43 posts tagged “portal”
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
"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
It is more possible to become a stable, low-growth market. Therefore, it's no use being hasty.
[+] Will the advent of 3G lead to a reshuffle of WAP market?
Despite continuous setbacks since 2000, telecom operators have never stopped efforts in the mobile Internet market. Theoretically, Moternet, the WAP portal of the largest mobile operator in the world, China Mobile should have the heaviest traffic volume in the world. After all, it has such a huge subscriber base. This, however, is not the reality.
From an iResearch report, Handset-enabled Internet Activities in China in 2008, we can see that Sina, Baidu and Tencent are among the most visited WAP sites in China. There are even a few independent 3G WAP portals. Thanks to their huge PC-based user bases, traditional Internet players seem to have a chance to challenge telecom operators.
Will the advent of 3G lead to a reshuffle of the market? Despite the fierce battle for subscribers, New China Mobile, New China Telecom and New China Unicom have not changed their visions of transforming from "communication service providers" into "information service providers". Key to this effort will be WAP. Will other WAP sites score another goal along with the promotion of 3G?
What we might not have understood correctly is the fact that, with the advent of 3G, the WAP market might have a stable and slow growth, instead of a sweeping revolution. Therefore, it's no use being hasty. It seems that, at the present time, the conditions for a sweeping revolution are not yet in place.
[+] The development of the WAP user base is a long-term process
First, if the 3 new operators do not offer substantially lower WAP rates, there would be no momentum for WAP users to upgrade to 3G, as no major change is expected to the contents offered by WAP sites. There might be more video and mobile TV services, but the key to the acceptance of users is still the fee rate.
The problem is that only telecom operators could decide the fee rates. Other Internet players have no say in it. In view of the current competition picture, the operators are expected to cut 3G WAP fee rates to some extent. But as I said, only substantial cut in voice fee rates could significantly increase the 3G user base, which is essential for a sharp increase in 3G WAP user base.
Secondly, does a substantial increase of 3G user base mean the same for WAP user base? Experience of telecom operators indicates that a large portion of the first 3G mobile phone subscribers would be WAP users of the 2G time. In other words, as a 2G WAP user becomes 3G WAP user, there would be no increase in the total WAP user number in the market.
In the long term, with intensive 3G promotion efforts of operators, all users will eventually give up 2G (whether voluntarily or forced to do so). The process, however, might not be as fast as you and I have thought. Considering the WAP service, which might be offered as an accessory service, the development of the WAP market could be even slower. The key to the speed of growth is the fee rate, not the number of Gs.
[+] The pain in business models
Why have telecom operators not been able to make good WAP sites? Based on my 5 years of experience in an operator, I could see that the root of the problem is their business models. For telecom operators, there's no free service. Every service should generate revenue, which ideally should be collected from end-users with phone bills. One dollar from each user would add up to an amazingly large amount for the hundreds of millions of income.
WAP services are duplicates of those of the Internet, whose basic business model is to offer free service and gain revenue from advertising. Sharp conflicts are expected for the business model transformation, not to mention the difficulty of changing the mindset of staff in a short time. Telecom operators need to regard themselves as media players before establishing ad departments to gain ad revenue. For them, that's too much.
This business model would have nothing to do with the number of Gs. For WAP, if the business model were transformed to that of media in the 2G time, Monternet could have done it very well even without 3G. Now we are back to the basic question: which is scored "better", higher ARPU or advertising income? If the former, there will not be any change.
It does not mean that telecom operators have to give up fee-based music or image download services, which are, in fact, the revenue sources of the traditional Internet companies, too. Yet, if operators cannot think of anything else, their business growth would be limited. For example, Nokia is seeking cooperation with telecom operators even as it has its own advertising network.
Why didn't operators make the proposal first? Because they are still using the old mindsets. Any business you don't do, somebody else in the business chain would do. Nokia Advertising Network is a manifestation of the company's resolution to transit from the manufacturing industry to the service (particularly the Internet service) industry. Do New China Mobile, New China Unicom and New China Telecom have the same resolution?
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (7) The Pricing of 3G Value-added Services
- Today in History
New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down - 2008/08/10
PDA in Siege (1) The Attack of Notebooks - 2004/08/15
3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected.
[+] The pricing of video phone service
As a result of the fierce battle for subscribers between operators, 3G value-added services eventually become a secondary role. In the long-term, however, mobile subscribers will gradually accept the services and use them more than they did in the 2G time. In fact, subscribers first switch to 3G because of attractive voice fee rates. Then they begin to use more value-added services because of faster Internet access speed.
Generally speaking, the most talked-about 3G services include video phone and streaming media. With video phone, you will be able to see the one you are calling. Of course, you can also dial a number to watch a live broadcasting program. Streaming media, on the other hand, enables users to watch audio/video programs via the Internet, mostly by logging onto portals of operators with handsets.
Voice service, video phone and streaming media, how should the three services be appropriately priced? First, as video phone consumes 4 times of bandwidth than general voice calls do, should it be 4 times as expensive? The answer is no, because 4 times is pretty scaring. Most operators offer rates ranging between 1.2 to 1.5 times.
Due to privacy and courtesy concerns, video phone is rarely used. Some people argue that operators should offer lower rates to increase use of video phone services. The fact is, however, low price is probably not sufficient to eliminate the privacy concern. Operators even believe there are reasons you have to use video phone (e.g., your wife requires you to). Is there any other chance of earning such easy money?
[+] The pricing for streaming media
Streaming media service, which enables mobile TV and movies, has been in a dilemma of whether to charge by traffic volume (e.g., RMB X for watching Y mega bytes per month) or by service time (e.g., RMB X for Y hours per month). Eventually, all operators chose service time-based fee rate models.
As most users are still not accustomed to traffic based models, while charging by service time also seems weird (nobody pays TV bills by minutes), the best solution would be monthly packages without time or traffic volume limit. Fearing that users might turn on their handsets 24 hours a day, which would result in considerable waste of wireless network resources, most operators dare not choose the solution.
If they choose to charge by service time, how much per minute would be appropriate? Streaming media service usually consumes twice bandwidth as much as video call does. Nevertheless, I suggest its fee rate be set similar to, or even lower than that of general voice calls. As streaming media service is delivered through IP-based packet-switched network, it could use network resources more effectively than video phone, allowing larger bandwidth for users.
That billing model encourages the use of streaming media to improve the efficiency of the network resources of operators. A challenge for operators is that they have to collect payments for content providers, which would increase the total cost of users. However, that seems to be a problem without solution, because content providers need to be paid, too.
[+] WAP monthly package and the pricing for mobile Internet access
In my view, WAP, the service that has been available since the 2G time is more profitable than mobile TV, which is wildly betted on because of the Olympic Games. Some operators have already offered WAP monthly packages without traffic volume limit. With the advent of 3G, they now face a problem: whether to raise or lower the package rates?
As the costs of operators are based on traffic volumes and 3G, with higher speed, will generate far larger WAP volumes than 2G, maintaining the monthly packages does not seem to be a good deal. However, in order to encourage 3G subscribers to use WAP services, it makes no sense to raise the price. But operators do not want to cut price. Eventually, the fee rates are usually kept at the same level of the 2G services.
As to the monthly mobile Internet access packages (via computers) for current China Unicom's CDMA network, no substantial change is expected because the speed of 3G service remains low (384k for WCDMA). However, as 3G has just been launched in mainland China, it would be well equivalent to the level of 3.5G (HSDPA) right from the beginning. As a result, the fee charging model would change.
For example, there might be packages of RMB X/month for the speed of 128k and RMB Y/month for 256k. Such a pricing model is similar to that of ADSL. Theoretically, the peak rate of HSDPA could be up to 14.4M (it is reported that 3.6M Internet access services would be available soon in Taiwan). Therefore, it is possible to introduce different fee rates for different speed.
[+] The fee rate of value-added services is not the key to attract subscribers
Why operators are so reluctant to cut fee rates of 3G value-added services? Because in the fight for subscribers, they have already cut prices of general voice calls. How do they compensate the loss? Through the above value-added services, of course. Will the value-added service fee rate level affect their subscriber base? Basically not. Then why not setting the fee rates a little bit higher?
Many consumers would consider switching to operators who offer lower voice rates, not the one who offer lower value-added service fee rates. The pricing of value-added service is not the key for operators to attract subscribers. With this user experience and such a mindset of operators, 3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected.
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (6) Insight into 3G Price War in Taiwan Next : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down
- Today in History
New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (7) The Pricing of 3G Value-added Services - 2008/07/27
New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (6) Insight into 3G Price War in Taiwan - 2008/07/20
From Idea to Business (2) How to Estimate Your Income and Cost? - 2007/07/22
New Era of Online Advertising (2) from Exposure to Deal - 2006/07/23
Ultimate Mobile Device (5) Universal User Experience - 2005/07/24
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time.
[+]The history of SNS
Last month, AOL's purchasd Bebo, the largest social networking site in Britain, for USD 850 million in cash. That once again highlighted the value of SNS (Social Networking Service). In the United States, Bebo is the No.3 social networking site, behind MySpace and Facebook, with more than 40 million users around the world.
Further back, News Corp acquired MySpace with USD 580 million in 2005; Microsoft paid USD 240 million for merely 1.6% stakes in Facebook. The first deal seems to be too hasty for MySpace and too juicy for News Corp. What, indeed, is the most attractive aspect about SNS to investors?
SNS is really a confusing concept when mentioned together with dating sites, community sites or Blog. Even SNS operators do not view themselves as dating sites, community sites or Blog sites. While those sites have been in place since the Web 1.0 time, or at least the end of that time, SNS focuses on inter-personal relations, and therefore is a mixture of all above.
Finally, it seems that only ambiguous terms such as "personal space" could differentiate SNS from those traditional concepts. In terms of functionality, SNS enables blog, photo album, friends, community (or group) as basic functions. With the intentional guide of the operators, users could visit the blogs and photo albums of others, eventually activating the social networking function.
In terms of social networking behavior, SNS depends on the migration of offline personal relations to online platforms to combine with those of others to build a larger relation network. While using the service primarily to interact with acquaintances, users might meet strangers for deeper communication intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in larger social communities. Hence, interpersonal relations could be maintained by paying attention to the activities of each other.
[+]How to convert page views into revenue
With more than 40 million users around the world, Bebo is worth USD 850 million. In China, the largest social networking sites, e.g., Tecent Q Zone and 51.com, have more than 100 million users, yet none is deemed to be worth that much. What, indeed, is the commercial value of the social networking sites? At the present time, it seems, the value lies primarily in being purchased.
Thanks to the high interactivity among its users, social networking sites have far more page views than conventional portals. What's more, each user would keep an eye on the presence of his/her friends, resulting in a much longer average online time. Many SNS users log onto the site as soon as they get off work/class, and remain connected until they go to sleep. How to convert the addiction into revenue?
There are 3 possible ways: 1) through Internet advertising; 2) by providing users with fee-based value-added services; 3) by offering e-commerce services in the communities and collecting commissions from transactions. In the foreseeable future, any social networking site is expected to reap revenue through all of these 3 approaches. The only difference lies in the revenue proportion because of different primary users of each SNS site
One of the most distinct features of SNS is its distribution by word-of-mouth. An article by a common person on MySpace or Facebook would get widely spread through his friends, or friends of friends. Such effect is what advertisers have been dreaming for, as distribution by word-of-mouth is the most cost-effective approach.
In the Web 1.0 time, however, this kind of viral marketing was only a result of sheer luck, rather than deliberate planning. Without a platform to operate on, most advertisers had to pay for the views of their ads, allowing their budgets to be washed away by the visit traffic of the portals. While the focus of Internet advertising in Web 1.0 time was target advertising, it would be viral advertising enabled by SNS in the Web 2.0 time.
At the 2008 Annual Conference for the New Economy hosted by iResearch, I gave a speech titled "The Key Word for Marketing in Web 2.0: Viral marketing". You can find and watch the video at: http://v.iresearch.cn/data/20080425/79812.shtml
[+]Impacting the traditional Internet advertising model
However, the business model has trouble facing advertisers, who generally accept it as a cost-effective approach. For example, one million clicks at a portal or one million users' interaction at a social networking platform, which one do you prefer? For online advertisers, the answer is the latter. The question is, however, how do you charge them for the one million users' interaction?
Currently, SNS is still not able to compete with portals by means of CPM or CPC. With surprisingly good results but no billing method available for SNS, there has appeared a weird phenomenon of "free interaction for ad exposure or clicks purchased". Unable to generate income from its most valuable part, SNS is not yet ready to compete with portals for users by means of CPC.
For advertisers, word-of-mouth-based distribution is the most cost-effective marketing method, as well as one of the reasons for them to move their budgets from portals to SNS. In addition, there's not yet a unified standard in the industry for billing by results. An event might have one million participants, however the extent of involvement varies substantially. There is not a simple and intuitive measurement like CPM or CPC.
Currently, advertisers are still testing SNS marketing, while SNS operators are exploring new billing methods. Therefore, there's a huge potential. Eventually, it becomes a process of negotiation between sales reps and advertisers, and the final result depends on who is going to convince whom. The criteria for advertising effect in the Web 1.0 time is no longer able to keep up with the market changes, but the Web 2.0 criteria are yet to be developed.
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time, as SNS will become a platform enabling word-of-mouth-based distribution among advertisers. Share and recommendation by friends would enable higher market awareness and better marketing effect. What we don't have yet is a set of criteria to measure the marketing result, as CPM and CPC, which derived from traditional media, are obviously out-of-date.
- Read More
Prev : Initial Experience of Widget's Profit Model
- Today in History
Glimpse into Profit Model of SNS-based Advertising - 2008/05/11
3G Time Comes (8) Who Are First Users of 3G? - 2003/05/18
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
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
