing resources and efforts all around and integrate web 2.0 into these initatives. ------