Mobile 2.0: Is It Something To Hype About?

I admit it. I am not a tech guru, although at times, I like to pretend that I really understand something. Lately, I find myself falling behind the mobile revolution*. But my unwavering fascination with its meteoric growth in the past years remains unfazed. Compared to my friends with their fancy phones and PDA’s – I own a Nokia 6288 and I’m proud of it. I rarely find time to surf the Internet from my mobile, and when I do, I quickly find myself wishing that I was using my laptop, where my fingers can work faster, the screen bigger, and not surfing WAP sites.

Nevertheless, there is a strong indication that mobile social networking users are doing exactly the same things on their mobiles as they do on their desktops, according data from ABI Research, which concluded that MySpace and Facebook are by far the top mobile social networks. Similarly, the leading mobile researching firm, Direct2Mobile, saw the large opportunity in the mobile space, with much of the potential untapped. The current Web 2.0 business model may need to be re-thought out a bit, as more and more users are turning to the mobile aspect of social networking sites, and there’s substantial financial reward for service providers.

Despite direct and aggressive attempts by Facebook (iPhone application) and MySpace (MySpace mobile featured in the Android Market), users remain largely unconvinced to migrate to mobile handsets, and maybe even rightfully so. Take for example, MySpace with ~114 million users compared to Facebook with 132.1 million users, both are which are estimated to capture 5 million migrating users to social mobile networking, according to Nick Lane, Chief Researcher at Direct2Mobile. In a second report, ABI surveyed 500 users of online social networks and found that 46% used their wireless handsets to visit a social network, while 70% of the latter visited MySpace and 67% visited Facebook. Lane writes that “if MySpace can eventually encourage 20% of its PC-based followers to embrace mobile as a complement to their PC-based experience, which would generate a healthy 35 million mobile users.” Furthermore, if wireless companies could find a way to convince at least half of the 580 million social network users (Figures: comScore World Metrix) to migrate to the mobile niche, then it can generate an additional $10.4 billion per year, based on people paying $3/month subscription fee.

So why is social mobile networking a bit stuck at where it is now? Even though MySpace and Facebook are unlikely to charge a subscription fee for mobile access, advertisers may not express much interest in the mobile space because the companies do not provide robust meta data [Source: ABI Research] Also, it is widely believed that consumers do not want to access entirely new social networking sites for mobile users, but would prefer to simply tap into existing social networks that are on go with them, which for most, is MySpace and/or Facebook.

Most notably interesting, is the ‘social’ aspect of mobile networking, and significantly less emphasis on the ‘enterprise’ entity of the Web 2.0 movement. Notwithstanding the availability of mobile versions of Hi5 and LinkedIn, and others, according to ABI Research, no other mobile network be it either professional or social, has reached a 15% adoption rate. This data points to the centralization issue of social networking consumers that create a ‘centralized digital lifestyle’ – something that is less an objective of a LinkedIn user. There are some that are looking to the horizon and making attempts to capitalize on the ‘centralization aspect’. Yahoo has recently revealed with application for their iPhone with a socially connected address book that allows users to see all status updates for social sites such as: Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

The Internet is predominated by the Web 2.0 revolution consumed by global interconnectivity, collaboration and widespread creativity with each other. Social networks have really created a social revolution that is keeping anthropologists and Social Informatics busy explaining this phenomenon and its future implications. To be honest, as much as our lives can be dominated by this new Internet era, and the hype of staying interconnected, I like to think that I still prefer it the “old way” and keep it pc related for now.

Leave a Comment

Web 2.0, it’s a thing…

From its inception in 2004 at the O’Reily Media Web Conference, the word Web 2.0 as we have come to know it is the ‘newer’ type of web: “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.”

Fascination with this term and its incumbent definition has exploded in the past years. What’s most ironic is that now I am blogging about the definition of web 2.0, on a WordPress blog that was built on a web 2.0 that is founded on web 2.0 processes. Web 2.0 has its share of numerous definitions, each one encapsulating the idea of interconnectivity and interactivity of web-delivered content, as a platform that uses its strengths for global audiences. Tim O’Reilly notes that Eric Schmidt’s abridged slogan of “don’t fight the Internet” is the essence of Web 2.0, in a manner that is conducive to building applications and services around the innovative and unique features of the Internet, as opposed to the Internet suiting up as a platform. Debates ensued the first Web 2.0 Conference, arguing that the web has become a platform leveraging the power of the long tail, as data with the driving force. Most characteristic though, was the tendency to foster innovation composed by pulling together features from distributed developers, as the kind of “open source” and even “agile” development process. These processes were typified by the so-called perpetual “beta”, and were consistent with the end of the traditional software adoption.

There are four hierarchal levels to Web 2.0 (O’Reily) that encompass principles of light weight business models and the syndication of content:
• Level 3 Applications: These are the most “Web 2.0″ oriented and exist only on the Internet, deriving their effectiveness from the human interconnectivity, growing number of people who use these applications, and the networks effects made possible by Web 2.0. Examples: eBay, Craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, AdSense
• Level-2 Applications: These can operate in an offline mode as well, but are most advantageous online. The most cited example is Flickr, a photo-sharing database benefiting from its community generated tag base.
• Level-1 Applications: These also operate offline but gain most of their features online, such as Google Docs & Spreadsheets & iTunes.
• Level-0 Applications: These work as well offline as online. O’Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps

Non-web applications are categorized outside and above the hierarchy, such as email, instant-messaging clients, and the telephone. “Web 2.0″ alludes to the version-numbers commonly designated for software updates and hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web. The British Guardian newspaper, describes Web 2.0 as: “ …an idea in people’s heads rather than a reality. It’s actually an idea that the reciprocity between the user and the provider is what’s emphasised. In other words, genuine interactivity, if you like, simply because people can upload as well as download.” The transition from websites as isolated objects into interlinked networking platforms that function as locally-available (in the perception of the user) has also become another idea for defining Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 has had its share of defining moments (It’s interesting to note that the term Web 1.0 came into existence after the birth of Web 2.0). The most precise definition as of yet, came in 2006 when Tim O’Reilly offered a compact definition: ”Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” Later that year, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Web 1.0 originator and inventor, was interviewed saying, “I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means.” In April 2007, the Atlantic Monthly quoted Michael Hirschorn, “In the Web hype-o-sphere, things matter hugely until, very suddenly, they don’t matter at all. … Really cool people now like to talk about Web 3.0.”

The term took on new meaning when Marc Andreesen, the man who delivered Web 1.0 masses, wrote in his blog: “In the beginning, Web 2.0 was a conference. As conferences go, a good one — with a great name. … From there, it was easy to conclude that “Web 2.0″ was a thing, a noun, something to which you could refer to explain a new generation of Web services and Web companies.”

Professor Swanson concluded that Web 2.0 is not a ‘thing’, it’s an ‘organized vision’, as he expressed in one of his publications: [A]n interorganizational community, comprised of a heterogeneous network of parties with a variety of material interests in an IS innovation, collectively creates and employs an organizing vision of the innovation that is central to decisions and actions affecting its development and diffusion. That organizing vision represents the product of the efforts of the members of that community to make sense (Weick 1995) of the innovation as an organizational opportunity.

This term has been the allusive, evasive, and yet remarkably compelling, so much so, that it continues to gain its fame as we try to really understand what it means, its implications on our lives, culture, economy, society, and the future. The debate has only began…

2 Comments