1. Martin V. Smith School of Business and Economics
Web 2.0 and Beyond
Minder Chen, Ph.D.
Martin V. Smith School of Business and Economics
CSU Channel Islands
Diann Daniel, Strategic Planning: Mapping for IT Success,

2. Web 2.0 Definition?!
Web 2.0 is the network as platform (Cloud computing), spanning all connected devices (The Internet of Things); Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service (perpetual beta) that gets better the more people use it (network effects), consuming and remixing data from multiple sources (mashup), including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences (using AJAX etc.).

3. Perpetual Beta
Web vs. client/server applications
Deployment – Single site
User training – No chance

4. BitTorrent
Peer-to-peer
IP/copyright issues

5. Mashup: GIS Mapping and Data
remixing data from multiple sources

6. Enterprise Mashup
A mashup is a Web page or application that uses and combines data, presentation or functionality from two or more sources to create new services. The main characteristics of the mashup are combination, visualization, and aggregation. It often makes existing data more useful.

7. Moving from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (CPM)
Source:

8. Photo Tagging

9. YouTube: Folksonomy & Viral Marketing
(My database tutorial)
An example of a viral video by the band OK Go.

10. Tagging and Word Cloud Word clouds at http://www.wordle.net/
Created based on part of Web 2.0 entry in Wikipedia. Words such as Web, user, may were removed manually.
The term Web 2.0 is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,[1] and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site gives its users the free choice to interact or collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumer) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumer) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 include social-networking sites, blogs, wikis, video-sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies.
The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004.[2][3] Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a "piece of jargon"[4], precisely because he intended the Web in his vision as "a collaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write". He called it the 'Read/Write Web'.
Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. By increasing what was already possible in "Web 1.0", they provide the user with more user-interface, software and storage facilities, all through their browser. This has been called "Network as platform" computing.[3] Users can provide the data that is on a Web 2.0 site and exercise some control over that data.[3][17] These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[2][3]
The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"[18] and regards the Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.
The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free-ride on the contribution of others.[19] This requires what is sometimes called Radical Trust by the management of the website. According to Best,[20] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom[21] and collective intelligence[22] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented web browsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".
Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features and techniques. Andrew McAfee used the acronym SLATES to refer to them:[24]
Search
Finding information through keyword search.
Links
Connects information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model of the Web, and provides low-barrier social tools.
Authoring
The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many rather than just a few web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each other's work. In blogs, posts and the comments of individuals build up over time.
Tags
Categorization of content by users adding "tags" - short, usually one-word descriptions - to facilitate searching, without dependence on pre-made categories. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).
Extensions
Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. These include software like Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash player, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, Quicktime, Windows Media, etc.
Signals
The use of syndication technology such as RSS to notify users of content changes.
While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict all of the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. In this way, a new Web 2.0 report from O'Reilly is quite effective and diligent in interweaving the story of Web 2.0 with the specific aspects of Enterprise 2.0. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of the Web 2.0 era in the enterprise. The report also makes many sensible recommendations around starting small with pilot projects and measuring results, among a fairly long list.[25]

11. http://www. oreillynet

12. Principles Harnessing Collective Intelligence
Data is the next Intel inside. (NavTeq Onboard – Map data used by MapQuest)
The wisdom of crowds (crowd sourcing).
Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability (cloud computing).
Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them.
Software above the level of a single device.
Lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business models. (Web-based, Mobile Apps)
Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service.

13. Crowdsourcing Crowd funding: For Rent Kickstarter Share economy
Open Source Software
Crowd funding:
Kickstarter
Wisdom of the Crowd:
GoldCorp, PickFactor.com
For Rent
Share economy
(link, examples)

14. Principles The web as platform.
Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
The service automatically gets better the more people use it. (e.g., BitTorrent) - Peer-to-peer
Network effects (network externality) from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.
Decentralized architecture.
The wisdom of the crowd.
We, the media. (You! Time the man of the year 2006). Trusting users as co-developers.

15. Reductionist view of Web 2.0
Read and write
Writing by everyone

16. Blogsphere Ecosystem
Source:

17. Social Technographics Ladder

18. Foursquare Pinterest.com Spotify
Foursquare
Pinterest.com
Spotify

19. Social Network Marketing/

20. Evolution of Web 1.0 to 2.0 Blog Media Contributor Purpose
Content/App.
Web API/ Web services
Video
Everyone
Collaborate
YouTube
Wikipedia
MySpace
Facebook
XML: Microformat
Sound
Customer
Participate/Connect
Podcast
Web Apps.: Dynamic Web Site
RSS
Tagging
Photo
Employee
Distribute/Share
Flickr
Blog
Blog
Text
Developer
Create/ Publish
HTML: Contents (Static Sites)

21. Backup Slides

23. Building Blocks for Web 2.X
Social
Layer
MySpace
FaceBook
Blog
Twitter
Wikipedia
Rich Internet Applications
User interface Layer
AdSense
Zillow
AJAX
Widget
Enterprise agility
SOE
Business Process Layer
SaaS
BPEL & BPMS
RSS
MashUp
Information Layer
Wiki
Business
Layer
Technology
Layer
Web services
Technical SOA
XML

26. http://rossdawsonblog. com/weblog/archives/2007/05/launching_the_w

29. Source: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=71

30. dsdfsd Conversation Prism

31. Reach and Richness
The concept of the reach and richness originated from reach and range of the infrastructure services, first proposed by Peter Keen.
Weill & Broadbent defined “reach” as the capability of connecting to anyone, anywhere, while “range” refers to business activities which can be accomplished and shared automatically and seamlessly across every level of the reach.
Extended into the digitized market network Evans & Wurster, define “reach” as the number of people connected and “richness” as quality of information processed.

32. Richness (Depth) and Reach (Broad)
Source: Strategy and the New Economics of Information
by Philip B. Evans and Thomas S. Wurster, HBR, September 1997.

33. Collaboration Rules
Source: Philip Evans, Bob Wolf, “Collaboration Rules,” Harvard Business Review, Jul 01, 2005

34. The man, or rather machine of the year is the computer in the Time magazine in 1982!

35. Dec. 25, 2006

36. Dec. 25, 2006
We!

37. http://www. snaptasticblog

39. Long Tail

40. Pure Players vs. Physical Retailers

41. Product Variety Comparison for Internet and Brick-and-Mortar Channels
The unlimited “shelf space” of the Internet.
Free:The Future of a Radical Price, Chris Anderson
Product Category
Large Online Retailer
Typical Large
Brick-and-Mortar Store
Books
3,000,000
40,000 – 100,000
CDs
250,000
5,000 – 15,000
DVDs
18,000
500 – 3,000
Digital Cameras
213 36
Portable MP3 players
128 16
Flatbed Scanners
171 13

42. Songs available at Rhapsody
Product not available in offline retail stores

43. Changing “Demand Curve”
The total volume of low popularity items exceeds the volume of high popularity items.
Why? Search Cost, Carrying Cost, Niche
Collaborative filtering
Availability

44. Shifting Demand down the Long Tail
Netflix data shows shifting demand down the Long Tail

45. Online Resources http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/
Why $o.oois the future of business
[PDF] FREE: The Future of Radical Price
Creative Common: Sci-Fi's Cory Doctorow Separates Self-Publishing Fact From Fiction (PodCast)