KevinC
msg:343992 | 9:45 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| evolving instant-voice-messaging and instant-video-messaging apps that will make today's e-mail and IM seem crude. |
|
I doubt it, many people love the annomytity that text communication allows, it also is usually much more to the point. I for one am not in a huge hurry to have video conversations with people on the web, at least 99% of them. And voice, well I already have a phone. Remember when video phones were supposed to be the next big thing - we all have one of those now right?
|
Calculus
msg:343993 | 10:16 pm on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Really interesting info there, thanks T
|
Lorel
msg:343994 | 12:23 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Why would I want to answer the phone all day? I'm trying to make a living!
|
old_expat
msg:343995 | 1:51 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"Why would I want to answer the phone all day? I'm trying to make a living!" - Confirming bookings for a B & B
- Taking an order for your online store
- Accepting reservations for a restaurant .. etc, etc, etc. Been said, [poorly paraphrased] "Too many people are too busy trying to make a living .. to get rich."
|
old_expat
msg:343996 | 1:59 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
" .. instant-voice-messaging .." I REALLY wish I could afford to do *and control* this on a number of my sites .. even moreso if that voice message would connect via VoIP to a landline.
|
danimal
msg:343997 | 5:35 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
the same day we see that forecast of the future, the news is full of stories about how isp's are going to start charging users by how much bandwidth they consume... it was even on the nightly tv news. there are a lot of things up in the air right now.
|
Ipwalk
msg:343998 | 9:29 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Digg is also on this list. Seems they are growing like crazy. Very smart concept, and very maintanable, considering the users are doing most of the actual work.
|
xalex
msg:343999 | 4:29 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Anyone noticed, that most of the companies are from California? What happened to world wide web?
|
Easy_Coder
msg:344000 | 4:48 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Anyone noticed, that most of the companies are from California? What happened to world wide web? |
|
because we're bubbling; sand hill road is what everyone want's to be close to.
|
xalex
msg:344001 | 7:30 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I am going to ask a fundamental question. How are these companies gonna make money? Real money? How are they different than my website which have advertisements? Even my crappy website has better targeted demographic than Web 2.0 for advertisers. Am I the only fool that doesn't get it?
|
oldpro
msg:344002 | 10:39 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| How are they different than my website which have advertisements? |
|
Because they have high dollar PR firms promoting their idea to CNN and you don't.
|
IanKelley
msg:344003 | 10:49 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hehe... that's about the size of it. Web 2.0 continues to be nothing by hype. All of the "new" technology has been around, and in use, for 5 years or more. The author alludes to this near the beginning of the article and then jumps right in :-)
|
Easy_Coder
msg:344004 | 11:20 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| How are these companies gonna make money? Real money? |
|
The plan is to get customers... as many as possible and as quickly as possible. The service is free and the plan to make money is to flip it once several hundred thousand users are on board. That's is what has been going on for more then a few months now.
|
grelmar
msg:344005 | 12:18 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| " .. instant-voice-messaging .." I REALLY wish I could afford to do *and control* this on a number of my sites .. even moreso if that voice message would connect via VoIP to a landline. |
|
Trying this out on a new site... I'm not keen on the idea, but my partner on this one insits... The cost is pretty minimal, I just worry that if the site takes off, the volume of incoming voicemail will become unmanageable, and dealing with it will become profit-defeating. The technology behind it is plug and play. The cost/benefit ratio is... Frightening. I bring this up because it goes to the heart of the problem I have with a lot of Web 2.0 Call me a mercenary, but would someone please show me the money? The article mentioned Digg: Digg doesn't make a profit. It's currently being propped up by venture capital. (Although, I expect Digg will eventually win out. Nothing like steaming mounds of user generated content with ads slapped everywhere to generate revenue). In fact, most of those "25" are companies that are being propped up by venture capital, or have already been gobbled up by larger web presences that are using the tech as add-ons for existing, profit generating content. Is anyone actually making money podcasting? Real money? Profit type money? For every 1 podcast I send down the pipe from a site, I can deliver 500 good, adsense $ generating pages. Is that podcast generating 500 times the revenue per download as any page I deliver, even the worst performers? Anyone here doesn't even have to look at their balance sheet to answer that question. And all the stuff coming out of Google Labs... How much of it is actually turning a profit on a per project basis? Although the G isn't talking, I'd guess that not much of it is. Mostly, it's just AdSense supporting a lot of tinker-toy projects that aren't adding anything but cost to G's bottom line. And on and on... Again... Show me the money. Let's see... We have a lot of media hype around new sites with a heavy "neato" factor, and no real revenue, with the businesses being propped up by huge injections of venture capital... For some reason it all sounds too familiar. Web 2.0 seems a lot like Bubble 2.0 to me.
|
surfin2u
msg:344006 | 1:38 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I agree with the skeptics here. I'm quite happy to be able to keep interruptions to my work down to a minimum. People can call me on my cell phone if they need to speak with me. I can shut the phone off or ignore it if I'm busy. The last thing I want is to become more accessible to spammers.
|
andrea99
msg:344007 | 3:02 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is a useful list of trends and trend-makers but concepts like "Next Net" and "Web 2.0" imply that we've reached a point in the growth curve where everything is poised to "take off." I believe such a point does exist in the future but growth will remain perceptibly linear for a few more years at least. We experienced this kind of anticipation '96-'99, a lot more of us have our feet firmly planted on the ground this time around...
|
old_expat
msg:344008 | 5:18 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
""" .. instant-voice-messaging .." I REALLY wish I could afford to do *and control* this on a number of my sites .. even moreso if that voice message would connect via VoIP to a landline."" "Trying this out on a new site... I'm not keen on the idea, but my partner on this one insits... The cost is pretty minimal," What are the building blocks that will make this work? But what I'm looking to do is .. a user is able to call a "link designated" number.
|
oddsod
msg:344009 | 5:26 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
In the early nineties the predictions for computers in the year 2000 were that they'd be invisible. You'd lose the big box under the table, the screen on top of your table, and all the noise and restrictions that they imposed upon you. The PC itself would be shrunk so small it would fit in a drawer, the images would be displayed on a wall or hologram style without needing a surface to display on. Your input devices would change from keyboard and mouse to gloves and glasses. I now have two boxes under my table, three screens on it, a right and left mouse (for RSI prevention reasons; I'm ambidextrous) and a couple of keyboards. Call me one of the Web 2.0 cynics. Sometimes things can change a lot... in a non-changing kind of way. [edited by: oddsod at 5:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 4, 2006]
|
old_expat
msg:344010 | 5:39 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm confused by all the negativity in this thread. What says that neat stuff talked about for web2 can't be used for web1? Why is it that if someone happens not to be able to an emerging technology for *their* work/site, that it is a bad thing? I guess we could go back to floating chiseled stone tablets down the river.
|
oddsod
msg:344011 | 5:44 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
old_expat, maybe there's something in it - time will tell - but I saw the lame attempt to create a new hype term, Next Net, to take over from Web 2.0 which what was the Next Big Thing five minutes ago ... and this cynic's eyes began to glaze over. (News for CNN: Wired.com [wired.com] used the term in 1999) [edited by: oddsod at 5:50 pm (utc) on Mar. 4, 2006]
|
joeduck
msg:344012 | 5:50 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I was at Mashup Camp in Mountain View 2 weeks ago. 1) Super high energy level
2) Brilliant developers, mostly working on mashups as hobby sites but passionate about them
3) I felt solid Business models were lacking, even from those that had some VC funding. But I do think mashups are a significant transition from Web 1.0 which is dominated by search and PPC and Google to Web 2.0 which will be more distributed and in many ways more like the early web where cleverness and passion will trump spam sites. Xalex good questions but guess what? Many REALLY GOOD Web 1.0 people did not approach their biz models with money as the first concern. e.g. Page, Brin, Yang, Filo. Yet those guys actually do.....pretty well now.
|
grelmar
msg:344013 | 8:05 am on Mar 5, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| "Trying this out on a new site... I'm not keen on the idea, but my partner on this one insits... The cost is pretty minimal," What are the building blocks that will make this work? |
|
Like I said, we're taking the plug and play approach. <a href="skype:yoursiteaccountname?call">Leave a Voice Mail with Skype</a> The users just have to have a free Skype account for it to work. We're the ones who have to pay for the voicemail account. It's more hype than it is effective. The point where it becomes effective is when you can click on one button, and it will accept a voicemail from any voice enabled messenger program. But for that to happen, all the messengers will have to agree on a common protocol (unlikely).
|
old_expat
msg:344014 | 5:08 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"Like I said, we're taking the plug and play approach. <a href="skype:yoursiteaccountname?call">Leave a Voice Mail with Skype</a> The users just have to have a free Skype account for it to work. We're the ones who have to pay for the voicemail account. " The one I'm looking for is the "click to call" style that initiated a call to the users's phone # and the # in the link at the same time .. but bills the call and termination charges to me.
|
skuba
msg:344015 | 9:38 pm on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is not just good for resturants, ecommerce, etc... One of the applications will be lawyers, accountants, psycotherapists, etc. charging by the minute... think ebay + paypal + skype
|
old_expat
msg:344016 | 2:04 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"This is not just good for resturants, ecommerce, etc... One of the applications will be lawyers, accountants, psycotherapists, etc. charging by the minute... think ebay + paypal + skype" Exactly! A feature like this can add tremendous value for many businesses and web applications.
|
timchuma
msg:344017 | 2:55 am on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
The crash is going to be harder the next time around. Even the popular sites like MySpace are starting to buckle under the strain of their popularity (that site keeps crashing Firefox when I visit it.)
|
|
