A personal manifesto for a User-Centric web

A pretty walled garden

There are walls all around us. We live our lives realizing that we have to live with rules and limitations. We have laws to obey,  values to live by, families we are part off, countries we live in, services we make use of, gravity that pulls us down, freedom of speech, natural resources, food, water, money. Everything we do in life comes with a set of rules.

The existence of some of these boundaries is something we tend to ignore. We are taught to aim for the highest, get the best out of our own potential, be a winner. There are no problems, only challenges. Can you see an athletic coach explaining to the world fastest sprinter that it is impossible to sprint 100m in 4.5 seconds? No way. You need to train harder, overcome your fears and doubts. You can accomplish anything if  you really want to. Work hard until you reach your goals. Just do it!

We don’t like it to be captured. If we bump into a boundary we will try to get around it. If it is a problem, we will try to resolve it. If the wall is bigger then ourselves we will try to mobilize others to help us.If we don’t deal with a wall that stands in the way then at least we will complain often about it (dissatisfied customers that can’t leave a service).

It seems to me that we sometimes act very differently online. Sure, if there is something to complain about we harness the power of all the publishing tools and cry outrage. But when it comes to the core of our online presence, our personal identity we willingly accept the boundaries that the big web companies have set for us.

There is a war out there, a battle to own your online identity. Driven by network value based business models service providers aim at unlimited growth. We get sucked into the best web 20 services. It’s free and it’s cool. Big service providers fights to get you in and then never let you out. It’s like a black hole. You, your personal data, your interactions and friends.

We seem to accept this a a fait accompli. That is the way the web works. Nothing we can do about it. We give away our online identity for free and in return accept the boundaries and limitations the service providers give us. Google shows you their web, which is different from Yahoo’s web, or Facebook’s web for that matter. We let Social Networks own and exploit our personal data, our interactions, our family and our friends. We create the value of those networks ourselves yet accept that these networks impose (sometimes ridiculous) boundaries on us.

All effort goes into enlarging the network, the data, and few big service providers put as much effort in setting you and your data free again from that very service. Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t all bad, or even intentional. And the value we get in return can be very high! I’m a happy user of many web 2.0 services and I am amazed at what technology can do for us. There are many services, organizations and individuals out there that have a user value focus.

However we are often blinded by the coolness factor, the joy, the zero cost participation, hype created by the media, following the crowd, getting sucked in by friends (that’s called viral growth, which in itself doesn’t have a very healthy sound) we join everything and accept that our online identity isn’t ours. But at what cost?

The biggest threat in my opinion is that in this process we let a few very big service provider decide for us where the walls are build. What boundaries and rules we need to live by. We are giving away our online identity for free in order to be able to participate.

Tim O’Reilly nailed the web 2.0 definition when he said:

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.

It has become part of our history books now. The network effect Tim mentions has lead to an undesirable side effect. Driven by network value business models some service providers are not just viewing the Internet as a platform. Instead they are aiming to ensure that their own platform becomes the Internet!

That is a boundary I’m personally not willing to accept. Why should I be confined to one network, or accept that my online identity is not only scattered but not even my own? In a true service provider model, the user is in control of his identity, his data and his interactions. The user needs to be able to define his own ‘Terms of Service’, which are to be respected by the service provider. It’s web 2.0, inside out.

It is something I am passionate about. It’s why I write about it often. But that isn’t enough. I can’t complain about it if I am not really contributing to changing this. I feel I should take my own responsibility and join those that are already working on it, no matter how small or insignificant my contribution is.

It means professionally that I’ll be spending as much time and effort on letting users control their own identity, data and interactions, as I spend time on getting these users in the first place. It means changing the ‘terms of service’ from protecting a business (model) to serving the user. It means embracing standards like OpenId to let people decide where they create their online identity. It means supporting efforts to define solutions that will put the user in control of his online identity.

Joining discussions already taking place. Helping the big service providers change their strategy. Making sure that the Internet isn’t confined to a single platform. Choosing business  models that leverage user value instead of network value. And perhaps most important of all, educating those unaware of the importance of their online identity. It’s an effort for the long run. I don’t expect fast changes or revolutions over night. But any journey start simply by taking the first step, and by writing this down.

I’m taking my first and I’m joining those that have already gone down this path.

Everybody loses in the battle over our online identity

A beautiful bird cage

Facebook announces user names. It generates a lot of buzz on Techmeme. TechCrunch reports the obvious (vanity), but Chris Messina is the only one that is actually analyzing what Facebook is doing and what impact it can have on our online lives. In a post he entitles “Facebook usernames and the digital battle over your identity” he goes into the underlying strategy of this move and the effect it has on your online identity.

Arguing that Facebook shouldn’t get into the vanity URL business, I still think that they had it right the first time around. Digital identity should change the adapt to humans; not force humans to refer to each other in more computer-friendly ways. But the allure is simply too great. I also can’t say that I blame them, even though I think it’s a distraction along the way towards more widespread real identity (and thereby reputability) online.

Chris goes on and hits the one thing that s relevant about this move by Facebook. the online battle to own your identity, profile and interactions:

So, this is happening, and companies are racing to achieve namespace dominance over your online profile. This is what Tim O’Reilly warned about in his definition of Web 2.0. He said that one of the new kinds of lock-in in the era of [cloud computing] will be owning a namespace. There you have it — who are you going to trust to own yours?

I suggest you read the article in full, it’s an excellent read.

Chris hits on a nerve I’ve always felt was important. While web 2.0 has brought us a lot of great things it also provides service providers more opportunities for user lock-in. User lock-in is a term invented by marketeers (they are all idiots you know). Customer lock-in is in essence a protective measure, hence the “lock-in” part. Marketeers will obviously never say that. They brainwash themselves and their company by arguing that achieving customer lock-in is done by excellent service, providing the user with value and more of that. They are wrong of course. Customer lock-in is achieved by simpler things. The inability for a user to leave a service, to hide customer help behind layers of customer service, 23 pages of legal gibberish called terms of service, the impossibility to switch to other providers, downgrade services etc.

In the online world customer lock-in is even worse. Here is where Tim O’Reily’s definition of Web 2.0 lacks a user dimension. Tim says:

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.

The problem I have with this definition, even though it adequately describes what we refer to as web 2.0, is that it doesn’t address the user and the value he should receive. What we often fail to realize is that the network effect Tim talks about is not only the best thing that web 2.0 has brought us, it is also its biggest tragedy. The network effect forces service providers to concentrate on the size of the network, instead of a primary focus on user value. The Internet is not seen as a platform at all. The service provider sees his own platform as the Internet! And to make matters worse, web 2.0 is governed by old-fashioned web 1.0 business models that leverage that network value, instead of user value.

The network effect and the failure of online business models to evolve with the technological evolution leads to unwanted effects such as customer lock-in, the network value being more important than individual user value, Twitter spam, walled gardens, the total lack of data portability, lack of privacy control,  the battle over your online identity, profile and interactions. And now the battle over name space. In effect, it cages us, instead of setting us free. It takes away our ability to be in control of our own profile, our data and our interactions.

And there is nothing we can do about it as individual users are either unaware or unable to generate enough counter force to balance the power on the web. This fight to control you on the web can only be halted if we evolve online business models to a point where revenue and competition are based upon user value instead of network value. If service providers generate revenue buy providing user value they will achieve the exact same effect as they try to reach ow. Users will be committed to user their service. Not because they can’t leave, but because they choose so. All it requires for service providers is to let go, to turn the relationship with the user inside out. Now that would be a revolution.

I’m with Chris here. He sums it all up in one little hidden line in his post:

It’s remarkable how cheap we’ll sell out our identity these days.

The question is, are we seriously going to put up with this? Will we allow Facebook, or any other service provider dictate that their platform is our Internet? That is the ultimate user lock-in.  A shiny, gold-plated bird cage.

That is not a future I would feel comfortable with. It’s time we redefine online business models. It may be our only way out of this lock-in to a web that is user-centric instead of network centric.

The Open, Social web needs plumbers

Chris Messina has a long and good post up about the open Social Web. He hits on a topic I have written about many times as well:

Moreover, by commoditizing certain fundamental features, service providers will move to compete on the level of user experience and service, rather than on lock-in alone. And in the distributed social model of the web, there is nothing more fundamental than establishing a means of expressing durable, cross-site identity.

It is my contention that the individual is the basic atomic unit of society, and without society you can’t get to acting on the “social” layer. And since change only can begin at the scale of the individual, OpenID must occupy a cornerstone of the open, social web.

The commoditizing fundamental features Chris talks about are identity, discovery and access control, contacts and friends, activity streams, messaging, groupings and shared spaces. I read his post and ended up posting a comment on a Friendfeed discussion in which I said:

I guess it all boils down to the point that most initiatives are not willing to work on the plumbing of the web. Everyone wants to build the house and contain people within it. The irony of course is that if you build the plumbing smart you would be part of everything, instead of “owning” a small piece of the web trying to lock users in (And I thought my posts were long )

It reminded me of an old post Rolf Skyberg once wrote about the plumbing on the web. In a post called 98%, or even 100%-open, not enough in social networks he writes:

Unfortunately, this pattern all points into an area where few large companies want to compete: commodity services. To those with dollar signs singing in their sleep, “commodity” is a painful, dirty word where products must compete both on their merits and consumer whimsy. Even if you’re the best, you are forced to walk that careful line between technological prowess and merchantability. It also shines bright lights into the cobwebs of your code; ruthlessly ferreting out weakness.

I’ve written about my view of a User-Centric web (although I was told I should be calling it the User Driven Web).  It’s what Chris calls the Open Social Web. In this web the user is the most important actor. The problem of getting to this type of a web is that we need these commoditizing features in place first. The question is, what is withholding this plumbing? They are not brilliant new insights (brilliant, but not new ). It isn’t that no one before Chris, Rolf, Doc Searl, myself or others have thought about the need of having this plumbing taken care of. It seems common knowledge, yet it hasn’t been sufficiently addressed or implemented.

I can think of only one reason. There hasn’t been a commercial incentive to make the User-Centric Web happen. There is no money to be made in plumbing, given the current state of web business models. We are still ruled by old-fashioned web 1.0 business models, and they prevent us taking the leap to a fully open, social  web. We need to break free from Tim O’Reilly’s definition of web 2.0 and move beyond that. Until someone figures out how to create revenues by setting up the plumbing , there will be slow progress towards solving it. There are many initiatives, many projects. But turning the web inside out, making the user the center of it, won’t happen until we break through the glass ceiling of current traffic and destination oriented web business models. We need less focus on steroid growth and more on basic infrastructure.

Not only is it more sexy to build a new Facebook, or Twitter, but it is also more lucrative. It’s hard to get investors to line up for basic plumbing. It is hard to convince people that you may earn a decent living by delivering commodity. It is extremely hard to come up with a revenue model for commodity. And until we solve that problem, we won’t easily be able to make the User-Centric web happen.

Who is willing to take care of the plumbing?

On diminishing network effects in web 2.0, social media and human limitations

This post is a followup of a series I did last year on ‘The Human factor in social media’. Technology allows us to be “always on”. To be part of a never ending conversation. Simply plug in, anywhere, and you can join in. Friends are spread out across every timezone, so there always are people available to interact with. Technology becomes smaller so we can take our connection device with us, wherever we go. Connection technology provide us a network that spans the entire globe. Wifi, UMTS, HSDPA, WiMax, no matter where you are there is always a way to get on-line.

Everyone talks about the network effect in web 2.0 ((over-)simply stated: a service gets better as more people join). The network effect explains why the quality improves, it doesn’t explain why we all want to be a part of it. I feel there is an underlying need for interaction that drives current web development. Any respectable  web 2.0 service is based upon the premise that we all want to share anything with the rest of the world. We have life streams (what am I doing), news feeds (what am I reading), traveling plans (where am I going), shopping behavior (what am I buying), localization (where am I now), fan sites (who am I following). Even when you are not on-line, people that follow you are likely to know exactly what you are doing. Sharing alone isn’t good enough anymore. Now we need to discuss it as well. Everything is becoming social. You can share the things you discuss or discuss the things you share. Web companies have a field day catering our need to share and discuss what we are doing.

This ‘Social Media trend’, if you will, partially explains the phenomenal growth of social networks like MySpace, Facebook and even Twitter. The question is, where will this take us. I can’t predict the future, but I find it useful to think in extremes and see if it can help me get a better understanding of the present. I try to imagine what would happen if every Internet user (there are more than a Bln already) would be part of this process. What if everyone shared everything? What if we would all engage in a never ending conversation?

I imagine that a few things would happen:

1. Our world would become smaller instead of larger. As more people get online, and the data and conversations being shared becomes overwhelming, we will feel the urge to be part of less instead of more. Quality over quantity so to say. It is a natural phenomenon that can be observed right now. Just look at 2 examples of the way we now try to cope with the endless stream of information or conversation. a) Instead of searching ourselves we let others deal with that. In the tech world that would be the Robert Scoble or Louis Gray “like” filter. We ‘trust’ such people to find the pearls of wisdom for us, which takes some pressure off of ourselves. But if you think about it, this behavior is pretty ridiculous. b) We follow or get followed by countless numbers of people that we have never met, only to find out that the information or conversation that gets shared that way is often not as interesting as we thought. We end up listening and engaging with a much smaller fraction of the group of followers.
2. We end up spending our online time more consciously. Right now we spent hours at a time engaging in short bursts of interaction/discussion. It gives us pleasure, fun, a good time. But when does it really matter? When does it truly have an impact on your life? Change the way you think, feel or act? We may find inspiration, fun and profession on the web. But it simply can’t compete with real-life experiences (falling in love, getting married, birth, death, getting fired, getting hired, a fight, making up again, a beautiful sunset). The online engagements, as much fun as they are, are much more volatile than real life. It is the relationships you build up in the physical world that matter in the end. Family, friends, neighbours, co-workers.

It might be a bold statement but I believe that there is a limit to the quality effects of the network. While this effect can be used to explain why Google search improves as more people join I would be willing to challenge its value in interaction. The network effect improves data, the most important currency in web 2.0 if you listen carefully to the experts.

I would argue that the network effect diminishes in value when it comes to interaction. We simply can’t interact with the whole world. Our interactions would become meaningless, lose impact, and our impact would become infinitely small in a global conversation. Our human limitations force us to focus on value, on those things that really matter. In the end there is no need to interact with 6Bln people. The real impact lies in those few people we engage with that make a difference in our lives. The rest is just play.

Interaction will drive the evolution of the web

I’ve often said it, and I’ll say it again. The real value of social media lies in the ability for anyone to interact over anything. It is the interaction that creates the value. Smart people like Tim O’Reilly will tell you that web 2.0 is about the web becoming a platform. That data is becoming more important than software. And that network effect determine value.

Clay Shirky is interviewed by the Guardian about his view of the next decade. Not a great in depth interview, but an ok read. In it he predicts newspapers will disappear (wow), and  that books will be printed on-demand. I do like his final statement:

What does the next decade hold? Mobile tools will certainly change the landscape, open spectrum will unleash the kind of creativity we’ve seen on the wired internet, and of course there will be many more YouTube/Facebook-class applications. But the underlying change was the basic tools of the internet. The job of the next decade is mostly going to be taking the raw revolutionary capability that’s now apparent and really seeing what we can do with it.

Kevin Kelley talks about the development of a new kind of mind:

It is hard to imagine anything that would “change everything” as much as a cheap, powerful, ubiquitous artificial intelligence—the kind of synthetic mind that learns and improves itself. A very small amount of real intelligence embedded into an existing process would boost its effectiveness to another level. We could apply mindfulness wherever we now apply electricity. The ensuing change would be hundreds of times more disruptive to our lives than even the transforming power of electrification. We’d use artificial intelligence the same way we’ve exploited previous powers—by wasting it on seemingly silly things. Of course we’d plan to apply AI to tough research problems like curing cancer, or solving intractable math problems, but the real disruption will come from inserting wily mindfulness into vending machines, our shoes, books, tax returns, automobiles, email, and pulse meters.

And he agrees with Tim on the importance of network effects:

We see evidence for that already. A farmer in America–the hero of the agricultural economy–rides in a portable office on his tractor. It’s air conditioned, has a phone, a satellite-driven GPS location device, and sophisticated sensors near the ground. At home his computer is connected to the never-ending stream of weather data, the worldwide grain markets, his bank, moisture detectors in the soil, digitized maps, and his own spreadsheets of cash flow. Yes, he gets dirt under his fingernails, but his manual labor takes place in the context of a network economy.

I do not pretend to be as smart or experienced as these people. But I think we can safely say that underlying many of these developments there is one major driver. Many of these technological developments have been driven by the human need for interaction. The success of web 2.0 isn’t data. YouTube didn’t become the largest video portal because it stored video’s. It became the largest one because people could share and interact over these videos.

I see that behavior everywhere. Take Friendfeed for example. The most important aspect of Friendfeed isn’t content aggregation imo (that’s actually not important at all as content aggregation lacks intention). It is the ability to interact over the content. I suspect many users engage in conversations on Friendfeed without actually having seen the original piece of content that sparked the conversation.

It isn’t about ‘always on’ either (this used to be the mobile mantra). People do not buy mobile phones with cool technological features so that they can be ‘always on’. The mobile handheld may be a good way to be ‘always on’, but underlying that technical capability I have always felt the underlying need was a fear of not being there when it happens. It allows you to track what is happening and interact any time you feel like it. Interaction is what makes life fun.

I do believe that the nature of the interaction will evolve. Right now it is a very public interaction. Half of the Internet population is on Facebook or MySpace by now. Conversations are taking place everywhere and with anyone. While that will remain, I also think there will be an increased need for more private interactions. Instead of talking with thousands of people all over the world you really do not know, we will see more and more possibilities to allow you to interact with the people you really now and care about.

As a result of this I think we may see a decline in the growth of these huge social networks. If everyone is there, it is simply not as interesting anymore. People will revert to smaller, more private environments in which they can interact whenever they want with their friends, family, colleagues etc.

What do you think?

The linking economy fails because social currency became financial currency

Trust is a difficult subject. How do we trust someone? It’s pretty difficult in real life. We tend to trust people we know well or people that are trusted by people that we know well. We gain trust by interacting with people, by seeing consequent behavior. Reputation is an important factor too. Without realizing we use body language and all kinds of senses to build trust.

Online this is even harder. We miss most senses and can only rely on electronic interactions and referrals. The interesting thing is that unlike in real life trust has been made quantifiable on the web. It’s called Google Juice. With their PageRank algoritm Google has defined a defacto standard for trust. The underlying assumption is that if a lot of people refer (link) to a site it probably contains important stuff and can therefore be trusted.

While PageRank has brought us a lot of great things and helped us to find things we need quickly, it also comes with downsides (as with any algorithm). It can be tricked, optimized, tailored to fit your needs. That is probably why there are so many ranking systems on the web. We have Google, Technorati, TechMeme, all kinds of leaderboards, there is a ranking for anything we can think of. The main motivation for having these ranking systems is measure trust. If you’re high ranked you can be trusted.

Linking has become the main currency on the web. By linking to external sites you provide them with a trust referral. It’s an important process as it immediately affects PageRank. It is also a system that breaks down easily, especially if you in some way or another monetize your site. That is why all of the big blogs seldomly link to external sites. TechChrunch, CNET, they all love to link to themselves. The motive is pure financial, and has nothing to do with content, trust, or any other factor.

I think Mathew Ingram nails it when he says:

When I come across a site — whether it’s Ars Technica, or CNET, or the New York Times — and most of the links are internal, I instinctively don’t trust what I’m reading. Maybe that’s just me, but I think excessive internal linking is almost worse than no links at all. At least having no links at all could be a result of plain old ignorance; linking only to yourself means you know full well that links are valuable, and you know how to do it, but you either can’t be bothered to look for other material or you want the Google juice all for yourself. It’s fundamentally anti-Web. We already have lots of places that don’t link — they’re called the mainstream media.

The big blogs have become exactly that what they loath about traditional media. They may have started as open and trustworthy initiatives, but with the monetization that is taking place now it has become crucial to their survival to act as old fashioned media corporations.

It’s a bit ironic that Mathew, who also happens to be a journalist, needs to point this out to us. Mathew is someone that always links to others, which is why I trust and respect him. Tim O’Reilly started this discussion a while back when he wrote:

When this trend spreads (and I say “when”, not “if”), this will be a tax on the utility of the web that must be counterbalanced by the utility of the intervening pages. If they are really good, with lots of useful, curated data that you wouldn’t easily find elsewhere, this may be an acceptable tax. In fact, they may even be beneficial, and a real way to increase the value of the site to its readers. If they are purely designed to capture additional clicks, they will be a degradation of the web’s fundamental currency, much like the black hat search engine pages that construct link farms out of search engine results.

I have a lot of respect for Tim too, but it’s a bit ironic that the O’Reilly blog tends to link internally too. They use a tagging system below every post that leads to O’Reilly articles only. It’s just a variation of the same theme. It seems that as soon as a blog becomes monetized or written by more than one author linking to the outside world is under pressure.

And with all the aggregators popping up the social media community is searching for trust again. We think of new algorithms (trust filters), people ranking systems, we rank content, people, anything to get a grip on trust.

Personally I think it’s best to use common sense. If you interact or follow people you will soon enough develop a feeling about their skills and value for you. It will help you to build trust. This is important in a world where anyone can act like an expert and publish anything boldy without the restraints traditional media have (they have a news redaction, editors, policies). As I said in a discussion on this very topic at Friendfeed:

On FF or anywhere else on-line it is hard to decide to trust the ‘expertise’ of someone making bold statements. I for one would warn you not to assume everything I write is correct. It is, and remains to be, my personal view of the world

Maybe the linking economy went bust when we started treating it as an economy.

Tim O’Reilly nails the definition for web 2.0. Can we move on please!

Hugh Hutch Carpenter writes a good post that provides some extra explanation of Tim O’Reilly’s definition of web 2.0. Tim’s definition is:

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.

Tim is a really smart guy. I think it is a really compact and distinctive definition. I also believe that it describes perfectly what businesses or companies can be called web 2.0, and what shouldn’t be called web 2.0.

It made me realise once more that I am not so fond of web 2.0. And this definition points out exacly why I do not like web 2.0 very much. The problem with web 2.0, given it’s definition, is that it is a business or even application driven movement. It talks about applications that improve because people use them. It explains that by having a view that the Internet is a platform, and embracing network effects on that platform, will eventually lead to success.

That sounds great doesn’t it? It could be me, but in my opinion web 2.0 turns things inside out. There is only talk about platforms, business, application and success. It’s a definition created by the very industry that has build it. It accurately describes a movement that has changed the web considerably since version 1.0. But this movement did not address the most important issue at hand. Where did the user go in this? How does the user really benefit from web 2.0?

Web 2.0 has brought the user obviously many advantages. Just take a look at some of the successes Hutch and Tim pointed out. Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Amazon. All services that have become better and better  because they embraced the network effect of the Internet platform.

I would argue that given the fact that the user and his value are not part of that web 2.0 definition (and it doesn’t really matter that practice created this definition) too much attention is spent on embracing network effects. It has the undesirable effect that the network is more important than the user. And that is precisely why I do not like many aspects of web 2.0.

Web 2.0 in essence is something we, the users, have made possible. Businesses embraced that vision, but the only reason Google is the best search service in the world is because of the Internet population producing content and linking to content. Same thing holds for YouTube or Amazon for that matter.

And we get value in return, as I said. But this vision has provided us 2 problems I feel are not addressed very well by that very same movement:

1. The value of the network is much more important than the value for it’s individual users
2. The value of the data in that network is much more important than the value of personal data

The biggest side effect of these problems is that it is nearly impossible now to build and be successful truly User-Centric services. I’ll point out just one flaw and you can figure out the rest (or read earlier posts I wrote on that ).

The power of web 2.0 prevents us to build adequate privacy services for the user. It is impossible for a user to be in control of his own data as the whole idea behind web 2.0 is that data is the new currency on the web. Data needs to flow freely, but more importantly, web 2.0 services can only be successful if they can hog data from all users. We benefit from this, but most haven’t got a clue to the possible dangers. And it frustrates me that there is NO WAY for me to decide what data can be added to the stream and what data should remain mine. I have no control whatsoever on that. And honestly, it scares me that so few people worry about that.

We embrace web 2.0 as if it is the golden pot at the end of the rainbow. I would argue we need a User-Centric definition instead. Actually, we need User-Centric thinking, developing, and business succcesses that in the end will let us create a definition for a User-Centric web, just as Tim was able to write down that definition of web 2.0 after the movement was started.

Don’t just take my word for it, here’s what Doc Searl and Joe Andrieu have to say about it. I pointe this out in an earlier post called “In  User-Centric Web I get to control my data”:

I like Doc Searls take on this. He calls the developments to open up social networks using FriendConnect and the likes not really open. Instead a federation is created. A federation that lets the user travel around a bit, but he still doesn’t own anything. He isn’t in control of his own data. In other words, a federation isn’t a User Centric Web. Doc Searl points me to this excellent post by Joe Andrieu. Read his post, its really good. A quote that says it all from Joe is:

When we put the user at the center, and make them the point of integration, the entire system becomes simpler, more robust, more scalable, and more useful.

Yesterday Robert Scoble pointed out in a Friendfeed discussion that he wanted to know the difference between someone like myself and Tim O’Reilly:

> abacab actually this is a major problem with social networks. I call it the “friend divide.” If you joined FriendFeed and don’t know the difference between Alexander and, say, Tim O’Reilly, wouldn’t you be at a disadvantage to those who DO know the difference? I think so. And to say there’s no difference is just plain wrong. Attacking people who know the difference and are willing to point it out is also wrong - Robert Scoble

By no means I would be able to compare myself to someone with the experience of Tim O’Reilly. I’m a newby, an unknown in the web 2.0 industry. But I do hope that I can be part of a new era in web evolution. An era that embraces the power of the Internet as a platform. That embraces the power of the network. But also an era that puts the user first in that definition. We might want to call that web 3.0 (it’s catchy isn’t it), although that term has been reserved for yet another platform (sematic web). I prefer to call it the User-Centric web. And if we can get that going, we can also write a definition for it

Advertisement holds web 2.0 in a death grip

Scott Karp has written a good post on why traditional advertisement fails on the web. I am not sure if I agree with all of his observations/explanations, but I do like his take on it. In the end it boils down to something I have written many times too, advertisement just doesn’t provide the user with any value.

The only example where advertisement works right now is in search. The difference there is that the advertisement itself provides the user value. If I’m already looking for something then advertisement can actually serve a purpose. It’s what Google has perfected.  There isn’t a single other example thinkable where advertisement is so effective. It is also the main reason why I believe that the true value of social advertisement lies outside of social networks. Advertisement should never, ever, interfere with social interactions between friends. It doesn’t belong there, it merely trespasses. Or as Scott puts it “Get out of my face!”.

A quote from Scott’s post:

Why do traditional advertising formats fail on the web? Because people have no patience for them, as they did in traditional media, where we were habituated to looking at print ads or watching TV commercials.

What strikes me most about the comparison between advertisement in the “traditional” media and on the web is that the behavior of users really hasn’t changed much. Just think about that for a second. What do you do when there are commercials on TV or in a newspaper? Right, you ignore them or even take action to avoid them. It is one of the most common uses of the remote control for a TV. It isn’t really to switch channels, it is used to get away from commercial breaks.  The same thing goes fro printed advertisement, I can easily read a newspaper and not notice a single advertisement within it. My brain just doesn’t register them anymore. It isn’t any different on the web. Just like on TV or in a newspaper, I’m in control. When I surfe the web I decide what is important for me. I never register advertisement. It might be there, but my brain filters it out for me. Technology helps too. I use Firefox with two of my all-time favorite add-ons: AdBlock+ and FlashBlock. These two block probably 90% of all advertisement on the web for me, with the additinonal bonus that my browser becomes faster. It doesn’t need to load the useless stuff anymore.

What I just don’t get is why we keep this dreaded web 2.0 free but ads based business model alive. It’s probably the biggest advertisement scam on-line. Over $ 16 Bln is spent on-line trough advertisement networks and there isn’t a single user interested in them. There have been a few reports of on-line advertisement boosting off-line sales, but I doubt the numbers are that positive across the web. It is pretty amazing that web entrepreneurs and investors have the balls to stuff $16 Bln in harassment down the throats of the user. It is by far the worst business model you can choose. BTW over 75% off all advertisement spent goes to Google! That leave only 25% to be divided across the thousands of web 2.0 services out there. You can easily calculate that that is not nearly enough to keep all of these services profitable. There are so many flaws in the business model that I could go on for a while. Just read my post entitled  “Would you be willing to pay for a web 2.0 service that provides you value?” . It’ll tell you about the flaws but also about possible alternatives.

The free but ads based business model holds web 2.0 in a death grip. If you want to be successful, you need lots of users. If you want lots of users, you need to provide a free service. If you provide a free service you need someone else to pay for your server costs. If you don’t have an investor that gets you ready to be bought by another company (that’s a web 2.0 business model too), you need another sucker to pay for your costs. And that would be the advertiser. And he would be harassing your own users, the people you really, really need to become successful in the first place. See the flaws in such a business model?

Off course marketeers are idiots. They won’t get this and will pour gazillions of dollars into this hole without actually creating any value with it. BTW, I didn’t mean you by that, I meant that other guy

Does all of this mean there isn’t an room for advertisers on the web? Sure there is. But in the current state of the web, when it comes to traditional advertisement keep it with search. That is the only place where advertisement makes sense. The rest of the web should be off limits for advertisement. Just think of this simple rule when you are thinking about deploying advertisement. If the advertisement itself provides value within the context of the user then it’s ok. If it doesn’t, then don’t do it. Instead, try a business model that leverages user value. BTW, I’m not talking about branding activities here, just bannering, display advertisements etc.

Tim O’Reilly is already looking one step further than the current web. He writes very smart stuff about the web 2.0 operating system. It is the system that combines all web 2.0 applications. It is the place where the next search battle will take place. Google is the king of search of the current web, but the question will be if they can become the king of search within the web 2.0 operating system.

Facebook wants to be the next king, and so do all the other services that try to get a grip on user interactions and user content (take Friendfeed for example). But the dilemma that each of these services has to face is how to commercialise all that user data and interactions without violating the trust of that very same user. It’s a Catch 22 that they all have to solve. The only viable solution to this is that they make sure the commercialisation doesn’t take place  within their own application. In that way they could keep the trust of the user and still exploit him. It wold mean taking down all advertisement on social networks like Facebook and making sure the value gets created outside that network.

But I doubt any of them will or can do that. They are all in a death grip forced upon them by advertisement.

Every generation needs a new revolution

Facebook and Google are getting a lot of attention these days. Everyone, including myself, seems to have a take on it and the urge to write about it. It is time to step back, observe and try to understand what is causing this.

The CEO’s of rivalling companies are falling over each other, often like little children. Personally I like Steve Ballmer best (seriously), he is such an incredible promoter. Just look at his great response to John Battelle’s question on search here, or his quote on Android being a paper tiger for now. Business week summarises a few here (including one of my comments ). Or how about Mark Zuckerberg, the man that seems to have gained a pop star status with his incredible success in growing Facebook to 50Mln users. On top of his success he seems to have stated that the user really has no choice when it comes to SocialAds.

If the Internet has brought us one thing it is the ability to start a hailstorm as a counter-force  to the scooping blogging community reporting on the successful initiatives or people.  The first hacks on OpenSocial have already been reported, as well as a recipe to block SocialAds. 100 Year old laws have been dusted off to explain that Facebook SocialAds are illegal. And some even started a countdown for the downfall of Facebook .

Web 2.0 brought us an explosion of innovations in social networking services. The biggest contest ever for the attention of the user. Web 2.0 companies create phenomenal free services and show unprecedented user base growth. It is all about eyeballs, who has the most users, the largest network. The waves of success were driven by free services. The question how create revenues being the last to answer. But with the success of all these services, monetization becomes an issue. Pressure is now on all the successful CEO’s, how to make revenues that live up to the incredible valuations being drawn up? The way out is provided by the advertisement business, nearly $ 42 Bln is predicted to be available in 2011 in the US only. It is this pile of money available that provides everyone a way out. It is the golden pot at the end of the rainbow that can be used to pay for the costs of free services and to justify incredible $15 Bln valuations of successful web 2.0 companies.

So why the emotional responses, why the polarising blog posts on these matters? Is it jealousy, because some are more successful than others? Maybe, but I am inclined to think it is something else.

I think it is because we are finally starting to realise that everything comes at a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Your “free” Facebook account is payed by SocialAds. Your perceived secure privacy on social networks isn’t as secure as you might have thought. The service you thought was build for your needs is now turning into an ad machine. One that takes your personal information and relationships and uses these to provide you with ads that, luckily won’t feel like ads according to Mark Zuckerberg (phew, a relieve here).

These services need your attention, draw you in because it is free, but won’t let you out once joined.  Try taking your personal belongings, your messages, your friends, your emotions with you from one service to the next. It can’t be done. It is the Catch 22 for web 2.0.

I think it is precisely this trap we have fallen into that is now delivering all these emotional responses on the web. We are finally beginning to realise that web 2.0 didn’t give us freedom at all. It provided a well disguised containment, a trap that lured us in. Beautiful sirens singing to us, backed up by bloggers, newspapers and magazines telling us it is all about you. And now with our  saviour Mark Zuckerberg telling us that there is  no way out. But Mark is getting a bit nervous with rivals like Google who, in perception at least, do offer a way out with OpenSocial and  Android.

It is becoming clear to me now that the current web 2.0 generation needs a revolution. If we want to get out if this trap then there is, as always, only one way to do this. We have got to take control of our lives on-line. Don’t let anyone tell you different. Your data is yours! It isn’t Google’s, Facebook’s, or Microsoft’s. We need to start making so much noise about this that these guys will be forced to open it all up. And you have the power to do so. You can use the strength of the network that you have created yourself to protest and oppose this confinement. I can’t wait for the first protest groups on SocialAds to appear on Facebook. Let’s see how many supporters will join that. And don’t get me wrong. I am not against ads, but I do oppose to the idea that we currently have no freedom because of ads!

And in revolution, there are always new thinkers and leaders that can  show us the way. My vote is with people like Doc Searl, David Recordon, Tim O’Reilly, Dick Hardt, Dave Winer and Rolf Skyberg. People that not just complain about this trap, but thoroughly understand it and provide possibilities to get out of it. There are $16 Bln reasons to get out if this web 2.0 advertisement trap and move into a new era of user centric thinking, of true interaction!

It is like President Jefferson already said so long ago: “Every generation needs a new revolution”.

The future of social networks lies in interaction (not perse in voice)

Tim O’Reilly writes a good analysis about the announcement of MySpace and Skype that these will integrate MySpace IM and Skype Voice capabilities. Tim predicts that Social Networks will turn into smart address books, that a social network operating system will require interoperability between many applications people connect through and that many niches will appear from all of this. Read his article to get the details.

I like this analysis. Why? Because I believe that social networking isn’t about the network. It should be about the interaction between people. So adding voice capabilities will help support this interaction. But honestly, I don’t think it will be the main driver for change. Earlier I wrote about my 10 wishes to change web 2.0 and move into an era of interaction.

I believe that the first thing that needs to be done is a change of attitude by the service creators. As long as they feel that their way to create value is to protect the value of the network that the users create, things will not change. It is what Tim calls the social operating system. Google has the best cards in hands to accomplish that, with Search, Orkut, Jaiku, the Gphone, rss feeds, the buildup of user base in Asia (where payed mobile services actually work). But a bit of competition here would be welcome. Facebook won’t last, as their monetizing method forces them to use walled gardens and increased ad pressure on its users. This may be a bold prediction, as some think they are worth $15Bln nowadays. But, as with many of such services, in the end, the user will move away because the value he gets from the network is much less than the value he puts into the network.

Voice will be a nice add on, but it won’t be the main driver for interaction. Looking at the behavior of users they spend most of their time using e-mail, SMS, IM. Voice comes way behind that.

So what will do the trick? I think it is our need to formulate questions and search for answers! The true value of having a network of friends around you is you can leverage that network while searching for your needs. Search can be looked at in many ways:

1. The “What is the capital of the United States” question , use Google or any other search engine to do that
2. The “What is a good place to go to on holiday” question. There are two convenient ways of answering that question. First, exploration thought all the different holiday sites. Second, referral from people you trust, a friend providing you with he advice of a possible destination or site to look at.
3.  The “Can anyone explain to me what Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is about” question. Well, you could go to Wikipedia and read the information there, but a very good alternative is to see if anyone you know can explain it to you in words you can understand
4. The “What are you doing now”  question. This is always related to someone you know. Twitter like functionality or SMS will serve you right here.
5. The “I didn’t know I had that question”question. A surprise! Where did that come from? Not from search engines, more likely from a friend pointing something to your attention
6. The “I need an urgent answer now” question. Here a search engine might do the trick, but more likely an urgent call, SMS, or IM to a friend might work better.
7. The “I want to be entertained”question. Exploration, or simply sitting back and viewing what is happening to your friends or the world work best here. But honestly, t me, nothing will work better than to hang out in the physical world with people I like. No on-line experience can match that.

I could probably increase this list with more examples, but you catch my drift. There is a lot of discussion whether or not opening the social graphs of people will do the trick. Well, it will certainly help! The search for interaction is what will truly alter the way we think about social networks. Read my 10 wishes to improve web 2.0 and get a much better interaction if you want to know more about that.

(Re-) discovering great things on the web

Tim O’Reilly wrote a nice post today on the effects of self fulfilling prophecies on social media. One of the examples he provides (read his article, it’s longer and nicer than my brief summary here) is that if everyone uses the same sources to find or publish information, the system becomes self enforcing where in the end everyone covers the same stories (the Techmeme leaderboard effect). I wrote a similar warning earlier when the Techmeme leaderboard was first announced.

His solution to this vacuum we are creating together, is to ensure that you read fresh input, input that leads to diversion. Out of the crossover of information of, for example, art and science, new things will arise. I like that idea very much. It sometimes is hard to look for things that go beyond your own knowlegde or the field you are working in. But, learning niew things only happens when you are not in your comfort zone!

I would add a few more ways of getting fresh input:

1. Get into conversations on blog posts. I’m really not interested in how many people read my posts. But I am interested in those that take the time to digest my writings and are willing to comment or add to it. I always try to respond, and also look up that person if possible. I have found some very nice and smart people I didn’t know about this way. Remember, inspiration comes from interaction.
2. Look past the “scoop” posts (take the umph-tiest scoop post on Google taking over Jaiku’s an example, you know what I mean), and see what happens in the analysis afterwards. Often, when reading through those analysis posts and the comments they get provides me with lots of smart people I want to now more about.
3. Keep track of people writing  blog posts that are numbered (great example here), and people that  scan massive amounts of blog posts to select their favorites for you. I found 2 great posts this way today.
   • Check out Anne Truit Zelenka, who writes some very smart things about the way we (should be) consuming information. Think of looking at a huge river of water flowing, you don’t want to swallow it all, but become aware of the fish below the surface. Ties in nicely with the obervations of Tim O’Reilly. I would like to point both Anne Truis Zelenka and Tim OReilly to the work of Jonathan Harris (yes, I am a fan), who has done some amazing work on structuring emotions of millions of people in a different way.

   And check out these two new video’s done by students from Kansas State University. They are essentially follow-ups on the video “The Machine is us/ing us” I wrote about earlier. Amazing how well they bring their analysis of what is going on with them in web 2.0. I like it already, as they focus on the social aspects of new technologies.
   

4. Don’t forget to meet people in real life! Nothing better than having a conversation with inspiring people, especially if they are not working in your field of expertise!

The world is full of inspiration and fascinating people. All you need to do is look past reputations, leaders, big sites, and easy scoops, and let yourself be surprised by small things, unknown people and information beyond the information bubble we are often  stuck in professionally. Get out of your comfort zone and start interacting!

Writing a good Facebook application is hard

Just saw a very nice analysis done by Tim O’Reilly and his research team about Facebook applications.  A very small excerpt from his post called “Good News, Bad News about Facebook Application Market: Long Tail Rules

The good news has already been widely disseminated: there are nearly 5000 Facebook applications, and the top applications have tens of millions of installs and millions of active users. The bad news, alas, is in our report: 87% of the usage goes to only 84 applications! Only 45 applications have more than 100,000 active users.

A lot of discussion on in in the comments as well.  The Graphics provided show a very steep long tail, where really only a few companies are probably making any money on Facebook applications. Interesting enough, if I am a Facebook application developer I can easily get investors interested.

When reading through the post two things come to my mind:

1.  Writing a Facebook application is easy! Writing an application that provides the user with such value that he will actually use it is,….. well, just like on any platform, hard. Don’t think about leveraging Facebook as a network or platform, think about providing users with value.
2. The business model for a Facebook application is not a very positive one. According to this research there are only 45 applications with more than 100.000 users. I haven’t read the report yet, but judging on the data Tim provides, of those 45 there are few reaching more than 1Mln users.

I can’t help but think that there will only be very few companies that can actually create business models that are based upon creating value for the users on the Facebook platform.

So what are all those investors and developers doing out there? I can’t see this lasting very long in this way? Are we slowly closing in on a Facebook shake out, or am I missing the point here? What is your opinion on this?