Web 2.0
You are currently browsing the articles from the VoIP Digest matching the category Web 2.0.
Lots and lots of buzz this morning about Yahoo Pipes, which is being billed as “an interactive feed aggregator and manipulator” (manipulator sounds kind of evil, doesn’t it?). Anyway, I’m curious to try it out but it appears so are many other people as I’m getting an “unable to connect” message. Tim “Mr. Web 2.0″ O’Reilly expounds that Pipes is “a milestone in the history of the internet. It’s a service that generalizes the idea of the mashup, providing a drag and drop editor that allows you to connect internet data sources, process them, and redirect the output.” With a billing like that, no wonder the Pipes site is getting pounded.
Anil Dash is a little less enthusiastic, calling it an “an interesting and innovative new service” that lets people who are less tech-savvy combine different sources of online data.
“In this way, it’s possible for non-experts to create new web services for their own use or for public consumption. Pipes combines a remarkably sophisticated development environment with some core social features such as the ability to clone or share the web services you produce. The service is fairly approachable, but somewhat complex once you get just under the surface, and should be moderately successful while radically raising the bar for other tools in its category.”
When I get onto Pipes (hopefully later today), I give you my two cents but it looks intriguing. Anything that helps move RSS into the mainstream can only be a good thing!
Update: Yahoo now has a message when you try to visit the Pipes site: Our Pipes are clogged! We’ve called the plumbers! By the way, I hope the Pipes beta is better than the Yahoo Mail beta, which has huge growing pains.
Technorati Tags: Tim O’Reilly, Yahoo
Written by Mark Evans on February 9th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
I’m giving a presentation on Tuesday to a group of sales people who work for a news distribution company looking at exploiting Web 2.0 tools. One of the things they want to know is “What is Web 2.0?”. You can use the standard definition propagated by the followers/disciples of Tim O’Reilly, who see Web 2.0 as the emergence of Web-based services. But is this too broad of a definition for people grappling with the idea of collaboration tools, Wikis, blogs, video-sharing, etc.? I mean, the echo chamber understands Web 2.0 and us “insiders” are gulping down the Kool-Aid as quickly as new cool Web 2.0 services can be produced. But what about everyone else? What about all those people still on the outside looking in - otherwise known as the mainstream?
To me, an basic definition of Web 2.0 is it’s active/dynamic Web; the place where people do things. This is different from Web 1.0, which was static and mostly involved accessing material that you would have otherwise had to have read in a newspaper, magazine or book (and all those flawed IPOs made by companies with little revenue and but lots of hype). One of the most creative ways to explain Web 2.0 and how it’s changing the Internet is this video, which I’ve watched several times already. The video was created by Michael Wesch, an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University. (Hat tip to Somewhat Frank for giving the video some much-warranted attention)
Technorati Tags: Web 2.0
Written by Mark Evans on February 5th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Do you dig Digg? Do you trust that the top stories are really the top stories? Or are they being manipulated? In yet another concession that some of the results may be artificially torqued (don’t people have better things to do with their time?), Digg CEO Kevin Rose has decided to remove a long-time feature called “Top Diggers” that highlighted the efforts of 5,000 of its leading users.
The question is why Kevin, why? Why remove it simply because these Diggers are “being blamed by some outlets as leading efforts to manipulate Digg”. Who are these outlets are why do they have such clout? Is this an admission that some or many of your “Top Diggers” are manipulating the results? You call the criticism by these mysterious outlets a “disappointing trend” but you fail to disclose why they are, in fact, disappointing.
Clearly, Digg is have a problem with perception in an industry where you’re cool today and passe tomorrow (e.g. Friendster). Rose is trying to be pro-active rather than being forced to do something dramatic when a major problem emerges out of nowhere. The question is whether the growing criticism is water lapping against the shore or a tsunami. If Digg is seen as being inaccurate, manipulated, less-than-honest, etc., it creates the real possibility “Digg This” could quickly become less prominent around the Web.
That said, Digg is increasingly been seen as the default place on the Web for people to “vote” on the news. As Rose says in his blog posts, Digg is now getting 5,000 story submissions a day, and it has generated more than 50 million “Diggs” since it started in November 2004. This, in theory, should give Digg some clout and some goodwill to combat attacks from “some outlets”. If I were Rose, I’d address the concerns of his critics but, honestly, I’d be as or more concerned about building a sustainable business model to turn all those Diggs into dollars.
For more, check out Deep Jive Interests,who is surprised it took Rose so long to make this decision and why he’s not doing more; Technology Evangelist, and Pro Blogger.
Technorati Tags: Digg, Kevin Rose
Written by Mark Evans on February 3rd, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Has Web 2.0 reached the tipping point where it’s about to stumble into the mainstream? Read/WriteWeb’s Alex Iskold believes this is about to happen based on the activities of mainstream media such as Time and the NYT that are enthusiastically embracing tools such as RSS, deli.ico.us and Digg.
“It appears that we are nearing a tipping point for the mass adoption of prominent web 2.0 services, like digg and del.icio.us,” he said. “Endorsement by mainstream media opens these services up to millions of people who otherwise would either not know about them, or not take them seriously. So these are not just links, these are literally endorsements - or recognition of additional value for mainstream media.”
McManus is definitely on to something given some of the recent conversations I’ve been having with corporate executives who realize this Web 2.0 phenomena is starting to get interesting, and perhaps it’s time to start looking at whether any of them can be adopted. One of the challenges facing the mainstream is figuring out what applications are worth exploring. Do you get into Digg and del.ici.us, or try to find tools that are better, more user-friendly, easier to install, etc. - not an easy task given the growing number of tools/services in each category. But the fact companies are started to talk about Web 2.0 tools is a fairly impressive indication that they’re catching up to the rest of us.
What I tell companies looking at Web 2.0 tools is experiment, dabble, play, and not be disappointed if something that’s rolled out fails to resonate with employees, customers, investors, etc. It’s still early in the game so there is plenty of time to figure out what works and what doesn’t. The only way they’re really to going fail is if they choose to ignore Web 2.0 tools.
Written by Mark Evans on February 1st, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and Media.
Did the Wall St. Journal attend a presentation I gave last month to the Toronto Venture Group? You’d swear someone was copiously taking notes given a story it had yesterday on how many Web start-ups have adopted a low-cost, no-frills business philosophy - as opposed to the high-flying, high-spending environment during the dot-com boom.
For me, the WSJ story strikes a chord given I co-founded a start-up during the boom (Blanketware Corp.), and now live and breath the new new way of doing business at b5media. We’re a company without a traditional office (we’ve been operating out of CEO Jeremy Wright’s basement and a converted garage in the back of my house so far). When it comes to doing business Skype and Hotwire are key strategic tools, and until winter finally arrived last week, I was happy to ride my bike to meetings if it meant saving the $10 or $15 on parking.
One quote that stood out in the WSJ story came from Sequoia Capital’s Roelof Botha, who said “Any crash this time won’t be as precipitous as in 2000. Because start-ups aren’t going through cash at such a blistering pace, that gives companies more time to figure out what works in their business.”
While you could argue there may not be a dramatic financial crash, I do believe 2007 could a start-up fall out as many “projects” started in 2005 and 2006 exhaust their initial angel/friends/family/founder financing, and are unable to raise more money because their business models aren’t solid enough. For more thoughts on the WSJ, check out Digital Alchemy, USA Today’s Kevin Maney and PodTech’s John Furrier, who rightly makes the point that the focus for start-ups shouldn’t be on being thrifty but, rather, generating revenue.
Technorati Tags: b5media, Venture Capital, Web 2.0
Written by Mark Evans on January 19th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and Venture Capital.
For folks in the technology world, Techmeme has become one of the places for the latest news. Search Engine Land (aka Danny Sullivan) has a lengthy Q&A with Techmeme founder Gabe Rivera. For those interested in how Techmeme is generating revenue, Rivera said the sponsored post program has been a success since it was introduced several months ago. “I’m even sold out for the next few months” he said, which makes you wonder how long it will be before Techmeme’s reasonably-priced sponsorship rates increase.
Technorati Tags: Techmeme, Gabe Rivera
Written by Mark Evans on January 19th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
I had an e-mail yesterday from someone looking for a list of user-generated content companies in Canada. Well, there’s b5media (that’s an easy one, eh!), Bubbleshare (photo-sharing), Blogware (blog publishing) Cambrian House (crowd-sourcing), Five Limes (green retailing), BlogTV.ca (video-sharing) iBegin (local listings), Kitchen Lackey (recipes, cooking) and….who else it out there? Do we have another potential Flickr in our midst? Why isn’t this list longer given we’re in the midst of a user-generated content revolution. After all, Time Magazine recently declared 2006 to be the year of “You” so shouldn’t “You” also include Canadians? If you’ve got more suggestions, let me know and I’ll add them to the list.
Update: A few more members to add: Nakama (wireless photo sharing), NowPublic (citizen journalism), ProductWiki (product reviews/e-commerce), Netus (business project network), Food Inc. (restaurant reviews), FrontRowCentre (movie reviews and listings), JobLoft (job classifieds) and Top10PressReleases.com (Digg-like voting on stock market press releases).
Written by Mark Evans on January 9th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
After much speculation (including a blog post I wrote yesterday), Yahoo finally acquired MyblogLog for $12- $10-million, according to Om Malik. Obviously, Yahoo put MyBlogLog in play last month when the rumors of its interest started to percolate. Of course, it didn’t hurt MyBlogLog’s M&A prospects that its social networking/community tool started to gain a lot of momentum in recent weeks judging by the number of widgets that started to pop up on peoples’ blogs. To be clear, MyBlogLog has some interesting features but it’s not much of a business given its only source of revenue is a statistics package that costs $3 a month or $25 a year, which competes against free services such as Google Analytics, Performancing and Sitemeter.
Yahoo is proving be an even better dream-maker for Web 2.0 start-ups than Google given the number of small acquisitions (Flicker, Blo.gs, Bix, Jumpcut). The question is what is Yahoo going to do with all these different pieces other than try to drive these users to other Yahoo services? And whatever happened to the Peanut Butter Manifesto?
Update: Om Malik has more details here. For some insight into MyBlogLog’s revenue potential and traffic, Fred Wilson had some thoughts last month. Mathew Ingram wonders out loud what Yahoo intends to do with MyBlogLog, which he highlights raised zero venture capital.
Technorati Tags: M&A, Web 2.0
Written by Mark Evans on January 9th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and M&A.
Inspired by my examination of Digg’s business model earlier this week, I’ve moved the spot to MyBlogLog, which has been getting an awful lot of attention (see this ZDNet mini-review) ever since reports Yahoo was going to acquire it for $10-million. I’ve been using MyBlogLog for a long time as a tool to track what posts people are reading and what sites they are coming from, as well as a cool widget that tells you how many times a particular link in a post has been clicked on.
Mostly recently, MyBlogLog has been attracting users with a social networking tool that lets you add other MyBlogLog users to your community. There’s also a widget that tells you the other MyBlogLog users (including their photos) who have visited your site.
So, how does MyBlogLog make money? From what I can tell, it’s mostly from a premium service ($3 a month or $25 a year) that lets you see your statistics in real-time. This compares with the free service that lets you check statistics from the previous week. I suspect MyBlogLog’s push into the community/social networking markets has two angles: it attracts new users, which makes the company more attractive to potential advertisers and/or suitors; as well as creating a larger audience for the premium statistics services.
If you believe where there’s smoke, there’s fire, Yahoo’s apparent interest in MyBlogLog suggests the company could be the next Web 2.0 start-up to be snapped up.
Written by Mark Evans on January 7th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Well, it turns out the buyer of Bubbleshare isn’t News Corp. Instead, it’s Toronto-based Kaboose Inc., which is buying the photo-sharing service for $2.25-million to strengthen it’s position as “the biggest independent, family-focused online media company in North America”. (That’s a real mouthful, eh!).
Anyway, the deal will see Bubbleshare CEO Albert Lai and his team join Kaboose, which is looking to develop its community and social networking activities. It’s a small transaction but can only be seen as a successful for Lai, who made its first entrepreneurial splash when he and his partners sold MyDesktop to JupiterMedia in 1999. Hopefully, it will also provide Canada’s Web 2.0 community with some inspiration/encouragement that there are rewards if you take the plunge. I’ve got a lot of respect for Lai but the reality was Bubbleshare was more a feature than a business so it’s future hinged on a buy-out. At the end of the day, he and Bubbleshare did well.
The question you have to ask is whether News Corp.’s apparent $5-million offer for Bubbleshare was pulled off the table when details of the deal were leaked.
Under the terms of the transaction, Kaboose will buy BubbleLabs Inc. for $2.25 million with another $750,000 on the table based on an earn-out.
Update: Much to my surprise, Kaboose offered up its CEO, Jason DeZwirek, for an interview (and you thought only the mainstream media got to interview CEOs). I’ll provide a Q&A later in the post (see “continue reading” at the bottom) but wanted to highlight a couple of things from our discussion. Kaboose attracts 10 million unique visitors a month during its peak season (October to December) - 80% to 85% from the U.S. When asked whether the Bubbleshare purchase could inspire Canadian Web 2.0 entrepreneurs, here’s what DeZwirek had to say: “I hope that’s the case. If it is a by-product of it, that would be great. I think it’s a real shame that Canadians aren’t as active in the new media environment as we could be. Part of the reason is we are too Canadian-focused. People who are working on things are focused on the Canadian audience only, and that is not what the Internet is about. Although Kaboose and Bubbleshare are Canadian companies, we are both developing tools and applications that have universal appeal.”
Technorati Tags: M&A, Web 2.0
Can you talk about when discussions with Bubbleshare started?
We have been aware of bubbleshare since early summer and have been talking to them on an off over that time. Things accelerated over the last 30 days or so. But our belief has always been and is today they have a great set of tools with respect to sharing photos that are extremely easy to use. From our perspective, our audience of 10 million users a month is largely families and from that largely moms, and photos are a big part of preserving and sharing family memories. We have needs across the board for all our properties, not only photo sharing tools but other tools and applications, and the development team at bubble has a great skill set.
There are dozens of photo-sharing services out there. Did it help that Bubbleshare was in your backyard?
Yes, it was [helpful]. We weren’t specifically shopping for a photo sharing company. We were doing ‘buy, build partner’ scenarios for social networking tools and applications, which we view photos as an integral part of. From that angle, [Bubbleshare] is a great company and a great team where we have a photo application pretty much baked and ready to go and the team and technology can server as basis for a number of other social networking tools we plan to introduce this year.
Are you looking for more acquisitions?
We are very acquisitive company. This is our ninth acquisition. Our company has been built on acquisitions. This is the first time we have really bought tools and applications or technology. We have bought larger operating companies and larger Web companies. Ultimately, we see the Bubbleshare tools as generating traffic, retaining user and generating more pageviews. We are still focused on buying properties but our mission is helping parents plan and share family life.
Written by Mark Evans on January 5th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and M&A.
In the wake of my Web 2.0 business model post yesterday, I’ve been thinking some more about Digg: Digg the cool service vs. Digg the business. To be honest, I’m not a huge Digg user, although I just installed the Digg extension within Firefox so I expect to be Digg-ing more often.
So, the question facing Digg (and the investors who just pumped $8.5-million into it) is how you take a popular, free service, and generate some revenue from it. The most simple route is advertising by running contextual-based ads against the content and/or attracting advertisers who who want exposure to Digg’s user base. Another revenue route is Digg Labs, which currently feature two projects - Swarm and Stack. Perhaps some of all of these projects can be turned into premium services.
Of course, Digg and many other popular Web 2.0 companies may not be in the business of creating sustainable business models. They may simply be in the “build it and they will buy” business where you strike lightning in a bottle, run as fast as you can for as long as you can to get as many users as you can so someone decides to acquire your users and database.
Written by Mark Evans on January 4th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
There was no doubt that 2006 was a wonderful year for anyone into Web 2.0 (See Michael Arrington’s favorites list and Dion Hinchcliffe’s Best 2006 Web 2.0 software list) and there was plenty of venture capital thrown at some of the more promising companies (i.e. Digg recently pulled in another $8.5-million). What should be interesting in 2007 is whether the Web 2.0 landscape begins to see an evolution/maturation in business models.
In other words, there are plenty of cool Web 2.0 services/applications that don’t appear to have a path to become businesses, as well as many that seem to be heavily depending on AdSense to generate most, if not all, of their revenue. Will advertising continue to be the economic foundation for many Web 2.0 businesses or will other sources of revenue emerge such as subscriptions and premium services?
If advertising is the major pillar, then you have to ask if whether the pie is big enough for everyone, especially after Google walks away with a big chunk of it. In an ideal world, subscriptions will emerge as a second revenue source but so far few companies seem have to have the chutzpah to ask people to actually pay for services, and/or have a service that people are willing pull out the credit card to buy. The poster-child for the Web 2.0 subscription business continues to be 37 Signals.
In terms of premium service (or the freemium model that Fred Wilson has highlighted), that strikes me as having intriguing potential IF you can convince enough people to upgrade to a paid service from a free service. A good example of a company successfully pulling off the freemium model is Freshbooks, which offers a nice, but basic, free invoicing service as well as a more robust and subscription-based premium service. You could also put Skype into this category, particularly in the wake of its all-you-can-eat North American long-distance plan that was rolled out a few weeks ago.
My feeling is there isn’t enough advertising around to support the plethora of ad-supported services that have been launched and will be launched. As a result, you can expect to see dozens of companies disappearing or selling their assets. In an ideal world, the freemium model will gain more momentum in 2007 because it will suggest people are willing to pay for useful, valuable services. That said, free still rules the roost so I’m not holding my breath.
Technorati Tags: Advertising, Google, Web 2.0
Written by Mark Evans on January 3rd, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Hoping to strike book publishing gold twice in a row, Shel Israel’s in the midst of writing Global Neighbourhoods, which looks at how the Web is creating digital/virtual communities “defined not by physical boundaries, but by common interests”. Here’s the most recent overview. Shel’s last book, Naked Conversations, (co-written with Robert Scoble) has become one of the must-reads for any company interested in blogging.
Written by Mark Evans on December 29th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
The Wall St. Journal has an intriguing story about whether Web 2.0 is another bubble. It features a discussion between Todd Dagres, a founder and general partner with Spark Capital, and David Hornik, a general partner with August Capital. Dagres believes Web 2.0 is a bubble and that “billions will be lost on Web 2.0 companies when all is said and done”, while Hornik takes a more pragmatic approach. Here’s another take on the whole Bubble v.s non-Bubble debate: it strikes me the biggest worry-warts/advocates of Bubble 2.0 are the media rather than investors. Whether it’s the WSJ or Time or BusinessWeek, the media is doing a wonderful job talking about Bubble 2.0 and/or the red-hot Web landscape. Of course, it’s difficult to have a bubble when the investors involved are still mainly VCs and large institutions - as opposed to retail investors who lost their collective shirts during the dot-com boom by buying into hype rather than substance. Of course, VCs are not immune from hype either but, in theory, they’re supposed to be smarter, more pragmatic investors..right?
For more thoughts, check out Paul Kedrosky, who describes Dagres and Hornik as “bubble babies”, and Ouriel.
Written by Mark Evans on December 28th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Venture Capital and M&A.
You have to give consultant/author/speaker Don Tapscott credit where credit’s due: he’s got a gift for jumping on new tech trends. His latest project is mass collaboration, highlighted by the release of a new book next week called Wikinomics. For people who have watched Tapscott over the years, his track record includes Y2K, e-commerce, corporate governanance and, now, Web 2.0. This guy’s the ultimate high-tech chameleon who knows where his bread is buttered and has an uncanny knack for convincing people he’s one of the people with a grasp on a particular trend and where it’s going. It’s pretty amazing that he’s now seen (or, perhaps, billing himself) as a leading voice within Web 2.0 given a year ago Tapscott was still engrossed in corporate governance.
Written by Mark Evans on December 27th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Can a tiger change its stripes? Can you turn water into wine? Can Ray Ozzie and Steve Berkowitz transform Microsoft into an Internet company from its Windows/Office roots? This is a question highlighted by the New York Times, which looks at Microsoft efforts to beef up is online operations through initiatives such as Live. At the risk of under-playing the dominance of Internet Explorer and the popularity of MSN.com, Microsoft isn't an Internet company and, frankly, it will never be seen as anything else other than a giant software company with some interesting side projects (e.g. Xbox).
This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is what it is even though Microsoft has been struggling to convince people otherwise for the past decade. If you take a step back, Microsoft's track record beyond Windows and Office has been, at best, mediocre. A good example is television where it has toiled for years and spent billions of dollars to establish a foothold in the living room. Microsoft has acquired stakes in cable companies, purchased start-ups (anyone remember WebTV?) and, most recently, tried to developed an IP-TV platform for carriers. But after all this time, money and effort, Microsoft only has a modest presence in the TV or video markets.
Microsoft's problem - and challenge - is the Internet isn't part of the corporate DNA so it's hard to really be a vibrant and innovative Internet player when it's not really who you are. A part of this reality is Microsoft continues to make billions of dollars from selling Windows and Office. It's the business so Microsoft's lack of success in diversifying into other businesses is no different than what many other companies have faced over the years. Microsoft, however, is fortunate its core business continues to rumble along as opposed to being forced to diversify because the core business is eroding.
What Microsoft and investors need to accept is Microsoft will continue to be a software company with a Web presence as long as its continue to operate in its present form. If, however, the company decided to break itself into independent operations (Windows/Office, Xbox, MSN/Internet) then it might be a different story because each entity would have its own core mission and raison d'etre. In the meantime, Microsoft will attempt to fight the good Internet fight while chasing after dyed-in-the-wool Internet rivals such as Google and Yahoo.
For more on Berkowitz, News.com recently did a Q&A with him. By the way, read what you will into this quote Berkowitz gave the NYT about life at Microsoft compared with his previous employer, Ask.com: "I’m used to being in companies where I am in a rowboat and I stick an oar in the water to change direction. Now I’m in a cruise ship and I have to call down, Hello, engine room!. Sometimes the connections to the engine room aren’t there."
Technorati Tags: Google, Microsoft
Written by Mark Evans on December 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Microsoft and yahoo and Web 2.0 and Media and Web-based Services.
Ever since I made the leap from tech journalist to blogging executive, my inbox has seen a rash of LinkedIn requests. Maybe this has something to do with the fact few people want to network with a journalist. In any event, LinkedIn is one of those companies that has quietly become one of the more successful players in the social networking market. In the past year, its membership has doubled to more than eight million people, and the company expects to hit $100-million in revenue by 2008. Business 2.0 has a profile about the Palo Alto, Ca.-based company and its co-founder Reid Hoffman in the latest issue.
Written by Mark Evans on December 5th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
If you haven't heard about DailyMotion.com, you probably will fairly soon, particularly if you're one of those people who wants to watch commercial-free television shows for free. I stumbled upon the video-sharing site via by brother, who read about it on Forbes.com.
So who is DailyMotion? Well, they're based in Paris and there does not appear to be any ways they make money right now: no advertising, no sponsored links, nothing. The company, which received seven million euros of venture capital from Partech and Atlas Ventures, has 18 employees, although some of them could be part-timers or volunteers as opposed to full-time staff. The company's two founders are Benjamin Bejbaum and Olivier Poitrey.
According to Forbes, DailyMotion's traffic has tripled in the past three months, albeit off a small base given it only has 0.22% market share compared with 65% for YouTube. (I'd insert an Alexa chart but you barely be able to see DailyMotion on it.)
With DailyMotion running complete TV shows, the question is whether it's violating copyright laws. Forbes quoted someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that DailyMotion could be protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision, which lets sites host infringed content if they aren't aware of it, don't profit from it and remove any infringing content immediately upon the copyright holder's request. I suspect DailyMotion may start getting more of these copyright holder requests once its profile starts to grow. In the meantime, have fun. I'm off to watch some "My Name is Earl" episodes as we speak.
Note: You can read an interview with Bejbaum on seomoz.org
Written by Mark Evans on December 1st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page.
In what may be a first for Google, the company has decided to shut down one of its sideshows/experiments - Google Answers - after more than four years. Is this a new strategic direction for Google and/or a sign of the times that some projects should die a quiet death if they’re not working well? If this is Google’s new approach, you wonder how long it will be before Okrut and Froogle are pushed out of the portfolio. Who knows, maybe this move suggests Google will be more pragmatic about rolling out new services rather than slapping stuff on the wall and seeing if it sticks. While Google gets points for experimenting with all kinds of different things, its less-than-stellar success into new markets (Google Spreadsheets, anyone?) has arguably damaged its reputation as an innovator more than it has produced tangible benefits. Update: Rex Hammock has a theory why Google Answers failed: Wikipedia.
Written by Mark Evans on November 30th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Web 2.0 and Main Page.
If you're looking for a lite read on a Sunday afternoon, the Guardian has a gushy story about all the cool things happening in Silicon Valley these days, which seems to have been researched by a reporter who spent a long time hanging out with aspiring entrepreneurs at a coffee shop called Ritual Coffee Roasters in San Francisco. The best quote in the story comes from Rubyred Labs co-founder Jonathan Grubb, who proclaims 'The coffee shop has replaced the garage for internet start-ups. " I'm not sure whether this statement talks more to the coffee shop culture that has flourished in North America over the past few years, or the new no-frills, no-cost operating environment that start-ups have embraced.
Written by Mark Evans on November 27th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Two seemingly unrelated developments this week in the world of user-generated content: Gather.com raises $10-million from a group of investors including Hearst Corp., McGraw-Hill and Pilot House Ventures to expand its citizen journalism business; and Michael Richards (aka Kramer) launches himself into a profanity-laced racist rant after someone heckled him during a stand-up comedy routine.
What the two developments have in common is they both involve user-generated content. Gather.com publishes it; Richards was thrust into the media spotlight because someone used a cell phone to record a video of his outburst. It has come to the point where everyone is becoming a journalist and nothing is private any more. It explains why "off the blog" may become a common disclaimer during personal and professional conversations - kind of like what CFOs dutifully read the Safe Harbour rules before a conference call.
At a time when traditional media under are siege, we're in the midst of a publishing renaissance/revolution where anyone can create and distribute whatever they want. It has spawned blogs, podcasts, video blogs, wikis, photo albums (Flickr, et al) and video libraries (YouTube, etc.).
But at what point does user-generated content cross the line? How much user-generated content does the world really need? And how does user-generated content get filtered for quality - if that's an issue at all? Don't get me wrong, user-generated content is wonderful and has changed how we produce, distribute and share information but I wonder there's a limit on how much content needs to be product and how much of this content can be consumed.
As well, how will the nature of user-generated content change as next-generation players such as blog networks become more established, while traditional media players, who have been on their heels in recent years, start to re-load strategically and get a strong foothold. Will major brands dominant the user-generated content landscape - leaving less room for the independents (including individuals)? Will the emergence of dominant players be good for user-generated content with the establishment of quality standards? It's all the unanswered questions that makes this phenomenon so fascinating.
Written by Mark Evans on November 27th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and Web 2.0 and Main Page and Media.
According to my friend, Stuart MacDonald, the whole Web 2.0 thing is over. This is not to suggest Web 2.0 was a fad that has come and gone like Pet Rocks, but the fact it's no longer the "New Shiny Orb" that has had everyone so fired up for the past few years. Instead, Stuart contends Web 2.0 is starting to move into the mainstream where it will just become a part of how we live work and play - much like e-commerce has lost its novelty factor and become part of the everyday landscape.
Written by Mark Evans on November 25th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
What is it with all the "seasoned" people and the Internet? Larry King has never "done" the Internet, President George Bush has used "the Google" and Senator Ted Stevens, who believes the Internet is "a series of tubes". Obviously, I'm taking a tongue in cheek approach given what these three gentlemen have in common is they are more than 50-years-old and far from Web savvy. That said, this is the reality for many senior executives in the media industry (music, movies, newspapers, television, radio) who are trying to make strategic decisions to deal with the Internet's growing influence. How can someone make an intelligent move or understand what smart underlings are telling them if they don't have an intimate understanding of the Internet and/or use it regularly? It's like getting into a car and hoping you can make your way home along the super-highway if you've never seen a car before or taken lessons. You could make a good case there's a serious leadership void when it comes to the media and the Internet because the people in charge are ill-equiped to act effectively. Now, you know why the music industry has been flailing for years while hoping to use a traditional tool - lawsuits - to blunt the Internet's affect on business. For more insight on this fascinating issue, check out On Disruption, which always offer excellent insight, and Deep Jive Interests, who talks about how offering free television programming on the Web is driving people back to TV programs.
Written by Mark Evans on November 23rd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Web 2.0.
The latest issue of Wired Magazine (a healthy 284-pages, including the holiday buying guide) arrived today with a cover story on YouTube ("YouTube Grows Up"). I haven't got around to reading it yet but it got me thinking about the many similarities between YouTube and Napster.
Both services came out of nowhere and quickly became popular with millions of users looking for free content. Napster, unfortunately, incurred the wrath of the music industry, which was far from prepared to consider the idea of selling music on the Web. On the other hand, YouTube's popularity came at a time when the large content producers, broadcasters, etc. had already realized there was a new distribution model to be leveraged even if the business models weren't fully-baked yet. While Napster got lawsuit-ed into oblivision (well, neutered and eventually sold to Roxio as a shell of its former self), YouTube was snapped up by Google for $1.6-billion, and its founders - Chad Hurley and Steve Chen - are hailed as entrepreneurs heroes.
So what's the difference between the two players? Napster was clearly ahead of its time, and the music industry didn't have the time, energy or creatively to counter-attack or strike a deal with Shawn Fanning. Meanwhile, YouTube's time was/is nearly perfect because everyone knew video was going to be big on the Web, and had started to gear up for it. It didn't hurt that Apple launched the video iPod, which hammered home the "hello, video is here" message.
Another difference is YouTube has been able to reach licensing agreements with content owners, while Napster failed to bring any of the major labels onside. Of course, it's still left to be seen whether Google can turn YouTube into a business (aside from making it yet another platform for AdSense). I wonder whether Napster would have enjoyed the same kind of adoration if Fanning had started it in late-2004 or late-2005 rather than 1999. Would it have made a difference? Would the record labels have embraced it as an exciting new way to distribute content? Who knows, it might have even been a legitimate rival to iTunes.
For more thoughts, check out Peter Cashmore, eHub and, of course, Mark Cuban.
Written by Mark Evans on November 21st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page and Music.
Rather than jump right into the Peanut Butter Manifesto comment-frenzy, I decided to let it simmer for a bit while doing some serious NFL channel-surfing. So what's the deal other than the shrouded motives of Yahoo senior V.P. Brad Garlinghouse, who thinks the company is spreading its resources too thin? If you go way up the strategic food chain, it may suggest the idea of trying to be all things to all people is fundamentally flawed. Yahoo, for example, has acquired everything from Flickr and del.ico.us to blo.gs and Musicmatch. The question is where there is a common theme behind Yahoo's M&A activity other than the need to buy cool technology/services and smart people? For that matter, does any of the major players' acquisition plan make complete sense? What many companies seem to be forgetting is their core purpose. In other words, what are they are offering and is that offering clear to potential and existing customers? What is Yahoo's meaning in life other than attracting as many people as possible and making money from them. If that's the strategic premise, the acquisition of Overture makes complete sense. As for anything else, that's open for debate. Perhaps the biggest concern from Garlinghouse's rant, P.R. exercise, power move, etc. is the M&A dreams may be coming to end an abrupt end for all those Internet start-ups who were banking on being acquired as a way to escape the reality a flawed or non-existent business plan, and/or a dwindling bank account. For an interesting look at acquisitions made by Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, check out this chart compiled by Shmula.com. Some other measured takes on the PBM come from Rob Hyndman, who believes it hints at senior management changes within Yahoo, and Mathew Ingram, who post titles - This peanut butter is del.ici.us - is among the most creative I've seen in a long time. Tags: Yahoo, Brad Garlinghouse, M&A, peanut butter
Written by Mark Evans on November 20th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on yahoo and Web 2.0 and Main Page and M&A.
Last night, the mesh gang broke bread with three of the b5media crew (if you get a chance, you have to eat at The Big Ragu in Toronto). One of the many topics in an enjoyable evening was how long the current excitement surrounding Web 2.0 can last. Stuart MacDonald - of mesh fame ™, argued the end is near after what he contends has been a fantastic three-year run, and wondered whether anything really new and exciting is happening these days. His assertion may be true except for the fact there are so many relatively fresh concepts - virtual worlds, social networks, user-generated content, etc. - that are just starting to gain momentum. Who knows, for example, how or if virtual worlds will evolve. Second Life could become another mainstream communications medium for personal and corporate activity, compared with his current roots as a strange place where people pimp their cars and buy virtual clothes. User-generated content such as blog networks could stand shoulder to shoulder with traditional medium as trusted destinations for news and information. One thing is for certain, the excitement surrounding the Web these days is palpable and infectious. The mesh meet-up earlier this week demonstrated people are truly excited about what's happening now and the possibilities down the road. The encouraging part is it's a different kind of buzz than during the dot-com boom when the focus was on "show me the money" (premature IPOs, venture-backed back-of-the-napkin business plans) and good times (swag, open bars, junkets). Today, people just to be involved. Sure, many of them would like to make some serious coin but there just seems to be a participation wave going on. Rather than sit on the sidelines, people are jumping into the Internet any way they can. Some (like me!) join Web start-ups, others such as fellow mesh gang member Rob Hyndman break out on their own and set up tech-focused law boutiques and organize conferences, while others such as Globe & Mail reporter (and mesh gang member) Mathew Ingram focus their professional and personal energy on writing about everything Web. In writing about and working within the Web over the past 11 years, the one thing that has never surprised me is the emergence of something new. In the late-1990s when e-commerce and online advertising were all the rage, you wondered what would be next. Lo and behold, Web 2.0 appeared, although it did three or four years after the dot-com bust for it to really take hold. So what's next the next thing to capture the imagination of the instant gratification tech crowd? Is it the intelligent Web (or Web 3.0) as the New York Times proclaimed earlier this month? Any thoughts? (Note: The URL for The Big Ragu has been corrected)
Written by Mark Evans on November 19th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
If you're an entrepreneur who needs/wants to know more about raising money, the Toronto Venture Group is putting on an event on Jan. 10 unofficially called "The Process Land Mine Avoidance Breakfast" where you can hear from a VC, a lawyer and a financier about everything from term sheets to subscription agreements. For more, check out Rick Segal's post. If you're interested in learning more about running a start-up now versus the go-go days of the dot-com boom, the TVG is running a breakfast on Dec. 13 featuring a freshly-minted blog executive who works for b5media...otherwise known as yours truly. If you're lucky, you may even get to meet my dad and brother, who plays a key role within Canadian Tire's e-commerce operations, who I have conscipted to attend. Tags: venture capital, Rick Segal, Mark Evans, Canadian Tire
Written by Mark Evans on November 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and Venture Capital.
Interesting to see Yahoo snap up Bix and MyBlogLog. I've had MYB's visitor widget on my blog for many months, and consider it one of the best ways to get a handle on the links that resonate with visitors. That said, I have not participated much in MYB's community efforts, which seem to be at the root of Yahoo's estimated $10-million acquisition. It's not that I don't like the community tool, it's more than I just haven't had the time to explore it properly. Stepping up the food chain, it is interesting to see a new wave of mini-acquisitions taking place these days as the big online players look enhance their feature portfolio. In Toronto, we're still on pins and needles (well, not really that excited!) to see if the rumours about Bubbleshare being acquired by News Corp. for $5-million are accurate. Bubbleshare's Albert Lai has been invisible in recent days (he even failed to appear at the recent mesh meet-up) so something must be up. Tags: Yahoo, MyBlogLog, Bix, M&A, Bubbleshare
Written by Mark Evans on November 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and M&A.
In the world according to Nick Carr, "Web 2.0 is so over" - an opinion cemented by the fact many people who attended the recent Web 2.0 Summit came away less than wowed. While Carr could be right - or he's found another Web issue to be curmudgeon-ly about - it would be presumptuous to use the Web 2.0 Summit has the litmus test for the Web 2.0 landscape. Why not? For one, the conference cost $3,000 so it meant the people attending were most the upper-crust of the Web world, who have already heard and seen it all. In other words, all those hot-shot speakers that a conference organizer can only dream about recruiting were simply preaching to the converted. This explains why GigaOm's Liz Gannes dismissed the Web 2.0 Summit as "not the place to be" if you were looking to learning something new. That's a pithy statement for someone living, working and operating in Silicon Valley but there are lots of people who still have to learn there is life on the Web beyond e-mail and e-commerce. Fortunately, the New York Times has come to the rescue of the restless Web elite by trumpeting the emergence of Web 3.0, which is described as the intelligent Web as opposed to the interactive Web. A couple points: one, who's going to trademark"Web 3.0", and two, will Web 3.0 excite the "cool kids' such as Liz Gannes and Richard MacManus about the Web again? I've been writing about and using the Internet since 1995, and the pace of change and exciting new developments has never ceased to amaze me. As a mainstream tool, the Web is still in its infancy and there's plenty of experimentation still happening as people grapple with how to use it. Everything is cyclical, including the Web's development, so the restlessness about the Web elite will probably disappear soon when the next, new big thing emerges on the scene. Tags: Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Nick Carr
Written by Mark Evans on November 13th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Robert Scoble was kind enough to mention b5media in a post looking at "content malls". We prefer to call ourselves a "global new media company" or "the world's third-largest blogging network"...:).....but I'm not about to quibble at all if Scoble wants to give us some blog love.
Written by Mark Evans on November 12th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
The sign of a healthy - or perhaps frothy - industry is when conferences start to see strong attendance and/or exhibitors willing to pay through the nose to set up a booth. At adtech earlier this week in New York, the place was jam-packed after more than 12,000 people pre-registered for the online advertising conference. Going through the four floors of exhibitors was like a work out as you struggled get from booth to booth. Meanwhile, the Web 2.0 Summit was a sell-out despite tickets costing $3,000 (see Richard MacManus' round-up post). Obviously, the conference industry is cyclical with attendance soaring when companies are feeling bullish enough to cough up a few thousand dollars to send employees away for a few days; and falling when marketing and travel budgets are pinched. One of the consistent challenges facing conference organizers when things are going well or badly is making sure the content is engaging even though many people attend for business networking opportunities. To be honest, adtech's programming was disappointing. There were a few interesting sessions (a user-generated content panel featuring Ze Frank; and a future of advertising panel with Ted McConnell, Interactive Innovation Director with P&G) but many others were less-than inspiring (the format featuring at least four panelists didn't lend itself to a good conversation). As we start to put together the mesh '07 conference, the focus is making sure we feature people, panels and work-shops that are engaging, stimulating and, well, interesting. Like other conference organizers, there is pressure to live up to peoples' expectations. This is particularly evident during the good times when there's more competition to attract attendees, speakers, advertisers and exhibitors.
Written by Mark Evans on November 12th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
If you've ever wondered about how to get some love from TechCrunch, here's how (it's a video featuring Guy Kawasaki having a"fireside chat" with Michael Arrington). It's really yet another sign Arrington is the Web 2.0 man of the moment (even the Wall St. Journal wigged into this reality recently). Of course, you have to ask how much of an impact getting profiled on TechCrunch really provides - other than having your servers being hammered for a few days. Tags: Michael Arrington, TechCrunch, Guy Kawasaki
Written by Mark Evans on November 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Just a reminder that the mesh meet-up is happening Nov. 15 at the Irish Embassy Pub in downtown Toronto. If you're entrepreneur, media, public relations consultant, or just interested in the Web, please join us.
Written by Mark Evans on November 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
Nothing like a fluffy New York Times story about the success of low-cost Web start-ups such as Meebo to stoke the entrepreneurial fires. Apparently, all it takes is a couple thousand dollars and you're off to the races. If it was only that easy! Addendum: Just to be clear, getting a start-up off the ground can be done fairly inexpensively if you've got an idea and a pretty good programmer or two to develop the service. Then, you put the cool service/widget/product on some cheap servers, issue a standard 'hey, we just launched our beta' press release, and pray to the Web 2.0 gods that TechCrunch somehow deems you worthy of coverage. Sometimes, you win the lottery with this formula (Flickr, YouTube, Digg) works but it's not so easy or so cheap for the rest of us. Truth be told, getting a service created is only half the battle; selling and marketing it continues to be huge challenge even in this low-cost Web 2.0 environment. Why? Well, gaining attention and convincing customers to actually purchase your product/service/widget is difficult and expensive because competition is intensive. The ability to create a cool Web service for next is nothing is fine - except there are dozens of other entrepreneurs who can follow the same recipe as well. So what's the bottom line? It's relatively cheap and easy to get in the race but winning can be an expensive proposition.
Written by Mark Evans on November 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and Venture Capital.
Congrats to
Freshbooks.com and my friend, Michael McDerment, for hitting 100K users. Now, that's a real Web 2.0 company.
Written by Mark Evans on November 8th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
It's one thing for newspaper circulation to decline as the media landscape is redefined; it's quite another for newspaper not be moving aggressively to embrace the Web. Unfortunately, many newspapers don't get it yet, which explains why they're still struggling to figure out how to deal with the Web's growth. Among the few exceptions is
The Guardian, which published a 15-page special section in its Weekend magainze on Web 2.0. It includes
a feature story by John Lancester, as well as interviews with executives from Digg, Blogger, Wikipedia and Flickr. For more evidence of the Guardian's ambitious online efforts, check out
Comment is Free, which aggregates columnists from the Guardiand and Observer, as well a other writers.
Written by Mark Evans on November 6th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page and Media.
Business 2.0 is jumping hard on the blogging bandwagon with 16 new blogs. Why the big leap? Business 2.0's Eric Schonfeld said "primarily because we think blogging will make us better journalists. Blogging about a subject on a daily basis is a great way to become an expert on that subject and stay in front of the news in that particular niche." Well, that's a nice idealistic view of the world, isn't it. Truth be told, Business 2.0 has a couple challenges: it needs to establish a stronger Web presence at a time when more people are getting information from the Web, and it needs a way to get more out of its reporters/writers. What better way for a monthly magazine to do both than launching blogs. It certainly beats having your writers "toil" away on a single feature for several weeks (disclosure: this is partly envy from a former daily newspaper grunt!). In theory, the idea of reporters writing blogs is terrific because it does provide another way for newspapers and magazines to engage their audience in a new and different way. The problem, however, is good blogs and good bloggers require passion, commitment and energy. In other words, not everyone is going to be an Om Malik or Mathew Ingram. As a result, it's far from a slamdunk that every reporter will bring passion and commitment to the table if they're suddenly told to start writing blogs because their employer's suddenly realize they need to embrace the Web in a bigger way. You have to remember newsrooms are shrinking as newspapers and magazine try to realign their economic models to account for lower advertising and circulation. As a result, reporters are doing more and more work so asking them to also write a blog is a tough trick to pull off. That said, I think this will not be a problem for the next generation of reporters, who will come in knowing that writing, podcasting, video-blogging and doing quick hits for the Web are part of the job description. In the meantime, look for newspaper and magazine blogs to be hit and miss experiences. For more, check out Frank Barnako and Deep Jive Interests.
Written by Mark Evans on November 3rd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and Web 2.0.
Has the Michael Arrington meteor reached its zenith? It's a question you gotta ask after the Wall St. Journal did a fairly extensive profile on the "Newest Silicon Valley Power Broker". The story provides some good details about Arrington's personal history, including a stint working for Ottawa-based Pool.com Inc., which resells domain names. What I find fascinating about Arrington's influence and stature is how it all came together for him. Clearly, he has tremendous energy and entrepreneurial drive but why was he able to grab the power broker title rather than a Tim O'Reilly , for example, or a high-profile VC? (Just out of curiosity, was there a "Michael Arrington" during Web 1.0?)
In terms of TechCrunch, Arrington said it makes $120,000 a month in revenue from ads, sponsorships and a job-posting service. He addresses criticism about his conflicts of interest given he has his hands in so many different pies.
"Mr. Arrington acknowledges that he faces conflicts of interest. Companies that paid thousands of dollars to sponsor his 750-person party at August Capital, held two months ago, for example, were promised write-ups on TechCrunch, though the blurbs were marked as "sponsored text." Some Web companies have called TechCrunch to place ads, "and then they'll ask, 'When are you going to write about us?' " he says.
"Mr. Arrington adds that he strives to keep his editorial content separate from the blog's advertising and recently hired a dedicated ad saleswoman to try to eliminate potential conflicts. Earlier this year, he also started posting more detailed disclosures about his financial ties to TechCrunch companies on the blog. Such ties aren't uncommon in the freewheeling world of blogs, where writers generally don't adhere to traditional journalistic standards."
Deep Jive Interests makes an excellent point about the absence of TechCrunch competition (I guess he doesn't count Maple Leaf 2.0 as competition....:)
Written by Mark Evans on November 3rd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and Main Page.
When you're top dog, people start to throw dirt at you. It's just the way of the world, right? Michael Arrington, who's caught the Web 2.0 by the tail these days with his growing TechCrunch empire, has had enough. He's had enough of having his integrity attacked and motives questioned. Truth be told, TechCrunch is a business. It's not a public service to the Web 2.0 community, it's not a charity, and it's not a traditional news organization that promises to be objective and balanced. As Arrington says "TechCrunch is different". Everyone needs to accept it, deal with it, and move on. If you don't like what TechCrunch or Arrington are doing, don't read it. For more thoughts, check out Deep Jive Interests, which has replaced Dead 2.0 as my favourite Web 2.0 voice of reason. (By way, whatever happened to Dead 2.0? Is he really dead?).
Written by Mark Evans on November 2nd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and Web 2.0 and Main Page.
I'm heading down to New York on Sunday morning with b5media colleagues Jeremy Wright and Aaron Brazell for Ad Tech. On Sunday afternoon, we'll be hanging out at Gatsby's at 53 Spring St. to watch Aaron's beloved Baltimore Ravens take on the Cincinnati Bengals. If you're a blogger and/or attending Ad-Tech, come join us! Aaron has more details here.
Written by Mark Evans on November 2nd, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and Web 2.0 and Main Page.
