30 posts tagged “google”
Your social network relationships have become a kind of data which can be carried and peeped.
[+] social networks will become personal profile centers
So far we have seen social network sites' plans to open up their users' profiles, such as Facebook Connect, MySpace Data Availability and Google Friend Connect. One common idea behind all these plans is to allow users to decide which websites they can bring their profiles to. We can call it "portability of personal profiles."
Users of Facebook and MySpace can decide if they want to carry their personal data - name, phone number and address - and social network profiles - friend list or user group - with them to other websites. For example, you may access your Facebook friends from other websites you are using, of course with your authorization.
Through this strategy of opening up, social network is moving towards its next stage to play the role of personal profile center. Quite a few online users prefer to store their personal profiles in one central place, so that they will not need to fill in the same data repeatedly no matter where they go, and moreover, they only need to make changes to their profiles at one place - data at other websites will all be automatically updated. As such, we can see the value of such personal profile centers.
One thing calling for our attention is that, the idea of "portable profile" may not be a new one, but what is portable this time is your "relationship". In the past, your data or your tracks online do not include your social network relationships, which now become a kind of data that can be carried about and, of course, peeped.
[+] Personal profiles become tangible
You may have no idea about what websites your friends regularly visit, not to mention when they do. With the portability of personal profiles, you, when browsing some small website, may unexpectedly find your friends there, too. It is because you both are Facebook users and you carry your personal social network profiles with you to this site.
The society is thus turning into a gigantic tangible net where you may bump into someone you know at some corner. The impact of this development on people's social life is yet to be understood, but this is the first time we are able to transform our social relationships into tangible data, which can be stored in one place, carried about and, maybe, traded?
Social network websites, as places where personal profiles are stored, will have to bear social and even legal responsibility more than before. Who is after all the legal owner of the profiles - the users or the social network websites? Do social network sites merely provide data hosting service? What kind of responsibility they may have if the data gets stolen by hackers/ Can the government intervene in the management of personal profiles for the sake of social security?
In addition to legal aspects, there are business aspects, too. Thanks to the rapid flow of news content on the Internet, traditional media have almost got wiped out by portals. Now with open platforms and open user profiles, we see personal profiles flow rapidly on the Internet, and we wonder which traditional industries will be clawed down this time.
[+] Standard of personal profile portability
There is no standard so far for portable personal profiles. At least MySpace, Facebook and Google use three different methods. Users are bound to meet difficulties if they want to carry their profiles to another social network websites. Such portability benefits competitors, which will not be allowed.
However, if the ownership of these profiles belongs to users, there is no reason to obstruct the free and convenient flow of personal profiles among major social network websites? In this case, there may be a reason for the government to step in to break down the barrier set up by competing websites. Such intervention has a precedent in the telecommunications industry - telephone number portability, which allows users to carry their telephone numbers with them when switching service providers.
Furthermore, we can see this issue at as high as the national level. Imagine a scenario in which American companies such as MySpace and Facebook providing services in other countries. These American companies may accumulate an enormous amount of personal data and social network profiles of the citizens of another country. In that case, who owns these profiles? Is the government of that country entitled to intervene in the usage and management of these profiles?
It is possible that the data exchange standard for personal profile portability may become an international issue because a country may want to prevent foreign companies from controlling the profiles of its citizens. In the case of terrestrial TV standards, the result was that we have three standards: American, European and Japanese. So far the government seems to be slow in response because it sort of lags behind the fast development of technology.
Openness is an intrinsic feature of the Internet, and after a decade, we see a new exciting development of openness - open platforms and open user profiles related to social network. Business competition happens very fast, and it may take us another decade to manage to solve the legal and international issues it has incurred.
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (4)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (5) - 2008/12/07
Mobile TV Market (3) Terminal Manufacturers & Content Providers - 2007/12/02
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (4) WiMax, 3G and 4G - 2006/12/03
Internet and Books (1) Dilemma of Online Publishing - 2005/12/04
VoIP (2) Who Depends on Whom - 2004/12/05
VoIP Gives out the First Cry - 2003/12/07
After open platform comes the matter of profit share.
It is predictable that the open platform would change the existing dynamics of the industry. For example, we have seen many third parties developing applications for the social network websites in China - 51.com and Xiaonei. They can of course do the same thing for bigger players like Baidou or qq.com if they decided to open their platforms. Yet, is it possible that 51.com and Xiaonei develop applications imbedded in Baidou and qq.com?
Moreover, what if 51.com and Xiaonei develop applications to be imbedded in each other's websites? In that case, which is the big brother, and which is the little one? The relationship will become so complicated that in the end there will surely be many tangible and intangible clauses and terms made to prevent competitors from cutting ground by using imbedded applications. However, as far as social network service providers are concerned, to what extent should they open their platforms?
Some social network websites make it clear in their contracts with third party developers that applications in specific areas (such as recruitment and travel services) are not to be opened because the big brothers want to do it themselves, now or later. These areas are not supposed to be touched by little ones. Such cherry picking mindset is rather paradoxical - can this be called open?
In fact, social network websites need not to be afraid of opening themselves, as long as they get a good hold of their core value. The internet was born to be open, and online service providers should embrace this reality. They should open themselves except for their core. Yet, eventually what is the core value of social network?
[+] Only the core that should not be opened
From the surface, the tangible products of social network services are blogs, photo upload, friend lists and so on. Yet we should know clearly that the value of social network underneath these products lies in two parts - data storage and social relationship. The former is users' tangible asset and the latter the intangible.
A social network website's user may store blog articles s/he has been working for threes years and photos for one year at the website. Guess if s/he would run away from that website? Many people see the glamorous part of social network service providers but hardly their efforts in providing basic data storage functions. To be a platform operator or a big brother in social network services, data storage is the basic work, which needs to be under full control.
In addition to basic data storage, the intangible asset of users' social relationship needs to be taken good care too. The key for social network services to become sticky and irresistible for users lies in interpersonal interaction, which allows users to know what their friends are doing online easily. As long as social network service operators have god hold of users' social relationship, they don't need to be afraid of opening up.
In other words, it is OK to have third parties to develop applications except in areas involved in basic data storage or in ways intended to steal or transfer user's social relationship. This can be compared with the opening up of state-owned enterprises. It takes thorough consideration to decide which parts are about basic applications that should not be opened and which parts can be opened in moderation.
[+] Five tasks for open platform
After open platform comes the issue of profit share. A social network website operator should help third-party developers revolve problems and earn profits in the following areas:
1) Promotion. A social network website operator should provide a mechanism through which new services or applications can promote themselves while those not favored by users can be naturally weeded out.
2) Advertising revenue. For instance, a website can work with Google Adsense, a popular online advertising solution to web publishers in China, and let third-party developers keep all of the advertising revenue they bring in instead of sharing with them.
3) User payment. Users may be willing to pay for applications such as games, and social network websites should provide a solution to help application developers with user payment.
For the points mentioned above, 51.com has taken the initiative to provide solutions. 51.com opens its virtual money API to third-party developers, and by working with the sales channel of prepaid game cards of the game developer, Giant, users can top up easily. This is an attractive advantage for developers.
4) Basic web hosting. For developers to start offering their services at a lower cost, provision of basic web hosting may be necessary.
5) Investment or acquisition opportunity. A good application can be a good potential investment target; especially if it can be applied in a number of various social network websites and accumulate a huge amount of users. By provide funding opportunities at the initial stage, the website operator can help a application developer to grow and reserve a good investment opportunity for the future.
Open platform unveils a new competition for users. Social network websites wish to grow bigger, but at the same time they are worried to lose their turf. The top priority is to know yourself well. Your best chance lies in opening up yourself to the outside but preserving your core, and for this you need a good profit share system. At the end, you may even need to open up your user data to others to ensure lasting growth.
Yet, why do social network websites need to open their user data which they have made every effort to gather?
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (2)
Next : Openness, where is it going to take us? (4)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (3) - 2008/11/23
Mobile TV Market (2) the Subtle Role of Telecom Operators - 2007/11/25
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (3) Scarce Resources - 2006/11/26
Google's Choice (2) Lessons for the Software Giant - 2005/11/20
VoIP (1) It's a Fool Not to Make Telecom Money - 2004/11/28
Why open platform? The root cause is to address the problem of inactive users.
[+] open platforms for big brothers only
The idea of open platform is about a big website releasing its API and allowing others (individual users, small groups or small or medium-sized websites) to write programs in accordance with its API standards and embed the programs in this big website for its users. For website application developers, this mode can be called "follow the big brother."
Why open platforms? The fundamental reason is to solve the problem of inactive users. Social network services are driven by pressure of interpersonal relationships, so in the beginning users would feel compelled to log on the services. After a while, the pressure wanes and about two thirds of users would quiet down. One way to resolve this problem is continue to offer new applications. Yet it is too slow for a website operator to develop applications solely on its own, so it can only open its platform and let others join.
There are several key points in the definition of open platform mentioned in the first paragraph. Firstly, only the major players of the industry have the power to attract others to join. The open platforms of 51.com and Xiaonei.com, two independent social network websites in China, can only work well when they are turning into major players. Yet, keep in mind that the most powerful open platform would be that of Tencent (qq.com), a major Internet Instant Messenger Service provider in China, which can afford to wait for its best chance.
Why do companies follow the big brother instead of striving to be a big brother? This is because the market conditions three years ago could support a startup to grow into a big player. Now it has become difficult for startups - many of them can't even secure financing. Attaching to a major player for a chance to survive is straightforward thinking. Therefore we see a process of industry consolidation.
[+] Benefits for followers
Secondly, applications, after all, are for users of major websites. It is necessary to figure out what kind of applications major users would need. News for Sina, search for Baidu, C2C trade for Taobao, - major websites have their distinct product positioning. In a word, big websites of different types would have open platforms of different kinds; so small players must have different ways to work with them.
Social network services websites have no specific product positioning, which, however, give unlimited space for imagination. They are most powerful in spreading information. Although this type of websites offers specific functions such as blog, photo album, friend list and communities, their actual core product - relationships and networking - is relatively abstract. For applications to be successful, this core must be taken into close consideration.
Thirdly, followers must have benefits. The odds may be poor for a small developer to grow into a big brother, but at least it must be able to support itself. A big brother cannot make smaller developers keep working with it if it does not take care of them. Unless the big brother is the one and only player in the business, otherwise small developers can always turn to other big brothers.
Contrary to the real life, followers on the Internet enjoy certain freedom. They can join different camps at the same time. Developers certainly would like their applications to be used at many occasions without restrictions and make them good money. It would be a lot of trouble if one has to follow different rules (APIs) when joining different camps. Wouldn't it be a lot more convenient if all big brothers have the same set of rules?
[+] Battle for open standards
So we've seen the emergence of a standard that all big brothers are supposed to follow. This is the Open Social standard advocated by Google - a universal standard for open platform. If all big brothers abide by the standards, life would be a lot easier for small followers. They can join different camps freely, and someday they may even become big by being able to benefit from working with many big players.
This scenario is very much like vertical and horizontal alliances in the era of Warring States in China. Google's performance in social network services is only average. But if you look at the list of Open Social partners, you'll find that Google, with this alliance, looks like ready to contend with Facebook. However, what is Googls's intent to develop a standard for all to use, free of charge? What benefits, after all, will it be able to reap?
Overall, the core of Google is search. Google would wish that its Spider and Adsense could reach where there is traffic on the Internet. Nevertheless, social network services websites are very special - they have heavy traffic, yet they, particularly personal profiles, can only be access by logged-on users. Search engines have trouble indexing web pages of these services.
So Google has to open them up, and Open Social can be seen as a product of such thinking. Actually, baidu.com can take the same approach and come up with an open platform standard that suits Chinese social behaviors. It can encourage other social network services providers to adopt this standard, and independent players such as 51.com and xiaonei.com are very likely to join.
Why? Because for independent social network services providers, it would be too risky to rely on a third party standard and too inefficient to develop its own one. The solution then is to "compatibility with all standards." For them, the point is to attract more developers to come up with more applications to stimulate user activities. It does not matter which standards they choose.
In a standardized and transparent Internet world, what can website operators do to retain their users?
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (1)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (2) - 2008/11/16
Mobile TV Market (1) Cell Phone plus TV, the Dream of Everybody - 2007/11/18
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (2) Public WiFi is Not Enough - 2006/11/19
Great Future of Wireless Broadband (1) Living in the WiFi City - 2006/11/12
Google's Choice (1) Lessons for Portals - 2005/11/13
A Word of Advice for Small Online Stores - 2004/11/14
"To grow bigger" is an inevitable pressure rising from within.
[+] The Internet was born to be open.
The Internet was born to be open and free. Since the time when people established the underlying architecture of communications network, the Internet was endowed with the attributes of a decentralized architecture like its genes. Some negative impacts have come along, such as issues of online security and spams. Yet as such things are the consequences of the working of the Internet's genes, they are meant to subsist. For those Internet businesses that go against the Internet's innate characteristics, they would inevitably face tremendous pressure from competition.
Ten years ago, the Internet had posed a severe challenge to the conventional logic of business world – monopoly - , especially of the capital-intensive media industry. The Internet broke the structure and created an opening. An open Internet enabled more content partners to join. Free Internet services quickly drew in a large number of users. People running Internet companies were aware that only through opening up themselves could they continue to grow.
As the Internet follows the pattern of scale economy, inevitably, there is always an innate pressure for Internet businesses "to grow bigger." They need to quickly increase their user base and traffic to achieve a comparatively low marginal cost. One way to grow big fast is to offer free services; to open and embrace more partners is another. During the first decade of the Internet, these two methods seemed to work well.
Now we've seen a third method emerges with Web 2.0 - social network. The way social network works is similar to multi-level marketing. Spreading from one user's social network to another's and then many others', social network services quickly accumulate a huge amount of users. However, the pressure to grow bigger never wanes. Following the innate nature of the Internet - open and free - , renowned social network services providers have come up with solutions: an open platform and opening up users' profiles.
[+] No opening up, no monopoly
Doesn't it sound paradoxical? The only way to achieve a monopolistic position on the Internet is through opening up. In the conventional business world, businesses that survive fierce competition would build bulwarks to enclose its empire within and erect competition barriers. This is why we've seen the first-generation Internet companies, such as Yahoo!, developing into new monopolies. It seems that they have followed the same trajectory of history.
If its monopolistic advantage can last out, why would Yahoo! have Yahoo! Open Strategy? Why would a monopoly need to open itself up? The reason is new players keep coming on the stage, first Google, and later MySpace and Facebook. They have come with a new revolutionary power to rewrite the old business rules, and on the Internet, the revolution can happen at an astonishingly fast speed.
Openness is embedded in the genes of the Internet. It is difficult to monopolize the Internet marked with a decentralized architecture. Internet companies are constantly under pressure for growth, and putting up walls is not good for growing big because no Internet company, however powerful it may be, can monopolize the traffic on the Internet with its own websites - the majority of the traffic is always fall outside its own websites.
Moreover, new comers will exercise the power of openness to challenge the success of existing players. One of the most successful products of Google is the omnipresent Adsense, but Google has been threatened first by Facebook, which took the lead to open its platform, and later by MySpace, which was the first to open up users' profiles. They have unsettled both Yahoo! and Google. More openness leads to greater competition.
[+] Technological innovation is a key catalyst.
The first-generation Internet aggregates and opens up "content;" typical examples are portals like Yahoo!, and issues concerned around copyrights, trading of content and the transformation of patterns of mass communications. The second-generation Internet aggregates and opens up personal relationships; typical examples are social network websites like MySpace, and issues concerned around privacy, property rights of personal data and the transformation of patterns of interpersonal communications.
A key catalyst of all the changes is technological innovation, such as standardization of data exchange and standardization of applications interoperability. The former refers to the prevalence of document (e.g. XML) exchange standards and the later the sophistication of Web Service. The former enables users to insert content of one website to other websites; the latter allows users to embed a function module of one website to other websites.
10 years ago, when a portal wanted to use the content of a certain media company, both parties would need to go through a lengthy process of program development and docking. Now, website operators share their content in standard RSS format freely. When this becomes a common practice, the barriers to content exchange are instantly pulled down, and content may flow more rapidly on the Internet.
The concept of open platform, first raised by Facebook, is to allow applications of other websites to be embedded on Facebook. On the other hand, the idea to open users' profiles, first brought up by MySpace, is to enable users to embed their personal profiles onto other websites. The mode of the former is like "one-stop shopping"; the latter is more like "take out" - portable personal profile.
Furthermore, the idea, initiated long ago, to integrate various login ID's for different websites into a universal one, has been back to the talk again. The Internet world is sure to become more transparent with data flowing faster and content and functions among websites more integrated. It will affect the closer integration of industry chains, the decline of old business giants and the emergence of new ones, disputes over privacy issues and so on.
Openness is a path of no return, but where is it going to take us?
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down Next : Openness, where is it going to take us? (2)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (1) - 2008/11/09
The Web 2.0 Revolution (10) the Big Future of Web 3.0 - 2006/11/05
Each time the Widget site receives a "delivery call", it is expected to generate revenue.
[+]A new term: Widget
Widget is another popular new term after Blog and SNS. So far, there seems to be no proper Chinese equivalent to it. Literally, it can be translated into something like "small tool", or "fancy things", which somehow sound weird and cannot explain its functionality and impact.
On the sidebars of many blogs, particularly independent blogs, we can often see many fancy things, like a beautiful clock, or a weather forecast column, or news headline updates. These fancy things, which occupy small spaces on the web page and offer a variety of functions, are one kind of Widgets.
Of course, there are Widgets that can be downloaded and installed into your PC or cell phone. You also can download Widgets from many portals, including Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! and install them onto MSN Space, Google Personal or My Yahoo. These, however, are beyond the scope of this article, which only focuses on independent sites to offer Widget service like http://Widgetbox.com.
Why, then, do most of Widgets used by independent Blogs, rather than those empowered by large blog service providers (e.g., MSN Space)? The reason is most blog service providers do not allow bloggers to add Javascript into their blogs, while most Widgets were written by Javascprit code to be embedded into blog web pages.
In addition, it takes considerable expertise to insert Widgets. An ordinary Internet user would have to do a lot of learning before being able to put Widgets on his/her Blog. Most individuals who build their own Blog sites are familiar with such expertise. However, such difficulty is not yet to become an obstacle to the infiltration of Widgets across the Internet in many countries. There have emerged a lot of sites that offer Widget services.
In China, however, Widget is not so popular, mainly for two reasons: 1) given the Internet environment in the country, it is hard for an ordinary Internet user to build his/her own Blog site. In the United States, from applying for the domain name to leasing a host to activating the blog system to making the payment, everything can be done online. 2) Many international Blog service providers begin to allow embedded Javascript, which increases the possibility of Widgets being used.
[+]Operation model of Widget service
Widget service operators provide Widgets with diversified functions. To embed the Widgets onto their own Blogs, Internet users need to copy the corresponding Javascript onto their own Blogs. When the web page of a Blog is viewed, the Javascript code was triggered to retrieve the corresponding Widget from the service provider site and send it back to the web page where embedded.
This is the underlying mechanism of Widgets. A site offering Widget services is like a large warehouse, which sends a shipment whenever it receives a delivery call. Eventually, the goods are displayed in stores around the street. The problem is that nobody is going to visit the warehouse itself. Hence there appears a paradox of business operation: the sites of Widget service providers themselves do not have high traffic.
The traffic have gone to thousands of Blogs. The bandwidth budgets of the Widget service providers are used entirely for the transmission of Widgets to Blogs. According to my own experience in Widget service provision, Blogs that rank top 30% in terms of the total "deliveries" consumes 90% of the delivery calls, which is close to the proportion of the traditional 80:20 rule.
The website I build to offer Widget service is: http://www.rankwidget.com.
The function of this particular Widget is to show the Alexa ranking or the Google Pagerank of the Blog web page where it is put. I have operated the site for half a year now. At its peak, my site provided services to about 50,000 websites, delivering 200,000 times each day. (because advertisement was introduced later, the volume dropped to one third of the original level, with about 60,000 times delivered each day.)
Such niche market-targeted Widget cannot expect to have a lot of users, so 200,000 delivery times per day is a fairly satisfactory figure. The problem is that the site (rankwidget.com) has very low traffic itself - with less than 1,000 page views each day. We cannot expect to have many visitors to the "warehouse". The question is: how do operators of such an emerging application make money? After all, the bandwidth cost is a tangible expenditure every month.
[+]How do Widget operators make money?
You can take a look at a real operation of the Widget on: http://english.digitalwall.com. Open the web page and move to the bottom left corner, where your browser would bring out a pop up ad window behind your browser. When you move your mouse onto the Widget, a "bubble ad" appears. These are the operation models of the Widget I have tried. (Now the site no longer has bubble ads.)
With the 60,000 page views of the Widget site, the pop-under ad window ads would be displayed 2,500 times (most browsers have default pop-up ad blockers, which would significantly reduce the number of display time), resulting in a click rate as low as 0.2%. With the CPM or CPC-based billing approach widely adopted in the United States, I, as the operator of the Widget site, will end up in starvation.
The mindset is simple: each time a Widget site receives a "delivery call", it is expected to generate revenue, as each time there's a bandwidth cost. Hence advertising becomes a model worth trying. However, as the Widget brings disturbing ads, many Blogger prefer not to use it.
The Internet is really an unreasonable business environment. Users don't care about what operation cost you have. When I used pop-under ad windows, I had to face tides of fury of many Bloggers. Later on, I replaced it with a milder model: bubble ad, which was a big innovation (it seemed that nobody had tried it before), but the income was far away from satisfaction.
I am still exploring profit models for the Widget. In this field, I can be counted as one of the pioneers worldwide. With the thriving of SNS, many sites are following the lead of Facebook along a path toward Open API. In the future, the focus of the Widget is expected to extend from Blog to SNS. How to help this emerging service to find a profit model has become an interesting topic.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (4) Apple's Strategy
- Today in History
Initial Experience of Widget's Profit Model - 2008/05/04
As a matter of fact, Apple's understanding of Internet remains to be around computers, not handsets.
[+]The rises and falls of Apple
In March 2008, Apple, led by "legendary" Steve Jobs, topped Forbes Most Respected Companies in the United State, where Google ranked No.4 and Microsoft far behind - No.16. Being respected while making money is not an easy thing.
Nobody foresaw the company, once in its low, would come back in glory. Back in history, Apple was left alone in the cold due to the introduction of product platforms (open standard) and industrial platforms (labor division within the industry) built by the PC group led by Intel and Microsoft.
Apple's proprietary system throttled the enthusiasm of players in the industry to collaborate in the manufacturing of hardware/software and peripheral products, resulting in few applications usable, which, on the other hand, held consumers back from buying its products. Eventually, Apple was cornered by the PC group into a niche market.
Nobody would deny that Apple's computers had more elegant and appealing shapes. However, it was no rival of the Wintel legion, because they could dig deep into the personal computer market with the power of the entire industry after open standards were formed.
Remarkably, the first surprise Steve Jobs brought the world after coming back to Apple was iPod, which was launched in October 2001. Back at the time, iPod could only be connected with Apple computers through iTunes. Persisting on Apple's tradition for fashionable design, however, it was able to win the favor of its loyal users.
In June 2002, Apple launched iPod Windows version, and then the mid/low-end series, and successfully infiltrated into non-Apple users. Once mocked by its rivals as a "clumsy MP3 player with a mini-hard drive", iPod finally became an icon of imitation.
[+]Beginning to reap the benefits of a "platform"
iPod successfully built two platforms. The first one was a platform of peripheral products, with open interfaces allowing other hardware manufacturers to develop products compatible with iPod, e.g., plug-in FM radios, special voice record pens and digital cameras.
The second platform was iTunes, the one most talked about but none of the rivals could successfully copy. It was first introduced to enable users to synchronize music files with iPod and assist them to manage music files in their computers. Surprisingly, Steve Jobs used it to build his music stores.
The more iPods were sold, the more likely users would buy music. For the traditional music industry, iTunes turned out to be a platform to sell music products in the digital world. With the increase of users who chose to pay for digital music, labels found themselves tied more and more tightly to the platform.
So when Steve Jobs insisted USD 0.99 per song, the labels that originally planned for a price rise had no choice but to agree. Some labels did build their own music distribution websites, but failed to achieve the sales level of Apple.
The support of the admirable iPod sales is the key to the success of Apple, which offers the benefits of a powerful platform of hardware + software + Internet service - benefits which Yahoo! and other Internet players cannot offer. Maybe it is the reason that Google wants to introduce its own cell phones.
The platform can be further expanded. The first approach is to infiltrate into the film distribution market. Now that Steve Jobs has reached his hand into their pockets, film makers, however afraid of following the fate of the music industry, cannot afford to ignore the presence of the platform.
[+]Building a powerful platform with contents
The second approach is that iTunes, while adapting to the Web 2.0 trend, enables ordinary people to make music, broadcasting programs or even films themselves and move them onto Apple music stores. A wide range of PodCast programs are really amazing and of good quality. What's more, the rich contents have increased the confidence of iPod buyers in its value.
However, it is time to use the content platform to introduce new hardware. In June 2007, Apple launched iPhone, an unprecedented achievement through a partnership with AT&T. To use iPhone, users had to register an iTunes ID, and telecom operators share income with Apple.
Such humble operator was never seen before. If not for Apple's bargaining ability backed by the powerful content platform and the user number, the arrogant operators would never have given in.
Interestingly enough, it is said that the same cooperation model proposed by Apple was rejected by China Mobile. Apart from that the latter was the largest mobile operator in the world and hence even more arrogant, it also indicated that the platform was not powerful enough in China to offer a bargaining ability against China Mobile.
Will Apple, which was beaten in the PC market a decade ago, realize the importance of platform and open its iPhone? Currently, iPhone uses Mac OS X operating system. With the increase in sales, there would be more hardware/software and service vendors around the OS, and eventually, new platforms would emerge.
This, however, is not the style of Jobs. iPhone is a proprietary device. In each country, Apple would choose only one operator as its partner. In addition, Mac OS does not have many software service developers. Completely relying on itself, Apple is expected to sell only tens of million cell phones at most.
In terms of building a large cell phone-based platform, wouldn't Nokia, which has much larger sales, present a bigger chance than Apple?
[+]Continue to be proprietary?
Currently, Google is trying to build a series of platforms ranging from cell phone operating system to browser to online service, which it intends to offer free of charge. Apple is doing virtually the same things, but doesn't seem to consider to offer them free to other manufacturers.
The key is Apple does not regard Internet as its core business, at least as of the present time. Both Google and Yahoo! hold Internet as their core business. While the former chooses to develop hardware standards independently and offers them free of charge to the public, the latter chooses to be compatible with all hardware standards.
Other than its own online stores, Apple does not seem to be interested in any other Internet service. Unlike ordinary cell phones, which can only view WAP sites, the iPhone browser enables the viewing of HTML websites. Nor has Apple considered building a wireless portal for all iPhone users to make itself more popular.
As a matter of fact, Apple's understanding of the Internet remains to be around computers. A China Mobile executive once had a negative comment on Apple, saying that downloading music from a computer to a cell phone was not consistent with the experience of cell phone users, who were supposed to download music directly from portals of telecom operators.
Anyhow, Steve Jobs has successfully attracted the eye of the world. Although traffic volume or ad revenue-based profit model is beyond his vision of the Internet market, the success of iPod, iTunes and iPhone is powerful enough to shock traditional cell phone manufacturers.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (3) Nokia's Strategy
- Today in History
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (4) Apple's Strategy - 2008/04/06
The Mist of 3G in China (2) TD-SCDMA is a Hot Potato - 2007/04/08
The Mist of 3G in China (1) 3G Makes No Profit - 2007/04/01
Predictions on China Internet Market (6) Community Services - 2006/04/09
Media, Community, and Blog (5) The Power of Media - 2005/04/03
3G Time Comes (4) Video Phone - the Killer Application - 2003/04/06
Nokia must turn itself into a platform, which must be more open than existing ones.
[+] Handset operating systems are getting increasingly unimportant.
In the mobile communication industry, Nokia is a legend of invincibility. According to the data released at the end of January, Nokia sold 134 million handsets in the 4th quarter of last year, with a market share as large as 40%, way ahead the 15% of Samsung, the closest follower.
If you were the CEO of Nokia, you would think: "can I further do something with these users?" when you see the data. Lucrative as the handset business is, isn't it better to squeeze something more out of the users? Internet becomes a target.
For years, Nokia has been dedicated to the development of its handset operating system Symbian and a series of smart phones to battle with Microsoft - with eye-catching sales. Worldwide, 60% of the smart phones are driven by Symbian. Only 11% use Windows Mobile.
What's clear is, however, amid the tide of wireless Internet, handset operating systems are getting increasingly unimportant. It is not that players on the stage will give up operating systems, but they have found that the ability to provide services is even more important.
If, as described in the previous section, Yahoo! introduces Yahoo! Go to enable service delivery across operating systems on the wireless Internet, and Google's operating system becomes available to handset developers for free. Where is the value of those different operating systems? The users would care nothing else but the services available.
Apple iPhone is an amazing product. But the central topic is not the operating system iPhone uses. In terms of sales, it would have a long way to go before becoming a threat to the market leader Nokia. However, iPhone's ability to drive sales with its music service is something that Nokia cannot afford to ignore.
[+] Nokia moves into the Internet market.
According to data released by Google internally in January 2008, during the 2007 Christmas season, page views of Google through iPhone was next only to that through the Symbian smart phones. iPhone's share of the smart phone market was as low as 2%, while that of Symbian was 63%.
What's the reflection it would give Nokia? Obviously, iPhone offers better Internet experience than Nokia - easier to use, more user-friendly browser functions. Maybe Apple is better able to attract users with high demand for Internet accessing to buy its smart phones.
To Nokia, both the improvements to the interface and the selling model of handsets bound with Internet services are shockingly new. A player that has been traditionally regarded a computer manufacturer is now one step into the telecom industry after a successful transformation into an Internet service provider and a consumer electronic product manufacturer.
What will be the right move for Nokia to infiltrate into the territories of its rivals? The first idea would be to provide proprietary contents, which could be obtained through M&A or through partnerships. Fortunately, many Internet players are interested in getting their services available on Nokia phones.
Therefore, Nokia introduced a series of services, including Nokia Search, Nokia Maps and Nokia Music. Most of the services, however, require download of special software into handsets in prior, and are not compatible with all Nokia handset models. Therefore, pre-installation of the software becomes a necessary means to sell handsets.
Nokia Search is a service offered jointly with search engines such as Google, while Nokia Music is a fee-based online music store through partnerships with leading labels - something similar to the iTunes music store of Apple. To Internet players, Nokia is both a partner and a rival.
Nokia service list: http://europe.nokia.com/A4496273
[+] WidSets: an open platform that pulls together the Internet world
It takes time to build such services. To establish itself in the Internet world as soon as possible, Nokia will have to pull the entire Internet over to its side. Don't forget that the Internet is a huge eco-system that needs a common leader to open the gate to the world of wireless Internet.
Nokia must turn itself into a platform, which must be more open than existing ones, to enable the upload of any service, regardless of the handset operating system - Symbian, or whatever else. If the handset operating system is no longer important, sticking onto Symbian would become Achilles' heel.
To Internet players that Nokia wants to pull over to its side, the prospect of handset-based Internet services available on any handset is a deadly attraction. Perhaps it was based on this idea that Nokia introduced its open platform WidSets.
For handsets, this open platform is a small Java program. Any handset that supports Java can run the software. Theoretically, Internet players would be able to provide services to all Java-enabling handsets, so long as the services are developed on the basis of the small program.
In terms of operation logics, what WidSets offers is similar to that Yahoo! Go does. Internet service providers could ignore the specifications of various handsets and make their services available on the wireless Internet through simple programs, so long as the receiving handsets have WidSets.
Currently, a number of leading Internet players, such as Wikipedia, Blogger and Flickr, as well as news media including Routers and BBC have started to develop applications on the Widsets platform. In addition, many amateur players are developing small games on it for downloading by users. Obviously, application development has become an easy thing.
Download WidSets at: https://www.widsets.com/widgets
[+] Can handsets be free?
Theoretically, Nokia's WidSets can be installed into a GPhone, or an iPhone, so long as it supports Java. In this regard, what operating system a handset uses is really unimportant. Why then is Google still sticking on the development of its own handset operating system?
What's really in the mind of Google, perhaps, is to extend its advantages in online advertising. By knitting Google services closer with handset functions, it would be able to continue its leadership in the handset-based advertising market as the wireless Internet population grows, or even use the income to offer cheaper or free handsets.
Of course, Nokia and other handset manufacturers would hate the idea. Instead of selling products, they would have to depend on advertising to make money. Will this wild dream of Google become true? First of all, handsets will never really be free. They are just paid by somebody else.
Telecom operators were once bill payers that made handsets free through bound service contracts with consumers, who were thereby requested to pay subscriptions, which they had no way to cancel for a given period of time. With the subsidies of telecom operators and Google, it is indeed possible to further drive down the prices of handsets.
If the appearance of GPhone means that telecom operators would pay less subsidy, that's absolutely good news for them. The problem is it will have to be paid, either by telecom operators, or by Google, because handset manufacturers such as Nokia will not sell handsets at prices below costs.
If Google pays the subsidy to make handsets free, it will have to earn the money back from follow-on handset-based ads. To spend the money before there's an income, is this a good deal? Google will have a huge amount of cash to give away as subsidy. It seems exactly what powerful telecom operators did in the previous years.
Compared with those of Yahoo! and Nokia, Google's wireless Internet plan seems more like a big bet.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (2) Yahoo!'s Strategy
Next : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (4) Apple's Strategy
- Today in History
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (3) Nokia's Strategy - 2008/03/23
Predictions on China Internet Market (5) Search Engines - 2006/03/26
Media, Community, and Blog (4) Production-Marketing Relations - 2005/03/27
Media, Community, and Blog (3) Deconstruct Blog - 2005/03/20
Stop Internet Marketing (3) All Determination; No Distribution - 2004/03/21
3G Time Comes (3) SMS, Email and MMS - 2003/03/23
What's the difference between Yahoo! MDP and Google Android?
[+] Isolated and multi-standard industrial environment
If you have developed a PC-based website, what you are most concerned about would be how to attract users, instead of whether your web pages fit the sizes of your users' screens. With regard to browser brands, you only need to consider a few versions for the program you use to build your website.
You don't have to bother about what operating systems your users use, or whether your users access the Internet through ADSL or Cable, or via which telecom operators. However, with a mobile Internet environment, all these are issues you have to think about.
Providing value-added mobile Internet services via handsets is extremely painful. For example, Yahoo! has a searching box on an operator's WAP portal. It wasn't launched until passing telecom network test, value-added platform test, billing platform test and handset compatibility test.
If it wants to cooperate with another telecom operator, it will have to do these tests all over again, as each operator has its own telecom network and platforms. Just consider how many telecom operators there are in the world? Such a service deployment speed makes it almost impossible to duplicate the Internet revolution on handsets.
In the world of mobile communication, each industrial leader wants to develop its own standard. Leaving alone the various platforms of telecom operators, is it possible to have a uniform software development environment in the first place to make it easier for the developers to support a wide range of handsets?
Now we have a crowded market. In addition to Symbian and Windows Mobile, there are the reverend Java and Qualcomm Brew, joined by new comers like Adobe Flash Lite. Even Yahoo! has introduced Yahoo! Mobile Developer Platform.
If you are a handset service developer, what would you feel at the sight of so many standards you have to support?
[+] Handset operating systems are getting increasingly unimportant
These development platforms have everything from operating systems to software deployment environments. Now that none of the handset operating systems could monopolize the market, all will have to seek survival in the long run. What consumers care most about are only services, not operating systems. It would be increasingly unimportant to fight for market shares of handset operating systems.
In my view, therefore, the key to the success of platform development is not the operating system, but the software deployment environment. As a matter of fact, Java, which is best positioned to build a terminal-independent development environment, has not been able to achieve its vision of "write once, run anywhere".
Flash Lite, a product of Flash that holds an admirable share in the computer-based Internet market, is another development environment irrelevant to operating systems. Theoretically, any handset, regardless of its operating system, could use the environment so long as it supports Flash.
If it could really enable "write once, run anywhere", the development platform will be embraced by developers. Yahoo!'s Mobile Developer Platform (MDP) could be regarded as a development platform similar to Flash Lite but more irrelevant with operating systems.
Simply speaking, website operators that write Widget in accordance with the development specifications (simple scripting, instead of binary codes) will be able to deliver existing services of their websites to handsets, so long as these handsets have installed Yahoo!Go.
The goal of Yahoo! is to get Yahoo! Go into every handset, so that more and more websites would support MDP and join Yahoo! This, of course, would include Google's phone - if GPhone has built-in Yahoo! Go.
[+] The Mobile Internet needs a common leader
Any Internet player that plans to provide handset-based service will have to face a variety of handset operating systems, the special functions of different brands, the different browser brands in the handsets and the different telecom operator platforms.
Such a complicated environment would often be a headache for small Internet companies. Investing resources to solve all the problems is, obviously, not in line with their economic interests. Large Internet companies could make such investments and get economic benefits, but then they will have to fight a battle all by themselves.
Computer-based Internet is a large eco-system. Unless there is a platform that enables all Internet companies to deliver their services to handsets, the entire eco-system would not be able to bargain with telecom operators, who control user resources.
So there appears the mainstream requirement for an open platform different from existing software development platforms such as Java or Flash. The former is a development tool customized for small Internet companies to address the compatibility of different handsets.
In addition to compatibility, the platform should be supported by an industrial leader powerful enough to deal with telecom operators or handset manufacturers. In other words, the mobile internet needs a common leader with a sufficiently large user group.
The key is who the leader will be? Yahoo! and Google, both with large user basis, have chosen different approaches. Ignoring other standards, Google chooses to develop its own platform. Yahoo! chooses to co-exist with other standards.
[+] What's the difference between Yahoo! and Google?
What's the difference between Yahoo! MDP and Google Android? Simply speaking, Android is a platform that includes everything - from the operating system to the software deployment environment and even the browser. Leaning more toward handsets and developers, it hopes to build a brand new underlying technical platform in the mobile Internet industry.
Google does not care what operating system is used on a handset, or what impact the browser has on the presentation of web pages, because it has prepared its own. It wishes to persuade handset manufacturers, Internet companies and software developers to use its standards and get rid of all others.
Yahoo!, on the other hand, focuses more on the provision of a front-end environment to enable existing website operators to deliver their services into handsets easily, regardless of underlying technologies. To achieve this goal, however, Yahoo! has to overcome compatibility problems itself.
To be applicable in every handset, Yahoo!Go must be compatible with all handset operating systems (including, of course, the operating system of Google). It has to adapt to handsets or browsers of different manufacturers to ensure normal functionality and display quality.
With all these pains-taking efforts of Yahoo!, medium and small Internet companies will be able to provide handset versions of their services on their websites easily. No more fuss about standards, just follow the leader.
Both players are trying to become the leader, although with different approaches. Who's got the better chance? As of this point of time, we can only say that Google is taking a bigger bet. It will have a big success or a big failure. Both, however, have chosen the approaches best fit themselves. We can hardly imagine Yahoo! to develop a platform like Android.
However, they are not the only ones aiming at the leadership. Nokia has noticed the trend, too.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (1) Google's Strategy
Next : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (3) Nokia's Strategy
- Today in History
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (2) Yahoo!'s Strategy - 2008/03/09
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (1) Google's Strategy - 2008/03/02
Predictions on China Internet Market (2) Subscriber Number Is King - 2006/03/05
Media, Community, and Blog (1) The Beginning of the Story - 2005/03/06
Stop Internet Marketing (1) All Market; No Marketing - 2004/03/07
3G Time Comes (1) What Is 3G? - 2003/03/09
Success or not, Google has made a smart move to bid for the license.
[+] The conflict of mindsets of two industries
Rumors about Google's introduction of GPhone have been flowing around for quite a long time, but never confirmed. Nobody had any idea about how ambitious Google's blueprint was until it announced to bid for FCC 700MHz spectrum and to launch the Android mobile platform.
Mobile operators are in a fortress that Internet players have been unable to conquer so far - largely due to the gap between the basic business modes of the two industries. In the mind of telecom operators, there's nothing to be offered free. Once launched on a telecom platform, any service would entail a cost and should generate an income.
Therefore, when the ringtone download service is released on WAP portal, telecom operators charge the users two types of fees, one for data transmission and the other for use of the content. While the former is most likely to be integrated into monthly packages, the latter is actually collected for content providers.
For a long time, telecom operators have no idea about how to deal with Yahoo! or Google search boxes at WAP portals. Unlike ringtone download, this is a service that you cannot charge users for. If the search boxes are put up by Internet players for marketing purpose, should they pay telecom operators for that?
So when the webpage you get using Google on your cell phone shows an ad, your telecom operator will share a portion from the advertising income. This cooperation model turns Internet companies into a secondary role. What else can they do since the telecom operators control the Internet access?
There are two ways to force telecom operators to recognize their status: either from the upper stream or the lower stream of the industry. One case for the former is Google's bid for wireless spectrum to assume the role of a telecom operator; and that of the latter is Apple's introduction of iPhone - bound music to reach into the pocket of consumers.
[+] Google's overall deployment
Google' s bid for FCC 700MHz wireless spectrum is far more important than its launch of Android mobile platform. Previously, Google had urged FCC to accept a yardstick that "all bidders for the spectrum should offer open access."
The request got the support of FCC. Essentially, it demands that the winner of the bid should have the ability to provide access to any terminal device connecting to networks of the spectrum. Instead of discrimination, the operators should treat all terminal devices equally.
FCC is a neutral party. Its mission is to facilitate the development and effective competition of the communication industry. To open the industry wider to more players is, obviously, in conformity with this mission. As Google stood out with the proposal, telecom operators, who had been accustomed to stand-alone business operation, were at a loss for even not knowing how to rebut it.
However, how could it be possible to allow so many different terminal devices free access to the Internet? So Google, along with the 34 founding members of Open Handset Alliance, introduced Android, a device-independent handset software development platform..
Why were the 34 companies, including heavy-weight players such as Motorola and Qualcomm, and even telecom operator T-Mobile involved from the very beginning? Had Google not announced to bid for the license and urged FCC to accept the Open Access standard, they wouldn't be there so fast!
Google made a smart move. The result of the bidding is yet to be announced, and the open handset platform would have to stand up to existing rivals such as Symbian and Windows Mobile. Nevertheless, it is a good beginning. Nobody could afford to ignore the power of Google.
[+] The license bid is critical
The next step of Google might depend on the result of the license bid. In the first place, if Google wins the bid and becomes a new telecom operator, it would be able to integrate the entire industrial chain, from the upper stream to the lower stream, with the assistance of Open Handset Alliance. The most optimistic prospect would be a performance multiplier.
Google will be able to foster the basic customers for its own handset platform, while its allies would target client groups for their handsets and services, and terminals introduce closer-knitted services with Google. With economies of scale, more investments can be made for R&D to eventually build a healthy cycle.
Of course, it will take Google a lot of money and time to learn about the trade. Telecom is a century-old industry and won't be so easy for Google to understand in a short time. Head hunting might be a good option, but conflict with Google's existing business culture would be possible.
If the learning curve is too long, Google might be mired in the new business. Telecom is a capital-intensive business that takes a lot of initial investments. Google's financial statements would not look so pretty by the time.
More troublesome, in this industry, successful business modes cannot be duplicated. Google might be able to get the wireless spectrum of the United States, but it has no way to get those of all countries in the world. Telecom is a highly localized industry, which means that Google is unlikely to duplicate or export business modes to other parts of the world.
The only viable way is M&A, or financial takeover of local telecom operators just like other transnational telecom giants have been doing. This, however, won't happen before Google's telecom business becomes profitable. How can a money-losing business sell its business mode? Where does it get the money needed?
[+] The Android platform turns out to be a headache of developers
In my view, it would be better for Google not to get the wireless spectrum license. It would be too much to raise cows just for drinking milk. Even if Google doesn't get the license, Open Handset Alliance and its Android platform would still be valuable assets.
As Open Access has been accepted by FCC as a requirement for all players, Google could use the alliance and the platform as its chips to cooperate with the telecom operators that win the license. By abandoning the quest for a telecom operator, Google would be less as a threat to other operators, which would be helpful for cooperation.
By taking the highland to show its determination for the license bid, to create a powerful pressure and facilitate the establishment of Open Handset Alliance, Google has made a really smart move, regardless of the result of the bid.
Of course, there will be challenges. For Google, the biggest is how to attract more telecom operators into the alliance and to boost the enthusiasm of handset manufacturers to develop GPhone. Its rivals will include the formidable Symbian and Windows Mobile.
Handset manufacturers and software/application developers, in the meantime, are frowning at the platform. On the open Internet, Google is undoubtedly the leader. In the field of handset development platform, however, it is just one of the options.
What the developers are concerned about is, if the Google platform is not powerful enough to take the loin's share of the handset market, it would turn out to be one more standard that the developers would have to support. For them, the existing platforms are enough to be painful about. And here comes another.
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Finale (3) Finally blended in Web 1.0
Next : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (2) Yahoo!'s Strategy
- Today in History
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (2) Yahoo!'s Strategy - 2008/03/09
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (1) Google's Strategy - 2008/03/02
Predictions on China Internet Market (2) Subscriber Number Is King - 2006/03/05
Media, Community, and Blog (1) The Beginning of the Story - 2005/03/06
Stop Internet Marketing (1) All Market; No Marketing - 2004/03/07
3G Time Comes (1) What Is 3G? - 2003/03/09
The user-base size of a Web 2.0 website is determined by the social class it targets at.
[+] The social class a website targets at determines its size
The take-off of Web 2.0 has drawn in a huge number of startups; however, the prospects no longer look so rosy. Lots of websites are on the verge of closing down and are struggling to survive and make a profit. It becomes more difficult to get funding because venture capital in Asia is losing interest in this business.
The market situation has generally settled. In China, websites with over ten million users can expect to get funding in the third round, but they are also facing the challenge brought by major Web 1.0 websites interested in the Web 2.0 market. For those with only several million users, it's unrealistic to expect fast user growth; operators must strive to make profits.
In Taiwan, the no. 1 portal in the market, Yahoo! Taiwan, is playing a very powerful role, making it difficult to survive and prosper for small Web 2.0 websites in the already cramped market. Yet, at the same time, there are some established online community websites that are successful and making good profits.
Why is it so? I mentioned before that the rationale of Web 2.0 development is based on sociology. As such, the size of a Web 2.0 website's user-base is very much determined by the social (or cultural) class it targets at.
Web 2.0 websites grow along with the expansion of user's social networks. Users bring in other people whom they meet in their daily life, including strangers or acquaintances. As more and more people of the same class gather at the website, it will become more difficult for those who belong to other classes to join.
Once the initial user-base is formed, a website operator would study these users' way thinking and social behaviors more carefully so as to retain and encourage them to bring more new users. This consequently reinforces its focus on a specific cultural ambiance or social class, and the cycle then goes on and on.
[+] The management team's social class determines the size of user-base
To observe the development of a Web 2.0 website, one needs only to look at its initial user-base. Google's social networking service (SNS) website Orkut has got very popular in Brazil unexpectedly and this has made it difficult for users from other countries to join. Look around and you can hardly find anyone using Orkut, even though we are all Google users.
The biggest online community website in Korea, Cyworld, attempts to enter the US market. Its initial target users are white Americans; however, it turns out that the website is more appealing to young Asians. The reason is simple: the design of the website's interface, including functions and the overall feel, is more friendly and attractive to Asian users.
Another example is Friendster, a SNS website, which is very popular among Philippine users. Again, users from countries outside the Philippines would find it not easy to become a part of the community. You can call it cultural barrier. Look closer and you'll find that although transnational Web 2.0 website can reach users all over the world, it is always those who share something in common would flock together.
In China, 51.com, a Web 2.0 website, started from Internet cafes in provincial cities to build its user-base, and now it is struggling to draw in white-collar users in major cities. On the other hand, other Web 2.0 websites also meet difficulties in entering provincial cities. The above cases illustrate the effects of cultural ambiance and social classes in the real world on the user composition of Web 2.0 websites.
Those Web 2.0 websites targeting at the "upper classes" (the white collars) are sure to have limitations 0n user growth. Particularly in China, white collars, mostly living in coastal areas, make up only a fraction of the population. It would be a tough challenge for Web 2.0 websites aimed at this particular group of people to grab more than ten million users.
In Taiwan, two leading social bookmarking websites, HEMiDEMi and funP, have very different user communities in terms of their cultural ambiance. While the former is more attractive to elites, the latter is more proletarian. Yet both websites are focused on the class of white collars, and their performance is not as good as established grassroots online community websites in terms of traffic and profits.
If you move a step forward, you'll find that by looking at the founders of a Web 2.0 website, you can almost tell what the website will be like. Founders will naturally apply their way of thinking, which is surely conditioned to the social class they belong to, to developing online communities.
[+] Cultural products are for niche markets that never grow too big
Instead of aiming at a specific social class, some Web 2.0 websites would target at a group of people who share the same interests. There are online communities devoted to subjects of comics, sports, literature, book reviews, or food and restaurants.
These communities will definitely be conditioned by the size and scope of these social groups. For example, how many comic fans can you find in China? How many people in Taiwan love good food? What about the market prospects? In China, it may be feasible for website operators to cater for a specific niche market, but it may not be sustainable in Taiwan.
Why are there growth limits on Web 2.0 or online community websites? In addition to the conditioning of social classes, cultural products are for niche markets instead of for mass markets. A website that has specific cultural ambiance can never grow too big.
Does it mean that only websites that have "no particular culture" can grow big? By "no particular culture" I mean that there are no specific cultural features that can be attached to the websites. It is not about high culture versus vulgar popular culture. What I am trying to say is, as long as a website can be linked to a specific culture, there will surely be people who don't like it. You cannot please all and, as a result, the website will never be able to grow too big.
This is such a dilemma: an online community is always formed by people who are attracted to its cultural ambiance and who share similar interests. These people gather and stay and naturally develop a certain culture. Consequently, people who don't like its cultural ambiance go away. Many established online community websites remains the way they have always been for years without much change.
Surprisingly, you may find the solution in Web 1.0.
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Finale (1) An Inherent Problem Unsolved Next : Web 2.0 Finale (3) Finally blended in Web 1.0
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Finale (2) Websites With a Specific Culture Can't Grow Big - 2007/12/30
