Internet Evolution is back from the Web 2.0 Summit, and -- in cleaning out our camera -- we've found some great photos that illustrate the essence of the conference theme, "Web Squared."
We snapped some shots of various luminaries -- including Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web; Aneesh Chopra, CTO, United States; Jeff Immelt, chairman and CEO, GE; Sergey Brin, founder, Google; and others -- all sharing their thoughts on the Web Squared theme, how it fits with their individual endeavors, and where they think the industry is headed.
Overall, two points seemed to resonate with most speakers:
Point #1:In a bit of a shift, many attendees were willing to admit -- finally -- that the future of the Internet is not "free."
Some, like Google's Marissa Mayer, believe it's just a matter of coming up with the right business models. Others, like Jonathan Miller, CEO of News Corp.'s digital media group, believe it's a combination of new content and new business models. "You've got to provide things you couldn't get in a free world," he said. "You can't just throw down a paywall and say 'good news, you get to pay now.' "
Point #2: The future of everything is social, speakers seemed to agree. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said her career move from Google to Facebook had to do with the industry's move to a social economy.
"What I saw and what we see at Facebook is a very fundamental shift going on from what we think of as the information economy to the social economy," she said. What Google provides, she contends, is the "wisdom of the Web." But, at Facebook, "we believe in the wisdom of friends."
But Google, too, is looking beyond the Web's wisdom by introducing "social search" -- with which it will crawl users' social networks and incorporate social data in search results. (Of course, this means letting Google into your social networks... which may be just as harrowing as letting Google live in your bedsheets.)
Want to see it all in slides? Of course you do! Check out our slideshow by clicking the photo below:
And for more coverage from the Web 2.0 Summit, see any (and all) of the following:
"The majority of web content is free of charge, and has been ever since I can remember. Why now does Miller think that users will accept the sudden rush of fees?"
Well, Web users are already paying for some things -- virtual goods, for example. MP3s. Some pay for subscriptions to premium content or content without ads. I don't think the "free" Web is going away entirely, but I think we're going to see a separation of different types of content. There will be free content which will be low-quality or -- in some cases -- ad-supported... and then there will be premium content which we'll have to pay for. The pay model of the future could essentially create the "haves" and "have nots" of the Internet: those who can afford paid content and those who can't and have to stick with the free stuff.
Thanks Nicole for posting those photos and your coverage of the Summit. I wish I could have attended.
Regarding paying for content on the Internet, the other commenters are right: it's unrealistic to expect consumers to pay when they've been accustomed to getting it for free.
However, the iPhone/iPod App Store (and those from RIM, MS, etc.) have proven that people are willing to pay a small price for what they perceive is quality content (Koi Ponds and Fart Apps notwithstanding). Maybe the revenue will have to be made on the long tail: prices set at single digit cents, so cheap that the purchase isn't given a second though, but sold to millions of users.
I believe that Mr. Miller was right in his initial assertion, you can't just throw up an arbitrary wall and proclaim a pay structure from this point forward. However, Miller's assumption that new content will attract people to pay services is, In my opinion, a baseless one.
The majority of web content is free of charge, and has been ever since I can remember. Why now does Miller think that users will accept the sudden rush of fees?
I'm not sure that the "if you build it, they will come" rationale quite works in this situation. You've already built it, and allowed us inside.... if you start now demanding fees we will simply go elsewhere.
I have to agree with kq4ym on the free web... As soon as twitter, facebook, google, bing, yahoo start charging, users will migrate to other website that is free. I understand all these businesses are under pressure to rake in money but they have to figure out a way to do it without killing the golden goose. Repeating twitter or facebook is not difficult, anyone with decent programming skills can do it today. What we dont have is the community that is grown within facebook and twitter. When twitter and facebook start charging money, then we would jump in to take their spot.
While I might agree that the future of the web is 'social' I don't think it's going to get much beyond a 'free' for all.
Turning social is just another way of telling advertisers 'We now have billions of more ways to market your product.' More bits of information on consumers and lots of ways to massage the ways it can be presented to those with disposable income.
But because of the very nature of advertising, I think it's unlikely that consumers will put up not only with lots more marketing messages, but be expected to pay for the privilege. And after decades of 'free' stuff on the internet, it will be hard to get anyone to 'pay up' for information.
Without a monopoly or huge conspiracy to thwart future freebies, there's just too much supply (billions of web pages) and not enough demand from consumers to directly pay enough for web information.
One model I'm familiar with however, does seem to be onto something....Ancestry.com seems to have locked up the market for amateur geneaology, charging a montly or yearly fee for information that is very very difficult to get anywhere else. But even there, competitors are starting to offer 'free' sites that are not quite as complete or elegant but none the less 'free.'
The play for pay model is going to be a hard nut to crack as supply grows larger but demand doesn't quite keep up.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
A digital content market is emerging. Only two things are known about it: the first is that at some point the Internet will primarily become a paid network. The second known factor is that there are innumerable variables in the digital content market that have yet to be worked out. It’s not known, for example, exactly how users will pay for content (micropayments, subscriptions, bartering of farm animals, other).
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
Bad news! By eliminating the world’s digital divide we’re likely to create a new divide: the information divide, where we end up creating a two-tier Internet where access to 'quality' content is controlled and charged for by mega-corporations, and the gulf between information haves and have-nots is entirely dependent on how much money they have. This is, of course, an almost exact inversion of the current situation on the Internet – where access is expensive and content is free.
As enterprises leap into the Web 2.0 world of blogging, commenting, and social networking, just 'being there' won't deliver ROI. You may want a 'Web Evangelist' to systematically harvest the feedback in order to polish your product or service.
Good news! The cost of Internet infrastructure, services, and access devices has been plummeting at an accelerating rate over the last 10 years and will approach a point in the next 20 years where these technologies become so fantastically cheap that ubiquitous, low-cost, high-speed networks, storage, and access devices will effectively eliminate the digital divide for most of the world's population.
The city of San Francisco is on the leading edge of using the Internet to provide government transparency. It is providing WiFi for its have-nots, and its DataSF.org initiative is putting the city's valuable data back in the hands of its citizens, with innovative results.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
