Web 2.0 will end privacy
Plush soft pastel faces of Web 2.0 are well known to all of us. MySpace . Digg . Flickr . Incredible super brand Silicon Valley startups, which for millions are bought by large media conglomerates and make their creators the stars. Tom Anderson (Tom Anderson), Kevin Rose (Kevin Rose) - this is their photos pins wallpaper generation of Web 2.0. But the idols of the monster who was given life are not well aware.
I firmly believe that the Web 2.0 movement will result in the almost complete disappearance of anonymity on the Internet. And that's why.
Decide on a genre
')
Let's first find out what it really means - Web 2.0. A buzzword is an attractive wrapper that hides a basic set of certain principles and technical methods. Most under the Web 2.0 understands the increased popularity of the blogosphere. The development of social networks. The invention of tags and the contribution of end users to product creation. This is free networking and free exchange with friends. Such an explanation can be considered quite close to the point; a precise definition is not given even to great minds.
Let's try to figure out the examples. The most successful - Digg.com, it combines many of the aspects we have listed. Unlike traditional information resources, the news here is written by the participants themselves. User-prepared notes, as well as notes he liked, are linked with a personal profile. The user profile is linked with the profiles of friends, which allows you to view the texts recommended by each other group members. Add to this the excellent software solutions and elements of blogging.
Or MySpace, a powerful social network (now owned by the Rupert Murdoch Corporation). Its users can share music files, thoughts, pictures and words, have the opportunity to meet new people and find new interests thanks to the system of links. If MySpace says that your buddy loves some kind of The Super Arctic Guitar Ax Nirvana Marsupials, you might like the same thing.
Web 2.0 also means the evolution of online business. Google from a search engine turns into an advertising platform. Email pushed by instant messaging systems has become a predominantly business tool. Outlook and Office with the advent of their Ajax-analogues are increasingly unnecessary. The ability to do everything online, perhaps, had never before been so important.
User Benefits
Why not? The more massive the “movement” becomes, the wider the changes affect the Network, the better for the user, isn't it? Even today, Digg is jeopardizing the traditional publishing business - its members have performed well in the search for information that would meet their own demographic criteria. The popularity of the resource is a confirmation. Thanks to MySpace, adolescents everywhere were able to bypass the tenacious parental care they did what they could do best, namely, to hang around, establish awkward communication with the opposite sex, share opinions about the latest "chips" and musical novelties.
Flickr has provided free photo hosting to millions of users. Thanks to a successful technical implementation, sharing photos has become as simple as ever. The use of Creative Commons licenses Larry Lessig (Larry Lessig) - an indicator that Flickr has a reputation in some sense "opposition", which should attract other skeptical seniors hackers and amateur coders. With the advent of Google Mail and Calendar, many no longer need Outlook: why pay Microsoft if everything you need is available online for free? Given the growth of the Web all over the world, as well as the development of the mobile Internet, you will almost never be left without a connection.
Web 2.0 sites offer great functionality and offer the best online entertainment. Isn't that great?
In the still waters
Despite the abundance of user lotions, the profit of companies involved in this area remains minimal. So minimal that the question arises: what is not visible on the surface? Take the same Flickr, our last example. Acquired by Yahoo for some unimaginable millions of dollars, this service hardly makes money at all. Take a look at the site. Where are the items of income? Of course, you are invited to buy a privileged membership, but I’m willing to bet that the number of paid users can be counted on the fingers of the millionaires who bought Flickr. Yahoo is lowering money on keeping Flickr working with frightening speed.
Not so long ago, Digg received an investment of $ 1 million in business development. His main source of income, as you can see, is advertizing at the top of the page provided by Google Adsense. It is unlikely there is a gold mine. New features appear in Digg incredibly slowly. The only innovation was reduced to improving communication between users, who can now see what other participants are doing.
Perhaps the most extreme example is YouTube . According to some estimates, the service spends $ 1 million per day to pay for traffic and a channel that has the necessary bandwidth, taking into account the amount of injected video. In what way do they intend to raise funds to cover these costs?
So what's the secret?
So, the main question is brewing: how do any of these business enterprises hope to earn? They are all squandering money, and none of them show any visible profit opportunities besides Google advertising. Of course, Google advertising is beautiful in itself, but it only brings money to Google itself.
Why is Web 2.0 so expensive? Why is MySpace valued at more than half a billion dollars, despite the lack of a coherent business strategy? Why does Digg's estimated valuation exceed $ 20 million, while the project has no idea where the money should come from?
The answer is information. Marketing. The smallest details about me and about you. That's where the money is.
This argument is not new, - I heard such an objection from various Web 2.0 adherents, another soap bubble. They may have read it for the first time from one of the popular bloggers, say, from John Battelle.
But the argument still has weight. There is a feature that brings together projects that fall under the concept of Web 2.0: they all gather information about you and your buddies with incredible enthusiasm. What do you like. What do you like and at the same time your friends. Digg knows what notes you added, which demographic group you belong to, how other members from the same demographic group responded to your post. MySpace is able to analyze each user's portrait according to any statistical parameters imaginable, and then dig up and add to this information about what you are doing and sharing online, and how it relates to your friends from the same (or other) demographic niche.
Flickr is perhaps the most interesting service. Type the query "cat", and Flickr gives the most popular - by the number of clicks - photo. Comparing the color and other information about the image with the words used in the search queries, Yahoo gradually fills up the base, fixing the features of human perception. We often hear that the main difference between Yahoo and Google, if we talk about the future, is that Yahoo wants the Internet to be described by people, and Google prefers to entrust this matter to robots. Google in business is focused on creating algorithms. Yahoo, acquiring Flickr and Delicious (and something else that the company has views on), hopes that users will set the necessary direction for the business - and social networks.
Final game
So, Murdoch knows all about MySpace. Yahoo financial gurus know all your innermost thoughts, bookmarks and pictures. Google employees have recorded all your search habits, and, you can argue for anything, they intend to link them with your mailbox and diary. And something else that you do on the web. How much does this information cost? Given the growing costs of marketing research on the Internet, the increase in the number of connections worldwide, one can guess that the statistical data will only go up.
Where there is something valuable, buying and selling is always present. Our social networks, search habits, features of visual perception will be mercilessly sold to anyone who wants to lay hands on our detailed demographic information. And when your photos, files, mail, all your friends will exist online, you also have to be in touch. Thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet - like, say, in the framework of the “wireless” Google project in San Francisco - you will always be able to get in touch. And once you are in touch, you supply information to marketers.
When the bubble, called Web 2.0, bursts — when the big deals are left behind, the new millionaires take place, and your favorite sites are under the control of big business — then innovation will end. Next - just endless polishing mechanisms of the marketing machine.
Hey, but you and your friends will at least get closer to each other! In addition, you will have free hosting for photos.
I firmly believe that the Web 2.0 movement will result in the almost complete disappearance of anonymity on the Internet. And that's why.
Decide on a genre
')
Let's first find out what it really means - Web 2.0. A buzzword is an attractive wrapper that hides a basic set of certain principles and technical methods. Most under the Web 2.0 understands the increased popularity of the blogosphere. The development of social networks. The invention of tags and the contribution of end users to product creation. This is free networking and free exchange with friends. Such an explanation can be considered quite close to the point; a precise definition is not given even to great minds.
Let's try to figure out the examples. The most successful - Digg.com, it combines many of the aspects we have listed. Unlike traditional information resources, the news here is written by the participants themselves. User-prepared notes, as well as notes he liked, are linked with a personal profile. The user profile is linked with the profiles of friends, which allows you to view the texts recommended by each other group members. Add to this the excellent software solutions and elements of blogging.
Or MySpace, a powerful social network (now owned by the Rupert Murdoch Corporation). Its users can share music files, thoughts, pictures and words, have the opportunity to meet new people and find new interests thanks to the system of links. If MySpace says that your buddy loves some kind of The Super Arctic Guitar Ax Nirvana Marsupials, you might like the same thing.
Web 2.0 also means the evolution of online business. Google from a search engine turns into an advertising platform. Email pushed by instant messaging systems has become a predominantly business tool. Outlook and Office with the advent of their Ajax-analogues are increasingly unnecessary. The ability to do everything online, perhaps, had never before been so important.
User Benefits
Why not? The more massive the “movement” becomes, the wider the changes affect the Network, the better for the user, isn't it? Even today, Digg is jeopardizing the traditional publishing business - its members have performed well in the search for information that would meet their own demographic criteria. The popularity of the resource is a confirmation. Thanks to MySpace, adolescents everywhere were able to bypass the tenacious parental care they did what they could do best, namely, to hang around, establish awkward communication with the opposite sex, share opinions about the latest "chips" and musical novelties.
Flickr has provided free photo hosting to millions of users. Thanks to a successful technical implementation, sharing photos has become as simple as ever. The use of Creative Commons licenses Larry Lessig (Larry Lessig) - an indicator that Flickr has a reputation in some sense "opposition", which should attract other skeptical seniors hackers and amateur coders. With the advent of Google Mail and Calendar, many no longer need Outlook: why pay Microsoft if everything you need is available online for free? Given the growth of the Web all over the world, as well as the development of the mobile Internet, you will almost never be left without a connection.
Web 2.0 sites offer great functionality and offer the best online entertainment. Isn't that great?
In the still waters
Despite the abundance of user lotions, the profit of companies involved in this area remains minimal. So minimal that the question arises: what is not visible on the surface? Take the same Flickr, our last example. Acquired by Yahoo for some unimaginable millions of dollars, this service hardly makes money at all. Take a look at the site. Where are the items of income? Of course, you are invited to buy a privileged membership, but I’m willing to bet that the number of paid users can be counted on the fingers of the millionaires who bought Flickr. Yahoo is lowering money on keeping Flickr working with frightening speed.
Not so long ago, Digg received an investment of $ 1 million in business development. His main source of income, as you can see, is advertizing at the top of the page provided by Google Adsense. It is unlikely there is a gold mine. New features appear in Digg incredibly slowly. The only innovation was reduced to improving communication between users, who can now see what other participants are doing.
Perhaps the most extreme example is YouTube . According to some estimates, the service spends $ 1 million per day to pay for traffic and a channel that has the necessary bandwidth, taking into account the amount of injected video. In what way do they intend to raise funds to cover these costs?
So what's the secret?
So, the main question is brewing: how do any of these business enterprises hope to earn? They are all squandering money, and none of them show any visible profit opportunities besides Google advertising. Of course, Google advertising is beautiful in itself, but it only brings money to Google itself.
Why is Web 2.0 so expensive? Why is MySpace valued at more than half a billion dollars, despite the lack of a coherent business strategy? Why does Digg's estimated valuation exceed $ 20 million, while the project has no idea where the money should come from?
The answer is information. Marketing. The smallest details about me and about you. That's where the money is.
This argument is not new, - I heard such an objection from various Web 2.0 adherents, another soap bubble. They may have read it for the first time from one of the popular bloggers, say, from John Battelle.
But the argument still has weight. There is a feature that brings together projects that fall under the concept of Web 2.0: they all gather information about you and your buddies with incredible enthusiasm. What do you like. What do you like and at the same time your friends. Digg knows what notes you added, which demographic group you belong to, how other members from the same demographic group responded to your post. MySpace is able to analyze each user's portrait according to any statistical parameters imaginable, and then dig up and add to this information about what you are doing and sharing online, and how it relates to your friends from the same (or other) demographic niche.
Flickr is perhaps the most interesting service. Type the query "cat", and Flickr gives the most popular - by the number of clicks - photo. Comparing the color and other information about the image with the words used in the search queries, Yahoo gradually fills up the base, fixing the features of human perception. We often hear that the main difference between Yahoo and Google, if we talk about the future, is that Yahoo wants the Internet to be described by people, and Google prefers to entrust this matter to robots. Google in business is focused on creating algorithms. Yahoo, acquiring Flickr and Delicious (and something else that the company has views on), hopes that users will set the necessary direction for the business - and social networks.
Final game
So, Murdoch knows all about MySpace. Yahoo financial gurus know all your innermost thoughts, bookmarks and pictures. Google employees have recorded all your search habits, and, you can argue for anything, they intend to link them with your mailbox and diary. And something else that you do on the web. How much does this information cost? Given the growing costs of marketing research on the Internet, the increase in the number of connections worldwide, one can guess that the statistical data will only go up.
Where there is something valuable, buying and selling is always present. Our social networks, search habits, features of visual perception will be mercilessly sold to anyone who wants to lay hands on our detailed demographic information. And when your photos, files, mail, all your friends will exist online, you also have to be in touch. Thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet - like, say, in the framework of the “wireless” Google project in San Francisco - you will always be able to get in touch. And once you are in touch, you supply information to marketers.
When the bubble, called Web 2.0, bursts — when the big deals are left behind, the new millionaires take place, and your favorite sites are under the control of big business — then innovation will end. Next - just endless polishing mechanisms of the marketing machine.
Hey, but you and your friends will at least get closer to each other! In addition, you will have free hosting for photos.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30849/
All Articles