As far as the Internet is concerned, 2005 was -- for better or worse -- the year of “Web 2.0.” Although it has been criticized by some as a useless buzzword, and has led to endless debates about what it means, the term has achieved one thing: it has focused attention on some of the ways the Internet has changed. Whether those changes are good or bad remains to be seen.
One of the criticisms of the term is that it suggests the Internet has changed dramatically from what it was a few years ago, when in reality it has simply been evolving. In many ways, the Web now is just more of what it used to be: faster, more interactive, more adaptable. Some of the changes have come about because high-speed Internet access is more common, some are a result of better software; and some are a result of having more people online -- an example of what some call the “network effect.”
There have also been changes in business models, and that has a lot to do with a certain company whose name begins with “G.” Five years ago, everyone was convinced online advertising was the wave of the future, and that all you had to do was get “eyeballs.” Google's success in making money from things it provides for free -- and its $130-billion (U.S.) market value -- have helped show that maybe this wasn't so hare-brained after all; it just took advertisers time to adjust, and a company with the right product.
So what is Web 2.0? Simply put, it is Web-based services -- things you can really use that take advantage of the kind of real-time interactivity that software such as Ajax (asynchronous javascript and XML) allows. And how did the various players do when it comes to that kind of assignment? Read on.
Google:
One of the highlights of the year was Google Earth and Google Maps, two applications that make a fantastic Web service, one that helped millions of people get a sense of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and can also help if you're searching for an apartment or even a beer store. That's because Google took its software and made it open, so that programmers could create their own blends -- or “mash-ups” -- such as www.beerhunter.ca or the Chicago crime map. That is worth an A+.
Google hasn't done quite as well in some other areas, however. After buying Blogger, one of the first blog networks, the search company has done little with it, and hasn't even incorporated blog search into its search portal or its news service. Blogger also looks stale compared with some newer networks such as Typepad and Wordpress. And while Google has launched instant messaging (Google Talk) and an RSS “newsfeed” reader (Google Reader), neither one is anything to write home about. Larry and Sergey need to do a bit more work in this area.
Overall mark: B+
Yahoo:
Google may be the company that most expect to “get” the whole idea of Web 2.0, but when it comes to acquisitions that show the company is open to new ideas, Yahoo takes top marks. It may be easy enough to write a cheque for something like Flickr -- a very Web 2.0 photo-sharing service that was founded in Vancouver -- or a “social bookmarking” site such as del.icio.us, but at least these two deals show that Yahoo is looking for new opportunities in the interactive Web arena. It could have stuck with its own (somewhat lame) attempts at similar services, but instead it admitted it needed help and it went out and got some. Yahoo has also incorporated blogs into its search and news functions, and built support for RSS feeds into its new Ajax-powered e-mail.
Overall mark: A
Microsoft:
It may have been pushed by Google and Yahoo, but the gargantuan software company -- which only caught on to Web 1.0 fairly recently -- has started showing signs of interest in the whole Web 2.0 idea (whether those early attempts will get smothered by the giant Microsoft bureaucracy is anyone's guess). The company has released a series of “beta” services such as www.live.com, a new Ajax-powered e-mail client, Web-based antivirus protection and so on, but they are in their early stages.
Microsoft also leaked two memos from co-founder Bill Gates and chief technology officer Ray Ozzie that showed the company may be thinking about how to provide Office-style services on the Web. A Web-based Office suite would steal some thunder from Google, which is rumoured to be thinking of the same thing. At the same time, Microsoft's plans are mostly that -- plans. What they have shown so far is interesting, and it still seems hard for the company to lower its defences and share its toys with others.
Overall mark: B-
eBay:
The auction giant, which made its fortune with a Web 1.0 service whose growth is starting to slow, has made a big bet -- $4.1-billion or so -- on one of the early pioneers in Web 2.0 phone services, a company called Skype. Millions of people use the VOIP service the way others use instant messaging, with “Skype Me” buttons on their websites or blogs, but can eBay make it work as part of its auction services without changing the things that made it great? Not everyone is so sure -- and eBay paid a lot more than Yahoo did for Flickr or del.icio.us, so it better work. eBay gets high marks for guts, but low marks for understandability.
Overall mark: C
And what will 2006 bring for Web 2.0? Will someone buy digg.com to match Yahoo's del.icio.us purchase? Will someone buy Technorati, the leader in blog search -- or Feedburner, the leader in RSS syndication? And will Microsoft or Google bring out a Web-based Office-style software service to compete with what's out there, such as Writely.com(documents), Jotspot Tracker (spreadsheets) or ThinkFree's online office suite? Stay tuned.
© The Globe and Mail
Only GlobeinvestorGOLD combines the strength of powerful investing tools with the insight of The Globe and Mail.
Discover a wealth of investment information and and exclusive features.
