Dion Hinchcliffe's Web 2.0 Blog
TamTamy by Reply

Blog Feed

Subscribe By E-Mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dion's Speaking Calendar:

Dion Hinchcliffe Speaking at NKU on Web 2.0 and Mobility

Dion Hinchcliffe Speaking at CeBIT 2009 on the Future Enterprise Workplace

Dion Hinchcliffe Speaking at QCon London 2009 on Web Architecture

JAOO Web 2.0 Days Keynote Speaker Dion Hinchcliffe

Dion Hinchcliffe Speaking at Web 2.0 Expo San Francisco 2009

Dion Hinchcliffe Keynotes at Interactive Austin 2009

Dion Hinchcliffe Instructor at Web 2.0 University Week in Las Vegas in May, 2009

Enterprise 2.0 Conference 2008 Speaker Dion Hinchcliffe
Dion Hinchcliffe on Twitter

    Recent Readers

    Web 2.0 Ajax SOA Power Panel

    Web 2.0, Ajax and SOA Power Panel with Dion Hinchcliffe and Jeremy Geelan
    Click above to watch a SYS-CON Power Panel discussion on Web 2.0, Ajax, and SOA with Dion Hinchcliffe, Jeremy Geelan, and other industry notables including SOA Web Services Journal Editor-in-Chief, Sean Rhody. Taped on Dec 7th, 2005 from the Reuter's TV studio in Times Square.

     

    The Web 2.0 Trinity: People, Data, and Great Software

    « H E email
    posted Sunday, 26 March 2006
    User as center of the universeI've still been absorbing all the terrific brainstorming that came out of SPARK last weekend.  One of the key bits that was agreed upon by all almost immediately was the utter centrality of the user.  I've been a big believer of this since early in my software career and I've made this point on my own numerous times, probably most famously in my widely read and subsequently slashdotted Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters.  Every time that software creators get far from this mark, they lose the software ingredient that matters the most: us.  Now, at SPARK we framed it in slightly stronger terms, specifically that the user is the center of the universe.

    This highlights an interesting trend, still somewhat obscured, that is taking place with the adoption of a lot of the new types of online software, which many of us call Web 2.0.  Specifically, that software itself is now becoming a distinctly third tier citizen to the software experience.  And unfortunately, a lot of very competent code slingers have been and will remain distinctly uncomfortable with this.  After all, isn't it software that makes all this Web stuff possible?  Yes, and software is still critically important.  I'm just saying that there are two even more important things to the software experience.  One of them has always been the case, that the user is the center and most valuable part of the "construct", this thing we call the Web.  And network effects are only magnifying this exponentially, making something too frequently ignored into something almost completely unescapable. I'm fonding of citing the fact that there are now 1 billion users of the Web, and combined with Metcalfe's Law, it's putting the value of the user so much farther ahead of everything else in the equation.

    The second element of that equation is data.  It's often been more important than software for many applications, but with the Web aggregating volumes and volumes of new and useful data each and every second, software is now getting eclipsed by this phenomenon on the Web as well.  We are the source of all attention, data, traffic, customers, associations, relationships, etc.  And now that so many of us are connected together on the Web, we not only become the most important ingredient but increasingly, the most important source of the second ingredient as well. 

    Thus, the data we want becomes the second fundamental element of interest over software, because it is information that more directly drives what we do and the decisions that we make.  O'Reilly has made this point repeatedly with what he calls "data as the next Intel Inside", a slightly unfortunate turn of phrase that means that data is close to becoming the center stage in computing.  And becoming the most important part of the majority of applications today.  A small example: Google's search database is probably one of the most valuable data sources on the planet, and it's we what we want from it by using Google's primitive "command-line" search interface. Google makes little bones about advanced software feature; you get a text field and a button.


    The Value Hierarchy of Web 2.0



    Before you go and think that I'm declaring the death of software, far from it.  I'm merely proposing an observed hierarchy of value in software that's emerging out of the Web. (And hey, it's still true outside the Web too but it is more ignorable because the network effects aren't there.)  Out on the Web, having the users and the useful data is the most important thing.  Functionality and software in general are becoming relentlessly commoditized as well.  A quick search of Sourceforge can find you a dozen versions of just about any software you could want, from GUI toolkits, to databases, to productivity software, complete with source code and all for free.  Creating a place that lots of users want to go to and collecting a great database of uniquely valuable information is not something you will ever be able to download for free.  It requires understanding of how to build good communities that people want to be part of and aggregating the best information from them out of their own self-interest.  Or even just generating the best buzz, if you're just starting out.  It's not longer about having a laundry list of features in your software, it's about having the right features that make your users truly participate in the Web and with each other.

    Newsweek: The wisdom of the WebTo further underscore these points, an article in the latest issue of Newsweek focuses on how social sites are leading the current technology boom.  And how Google is watching the MySpace phenomenon and wondering why everyone else seems obsessed with Google building online productivity software (admission: myself included.)  They seem to realize the real value is in enabling and engaging users and their attention, by providing the fabric of a community that will enrich itself given the right facilitating tools. 

    I read James McGovern's brilliant if entirely retro view today on the new models of software creation, and I think he's absolutely right that there is a terrible struggle of perspectives happening. Lots of people are still focusing on the wrong things entirely.  Sure, Ruby and Ruby on Rails in particular are going to eventually ascend to the enterprise, probably with a vengeance. But that's not the really important stuff in software today.  The hierarchy you see above is the natural order of things when you put control into the hands of the individual.  Consequently, I do believe many more traditional organizations are going to be increasingly disrupted by the inversion of control we're seeing; the power over information, processes, and software shifting from the organization to the individual.  This is what is meant by the shift to Social Computing.

    In any case, when you get the value hierarchy right, you can built uniquely valuable experiences that people will build communities from.  This is how MySpace is winning hearts and minds (260,000+ new users a day as of a few days ago) and this is why the Ajax Office arguments, and the debates over enterprise computing toolkits vs. Web startup toolkits, are all the wrong discussion.  Focusing on how to engaging and providing value to your users in online communities, whether they are your customers, your colleagues, or your friends or family, is the name of the game.  And by weaving people's lives seamlessly and meaingfully into social software, making them have a stake, and giving them both the reasons and the means to contribute. That's how it all works.

    Update: The Newsweek article has apparently caused a real stir.  The Web 2.0 renaissance continues:

    ComputerWorld:  Web 2.0: At the tipping point.
    BBC:  Learning to Love Web 2.0
    C|Net:  Mainstream media's bumpy road to Web 2.0

    What do you think?  Is putting software in the back seat behind users and data completely wrong-headed?

    links: del.icio.us    


    Web 2.0 is about participation! Please leave comments. Use wiki markup for links/images. (5)

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button

    1. Richard Cunningham left...
    Sunday, 26 March 2006 11:25 pm

    Don - I think you're on the right track putting people you call "users" on top. However, as IT and media converge, I think it clears some confusion to think of information consumers as an audience, particularly when one makes money from advertising that goes with the information. Grassroots contributors constitute an emerging group with Web 2.0. "Users" traditionally refers to those who use software (or some technology). Your hierarchy implies people consume and produce information (with underlying data) served by software. This may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but I found it helped explain my last web business.


    2. Gert Van Waelvelde left...
    Monday, 27 March 2006 10:15 am

    I think that putting the user first is the right way to go. But it won't be easy. In order to put the user in control we need standard protocols and file formats for everything. And everybody needs to support them. We are still a long way away from that.

    Today most applications are still islands. They can't talk to each other. If want to integrate data of different applications or services, it's usually difficult or even impossible. If you want to switch to a new application, you typically can't take your data and settings with you. Things like RSS and other web services are making some integration and transferring possible, but it still is very limited.

    Look at this example:

    Suppose you have all of your stuff (mail, calendar, contacts, favorites/bookmarks, files, ...) in Yahoo! services and you decide you like Google or Microsoft's services more and you would like to switch. Can you move ALL of your stuff over to the new application/service in an easy way? No, you can't.

    If you, the user, are in control of your data, you should be able to transfer your stuff from one application/service to another very easily. But today, you can't. Because there aren't any standard protocols or file formats for every piece of information. And because many applications and services don't make it possible to import or export data. To put the user in control, we need these things. Companies like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft (Windows Live) and many others are working on that, but we still are at the very beginning.

    RSS is a good starting point, but it's not enough. We'll need new formats and protocols. Some will be extensions of RSS, some will be entirely new. Some of those will stay, some will disapear.

    To put the user really in control, we still have a long, long way to go.


    3. Hooman left...
    Monday, 27 March 2006 2:11 pm

    I think that putting the users first is a fine idea. Frankly, this is not a new idea to software developers. In general, any programmer worth his salt has been taught to gather, prioritize, and implement functionality in line with user demands. The Web 2.0 has thrust this developer-centric emphasis on user-driven development into the spotlight. That being said, I do not think that you are wrong to put software behind users in the philosophical value chain at present. However, we have to be careful not to conclude that all the important work in software engineering that can be done has been done. Sourceforge does not – contrary to popular belief – hold all the answers. There is still work to be done. And, although some software does not necessarily immediately impact the user experience today, this software may ultimately be the bottleneck in next generation user experiences online.


    4. Dion Hinchcliffe left...
    Monday, 27 March 2006 2:17 pm :: http://web2.wsj2.com

    Hooman,

    Good points and perhaps I should have dropped in some details. One of the concepts that I've run across lately is that idea that users don't use Web 2.0 applications so much as they use them.

    Furthermore, like Gert says above, users should be absolutely in control all the time. If they feel they don't own their data (including usage trails, logs, etc.) and change it, remove it, there is a loss of control and trust that disengages them.

    So, it's more than just the users are the source of requirements and demand, it's that they is a sort of symbiosis. As someone who I can't remember said recently, and I paraphrase slightly, "It's actually very simple, Web 2.0 is made of people."

    Best,

    Dion


    5. erikcussack left...
    Tuesday, 22 April 2008 4:37 pm :: http://www.killananadam.com

    Web 2.0 seems like the future of the internet. People are getting more into internet lifestyle nowadays.