33 posts tagged “yahoo!”
"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
A gradual blending of old and new.
[+] Web 2.0 is direct marketing
In the traditional business world, it may not be difficult for start-ups to innovate or produce good products, but it surely takes much more efforts for them to channel products to end-users. Finding a channel may not be very hard, but it would cost you dearly. Capitalist who own channels are tough guys to deal with.
Ten years ago the emergence of the Internet brought some changes for the first time. For Internet start-ups, their products are websites, and their services can reach end users directly. They don't need other channels. This was how the advantage of the capital-intensive newspaper industry, which controlled the distribution channel, gradually dissolved. The Web 1.0 world has taken its place.
This new channel of the Internet has impacted on traditional media, traditional business models and also traditional communications. Generally, in the Web 1.0 era, there are a lot of people with only a small capital starting their businesses. They can do so because they've found a low-cost marketing channel to break the blockade set by traditional capitalists.
Yet after 10 years, some startups, such as Yahoo!, have become new capitalists. They control the distribution channels and suffocate the chances of new Internet startups, which have to buy expensive advertisements from "traditional" channels - Web 1.0 websites - to draw visitors to their websites.
Many years ago in the traditional business world, there was a new channel called direct marketing. It was about bypassing the traditional distribution channel by marketing through social networks. Today with so many tycoons in the Internet, how can we avoid them and do business in a low cost way?
The answer lies in social networks. Web 2.0 startups make ingenious use of social networks or interpersonal relationship to do low-cost marketing. To market through social networks is a very smart strategy. Without this, we won't see significant growth in these new websites' user-base and traffic.
[+] Back to the basics is the key to growth
Many people have the experience of buying products via direct marketing, but they don't have much confidence in it. People who participate in the direct marketing system constantly come and go, making it not very stable. Web 2.0 services attract new users through interpersonal relationship in a similar way. Moreover, a brilliant marketing strategy still cannot solve the inherent problems of products.
The first article of this series talks about two problems of Web 2.0 websites. The first is high user churn rate, and the second is that once users decide to leave, they won't turn to other competitors but will quit all websites/services of similar kind for good.
For a website operator, this has two implications. Firstly, users who leave your competing websites won't go to yours, which means you have to target at first-timers. Think about those users who are still new to the market, and they are the ones your products should be designed for.
Secondly, users will leave sooner or later, so most importantly you should strive to capture heavy users. Only heavy users would migrate among Web 2.0 websites of similar kind or try new websites. An important step for your website to succeed is to seize this group of users.
Once a website can control a certain group of heavy users, it can then start to think about how to either make profits or stay small and survive gracefully, like all successful community websites. However, is there any way to expand the user-base by drawing in less-active users?
My suggestion is, get rid of the strong community atmosphere and cultural ambiance! They are incompatible with things that can meet people's basic needs, such as storage, tools and content.
These things, simply put, are products of Web 1.0.
[+] Next step: storage, tools and content
The founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerbery once said that Facebook is not a social network but a social tool. His words are often interpreted as "Facebook as an operating system or platform," and Facebook's open API implies such possibilities.
His words are impressive because he points out concisely that the key to get big is to serve as a "platform." My understanding of his words is that platforms and tools are things that have little to do with culture. They can be used by anyone and don't require users to change their habits.
You use Gmail to write emails and MSN to send messages very easily. These tools don't have much to do with culture (at least not as much as online community websites.) Operators who have been focused on developing a vibrant online community to retain active users need to think about what are the tools that are not so hot but can be used by all.
Instant messaging (IM), a tool that is highly related to social activities, is one example. For the past ten years, the IM market has been very stable. If a social networking service (SNS) provider with several hundred million users launches a new IM tool, it may have the potential to change the market dynamics.
In addition, people get tired of social activities once in a while. Maybe a user just needs a space to store their photos, documents and bookmarks. S/he doesn't want anyone to know the URL of his/her homepage or to bother her/him with status alerts. Is it possible that a SNS website can provide such functions?
Storage is one of such basic needs. Some active users may be happily busy with various social activities all day long, but there are still more people who need only basic services. What will make a user to keep on visiting a website once s/he gets tired of online social activities? Maybe s/he just needs a space to store pictures.
Active users visit a website because they need the social network there; other users do so simply because this is where they store their stuff.
[+] Web 2.0 evolution is about to complete
The third thing is content. This is easier to understand, and many Web 2.0 websites are doing it. For those who are not keen on social activities, let's give them some content. Using tags to aggregate content is a common method.
So at the end you'll find that Web 2.0 is still about the four pillars of the Internet, which I mentioned years ago: content, community, communication, and commerce.
In Web 1.0, a website operator would start from providing content and then functions of online community, communications and commerce. In Web 2.0, an operator would start from developing communities and then content and communications tools and lastly commerce.
We finally get a clear picture of Web 2.0 in the context of our time. It's about a grand evolution of websites all over the world. The result will not be about replacing old websites with new ones, but a gradual blending of old and new.
Whatever it is in Web x.0, it is all to be used by people. And the humanity of people do not change.
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Finale (2) Websites With a Specific Culture Can't Grow Big
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Finale (3) Finally blended in Web 1.0 - 2008/01/06
The Fourth Generation of Internet Marketing (3) IM Marketing - 2007/01/07
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
If so, telecom operators would be shut out of the mobile TV market.
[+] The past experience of cell phone manufacturers
From the tide of WAP-based Internet accessing in 2000 to the crazy bid for 3G licenses, and then to the bet on MMS for promoting sales of camera phones and music phones that enable music downloading, and finally to 3G phones with audio/video services, cell phone manufacturers have had thrilling experiences over the years.
The world cell phone market started to show signs of saturation in 2000. To maintain their growth, manufacturers had to motivate consumers to replace their phones with newer products. All of the thrilling experiences in the past 7 years seem to be a quest for what really are the selling points. Fortunately, the result so far has been satisfactory.
In summary, there are a few observations:
1)Mobile Internet is a hard-to-handle concept. The key is consumers tend to compare their expectation for mobile Internet with their PC-based Internet experience, which, in most cases, ends up in disappointment, as cell phones are not so easy to handle as PCs. Mobile Internet has been successful in Japan, only because of the low PC penetration rate there.
2)Telecom operators wish that new cell phones be bound with particular services, so that they could benefit from their sales, instead of being un-paid sales reps of the manufacturers. However, it turns out that consumers buy camera phone only because they can use it to take pictures, and anyone seldom uses MMS service.
3) There's no concern for the shortage of content accessing channels. Despite the hot sale of music phones bound with download service offered by telecom operators, most users choose to transmit music from their computers to cell phones, instead of downloading them from the WAP portal provided by telecom operators. Although it is more troublesome, but it is free.
4)3G audio/video services, including IP-based audio/video streaming and video phone, have not brought satisfactory user experience. It is a very simple concept to allow both parties of a phone call to see each other. However, due to privacy concerns, it has not been able to become a killer application.
[+] Telecom operators might be ignored
With the above experience, cell phone manufacturers finally realized that their business is to make and sell handsets. The simpler their products are the better. There's nothing simpler than the concept of mobile TV.
Consumers no longer have to bother whether the TV programs are downloaded from the Internet, nor cell phone manufacturers to care about whether their phones are bound with particular services offered by telecom operators, so long as they free themselves from the troublesome 3G audio/video experience.
In fact, a hi-tech company in mainland China has developed a sort of chip, which can be built in cell phones to receive traditional analog TV signals. In other words, with such a chip, you will be able to watch wireless channel with your cell phone, regardless of its specification or standard.
The only shortcomings are the mobility and fidelity. As analog TV signals are not intended for mobile environments, the fidelity cannot be compared with that of digital programs of mobile TV. However, it would be good for some people, if the programs are played on small-screen cell phones.
In most cases, however, people watch mobile TV on static environments, e.g., bus or subway stations, or in offices. It explains a fact that cell phone manufacturers will be able to sell their products without binding themselves with telecom operators.
The only thing that those manufacturers have to worry about is where programs would be, once new standard-based mobile TV is launched? Will telecom operators become content aggregators as we discussed in the previous section? If not, they'd better establish connections with content providers right away.
[+] Charging or not, it's a matter about the structure of the industry
The high production costs of movie/TV programs turn out to be a big obstacle for traditional value-added service providers to produce contents themselves. Imaginably, a big part of contents for mobile TV will come from traditional TV stations.
An interesting cooperation mode is that after consumers buy a mobile TV-enabling cell phone, they will get a set of passwords from TV program providers. Upon activation, the cell phone will be bound with the passwords to enable watching programs. The fee is charged each month through the phone bill from telecom operators.
That mode is designed for charging fees. If mobile TV programs are offered for free, and program providers depend on ads for their incomes, the passwords and the additional lines in the phone bills of telecom operators would be unnecessary. If so, telecom operators would be shut out of the mobile TV market.
With regard to the mobile TV services, the only way for telecom operators to gain the favor of cell phone manufacturers is to persuade content providers to charge fees, in which case, they would become the largest content aggregators and channels for charging fees. Otherwise, they would be easily abandoned in the game.
In addition to traditional TV stations, will website operators (e.g. Yahoo! and Google), which are gaining influence in the mobile Internet sector be able to get a share in the market? Those players do not have program-producing ability themselves. However, through audio/video content sharing, they will have some opportunities.
Audio/video content sharing sites, such as YouTube, has a lot of interesting programs. In spite of the low fidelity (as most programs are produced by non-professionals, after all), such programs might be good enough for cell phone-sized screens.
Currently, the mobile TV market is still a virgin land for a lot of players, including telecom operators, cell phone manufacturers, traditional TV media and emerging Internet media. The future will be interesting and full of expectations. Eventually the biggest winner will be consumers. The distribution of audio/video contents will be fast and convenient as never seen before.
- Read More
Prev : Mobile TV Market (2) the Subtle Role of Telecom Operators
- Today in History
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
The Web 2.0 websites know more about you than yourself.
[+] You are putting labels on yourself for everyone to see
In the first article of this series, I already mentioned that people are the only thing that Web 2.0 is trying to sell. Yet how people can become a product for sale, or, to put it in a simpler way, how information about people can produce values, which ultimately can be attached with a price?
When we realize that the core of Web 2.0 services is relation building, the way we describe people will become more diversified. For example, you may be asked to provide information such as sex, age, residence area or even annual income when you register at some websites.
Such statistics can be employed by website operators in running their businesses. For instance, content websites can analyze the age distribution of their users of different content channels, and e-commerce websites can examine the shopping frequency and expenses of users of different sexes.
Yet very often website operators would feel unsatisfied with the clarity of such information. They would only wish that users would put labels on themselves, declaring: "I am interested in whitening skincare products," "I am a fan of some pop singer," "I am obsessed with Nike sneakers." Nice and clear, and no wild guess any more.
Actually, all of us can find quite a few of these labels to describe ourselves. You can give a try as well, and I assure you that you'll end up with a lot of labels. Yet you probably don't know that these labels are very valuable and craved by many people.
Now you may want to keep these labels to yourself. Unfortunately they are already exposed. I once said that the bookmarks you collected online and the tags you attach to your Blog articles are all descriptions about yourself instead of the "subjects" concerned. You are putting labels on yourself for everyone to see.
[+] Web 2.0 is a huge miner for personal data
Through content and tags contributed by every Web 2.0 user, it is easy to find "potential buyers for Nike sneakers" through preliminary analysis. So what would you think whether sports shoes suppliers would want such information? In a word, Web 2.0 is a huge miner for personal data.
You may say it sounds like Google's Adsense. If a Blog article contains key phrases, say, "sports shoes," then advertisements related to sports shoes would appear at the side. However, Adsense targets at Blog visitors, but what we are talking about here is Bloggers.
It's very likely that you do not know who these Blog visitors are. You show them the advertisement simply because they are viewing an article about sports shoes. Because of this correlation, you can still expect a click-through rate of above 1% over the advertisement.
Yet, the Blogger may have written 10 articles about sports shoes, which can be known from his tags. Why not target on this Blogger as well as many others, or to set up a Nike fan club specifically for this group of Bloggers?
Big Blog service providers have huge database of Blog tags or the like. In fact, you can find similar things in any Web 2.0 services such as sharing of photo albums or bookmarks or social networking websites. The deeper you dig into the data, the higher value you'll find in the data.
In addition to user data statistics in Web 1.0 and tag analysis in Web 2.0, there are still two critical factors that lead us into an even higher level in mining the value of personal data: psychological qualities and behavioral qualities.
[+] Psychological quality indexes will soon play an important role
Birds of a feather flock together. We can tell what kind of person one is from the friends one makes. Furthermore, one's activities in a Web 2.0 website, including the number of Blogs one visits in a month, the number of messages one leaves in those Blogs and the types of tags one uses, also reveal how active one is as well as other psychological qualities.
Therefore, website operator can put a label on you accordingly, like "activity index: 8," "positiveness index: 6," "anxiety index: 3," "pressure index: 10" and so on. Here I have to point out that these psychological quality indexes will soon play an important role in Web 2.0, which develops on the basis of sociology.
Web 2.0 website operators have been managing online communities by predicting how user would interact with each other. Psychological quality indexes however are a different thing. Firstly, it's about how to quantify behaviors; secondly it needs to employ sociology to, for instance, define anxiety index.
Finally, it requires a brand new algorithm. In other words, the PageRank algorithm currently applied in search engines (to generate the importance index of a web page) can not be used to calculate complex psychological and behavioral qualities of people.
Why research on this subject? One reason is to provide a superior guidance for promoting user interaction in Web 2.0 communities; the other is to enable better targeted advertising. For example, users of a high pressure index may be a good target for "relaxing music."
[+] High precision marketing enabled by people search engines
All the top Internet companies in the world have noticed this development, but how to address it is a question. The most challenging part is the huge quantity - we are talking about tagging 100 million users with their psychological qualities and analyzing these tags. How many servers will be required to run the calculation?
Before there is any technical breakthrough, we've seen some Internet companies make their move by adopting the simplest yet most practical solution - the people search engine I mentioned earlier. Among them, Ucloo.com, the only one of the kind in China, has been running for almost three years.
The founder of Ucloo.com set up this technology-centric company because he sees the value of personal data. The company uses a program to search through web pages, collect personal data scattered everywhere and sort out the data belong to the same person.
Did you post messages on some forums? Was your name on some university recruits lists before? Have you left your mobile number or bank account number at action websites? Although you are anonymous, Ucloo.com can somehow figure out that these sets of data all refer to you.
Data such as companies you worked for, schools you studied at, classmates and colleagues you've had, stars you like, children, properties and so on, would all be collected under your name. According to the data you have made public online, Ucloo.com has put various labels on you all over.
Ucloo.com does not sell data; instead it uses data as the basis for advertising delivery. For example, if some advertiser wishes to deliver advertisements to young college grads, Ucloo.com can identify this group of targets and deliver advertisement. It has been proven that the response rate of Ucloo.com is much higher than that of traditional online advertisement.
[+] Privacy concern vs. desire to peek
People search engines have been a reality for years, with at least ten of them. Every one of them is making profits except for Spock.com, which has got funded by venture capital since last year. In addition to language, the biggest difference between Spock.com and Ucloo.com is where they think the data should come from.
Spock.com requires users to register and at the same time provide information of your account names and passwords at MSN, Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook, Friendster and other social networking websites. Its intention is to associate these accounts and consolidate the data that belongs to you.
I was very hesitant when registering at that website and wondered why I should provide all this information. Spock.com asked me my email accounts at Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo!, which I thought was outrageous.
On the other hand, Ucloo.com uses search engine technology to look for you, including photos and video files online. It is difficult to say which is better or worse, but apparently, users would feel reluctant to give away their personal data.
Users are very strange: none of them wants to be exposed by people search engine, yet each of them would try to search his name online and see what would come out. (I bet you would go to Ucloo.com to search your name quietly before finishing reading this article.)
Is there any technical obstacle that prevents Google or Microsoft from doing the same thing? In fact anyone with deep pockets can do it. However, there is critical difference between people search engine and PageRank algorithm. Moreover, it has been years since any people search engine started to accumulate personal data. It takes time to catch up.
[+] Summary of the series
The series of "Web 2.0, think again," which one of my good friends described as groundbreaking, has come to a period here. It has been exactly a year since I published the article confessing that I had neglected Web 2.0.
Over the year I have been groping after Web 2.0 and making up for what I had missed. The five articles in the series are the crystallization of my efforts, which I hope you find satisfactory and helpful in pointing out the trend.
Meanwhile I would like pose a question not necessarily related to business: with Web 2.0, the cost of interpersonal communication has been declining, yet are people getting closer to one other? Maybe people are still living within their small circles and, like I said before, getting together sharing feelings with others of similar attributes?
Is the world we know growing more open or closed? Are we getting clearer about ourselves, or quite the opposite? Will there be one day when marketers know better about you than yourself?
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Think Again (4) "Private Property" and "Class Inequality" Next : From Idea to Business (1) How to Estimate Your User Number?
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Think Again (5) Unearth the Value of "People" - 2007/06/24
Ultimate Mobile Device (2) Competition of Handheld Game Console - 2005/06/26
