TechFold - Bold tech & web commentary

Eric Schmidt (& Google) Miss the Point on Web 3.0

I just saw this perplexing video of Google CEO Eric Schmidt trying to explain what Web 3.0 is.

Ultimately, it seems that Schmidt just tries to shoehorn Web 3.0 into Google’s product strategy, talking about cloud apps that run on a variety of devices and that can be distributed virally. Is Schmidt trying to wag the dog here? Because on the Internet, the wag dogs you, dude. In all seriousness, trying to see emerging themes on the Internet is a fuzzy business in and of itself; trying to control those emerging themes by redefining them in your own terms is double bad as it (a) adds nothing back to the community driving the web’s evolution, and (b) traps you in your own mindset and positions you to miss the boat (see: Microsoft & the Internet).

I won’t even get into Schmidt’s definition of Web 2.0 (”the computer architecture we call AJAX”), or the fact that he dismisses the entire 2.0 movement as a marketing term. Talk about missing the point (AJAX??!) and disrespecting a lot of people, hard thinking, and hard work.

Google seems to be acting Microsoft-like. They’ve defined “what’s coming next” for themselves internally, and insulated by a layer of cash and a veritable-monopoly on several core products (search & advertising), show little care for what the rest of the ‘net thinks on the same topics. Google also seems to be Microsoft-fixated: the central thrust of their 3.0 vision directly combats Microsoft’s desktop model. I think these blinders are going to be a liability for Google in a 3 - 5 year timeframe.

Finally - what is Web 3.0, and how did Eric miss the point? I’m not sure yet.

cloud, eric schmidt, google, microsoft, web 2.0 web 3.0

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ballmer & Microsoft: “Does everything move to the cloud? I think that is wrong-minded.”

From the NYT:

He rejected the notion that in the future all software would be based in what computer industry executives refer to as “the cloud” — computer hardware and software reachable over the Internet. “People tend to get weird and extreme about this,” Mr. Ballmer said. “Does everything move to the cloud? I think that is wrong-minded.” [Steve Ballmer in the NYT]

Microsoft seems firmly married to the software model, committing only to “the addition of a Web-services component within 3 to 10 years” to core software products.

Now, compare and contrast to Jeremy Zawodny’s experiences last week:

It was at that point that a shift took place in my thinking. I’m simply not going to bother with the hassle, trouble, expense, and complexity of desktop applications when an online substitute will do the job anymore. Life’s too short already. [Jeremy Zawodny]

Zawodny’s laptop died. Getting his apps back up and running in his preferred state and documents restored from back-up was a complicated, time consuming, and bug ridden PITA. In frustration, he turned to the cloud - and was rewarded with always consistent settings, no need to back-up, no multiple-pc configuration inconsistencies, etc. etc.

In the age of near-ubiquitous broadband, the cloud is making more sense all the time. 10 years from now, I firmly believe cloud applications will be taken for granted as desktop apps are today. Microsoft appears to have lost its risk taking edge in its addiction to gluttonous desktop application profits; Ballmer & Ozzie are consigning Microsoft to a slow death.

ballmer, cloud, google, microsoft, webos zawodny

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Microsoft’s Head in the Clouds: Positioning for Success

CNET reports on Microsoft’s buzz-worthy but vague “cloud computing” plans this morning.

The concept of the “cloud OS” or “internet OS” has been generating more and more discussion over time. IMHO, the cloud is the true Web 3.0 - the distributed, ubiquitous web. Its being driven by the fact that people’s data, documents, applications, preferences, and tools are now scattered across many devices, platforms, websites, PC’s, set top boxes, gaming systems, and phones - our connected environment begs for the portability, synchronization, and interoperability that are enabled by a true Web OS.

Microsoft’s concept of cloud services coupled with edge computing positions them to deliver. For example: I want my Garmin eTrex to automatically upload paths of trips I’ve made in universally parseable geoRSS, and I want to be able to later share those trips as maps around the dinner table on my iPhone using Google Maps. Microsoft aims to provide the service and storage cloud infrastructure to make that possible, as well as the edge bits (the software on the eTrex) to knit it all together.

Essentially, Microsoft wants to replicate the success factors of their desktop dominance by making their web services platform the easiest and most common to work on, just as they did with their desktop platform. Creating a strategy to deliver on that objective comprehensively speaks well for Microsoft’s continued success vs. Yahoo’s atrocious API mishmash, or Google’s compulsive, inconsistent delivery schedule.

For a long time, I’ve been critical of Microsoft’s big bet on Ray Ozzie - after all, his Groove application was an absolute horror. But if this is his vision, and if he can get Microsoft to execute on it, then I’ll take back my criticisms.

Ah yes: we all know how much MS loves Developers. Hat tip, Parislemon.

cloud, google, internetos, microsoft, web3.0 yahoo

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Time for an Internet File System (IFS)?

I can’t tell if this idea is stupid & superfluous or not. It surfaced when I was trying to write a review for Xcerion (an “Internet OS” developer), and thought about what it would mean to work 100% in the cloud. The scenario that I bumped my head against was that unless you did all of your work inside a single “OS” (Google Docs & Sheets, for example, or on apps within the Xcerion platform), managing files and work scattered across the net, behind different passwords, formats, export capabilities, privacy policies, and more, would be a severe pain.

That is to say, what happens when you use Google Sheets, Zoho Writer, and Picnik on a daily basis to get things done, and Box.net as an online repository?

Perhaps I’m old school, but whether my data is in the cloud or in local storage, I still see value to centralization:

1. Being able to search and index all of my files
2. Being able to organize my files topically - i.e.: a spreadsheet for trip expenses, photos, letters, etc. from a trip all stored together (whether tagged, or in folders) as opposed to scattered across multiple services.
3. Not depending on the solvency of multiple companies to take care of my data
4. Being able to run a centralized backup function on all of my data (ironically, this probably means backing up my cloud storage to a local harddrive)
5. Being able to open a file created in one application in another (i.e.: opening a Word file in OpenOffice == opening a Google/Writely file in Zoho Writer) without a cumbersome import/export process

So - what I think I’m suggesting is an “Internet File System” that would let online applications save to and load data from a third party storage solution. This would include:

1. A Protocol: A standardized protocol for applications to implement on their end, and storage providers to implement on theirs that would manage the connection seamlessly between the two. The protocol might include two-way communication so that I could see how much space was left in my Box.net account from within Google Docs & Sheets.
2. Universal and Free: Note that this is a “protocol” not a product - it should be something like SOAP that anyone can implement. And FOSS’d.
3. Encryption and Authentication: I’d like to be able to give Google my Box.net password once, and have Google manage authentication with Box.net from that point forward. I’d also like the datastream between application and storage to be encrypted.
4. File Meta-Data Standard: Some sort of meta-data standard for the file objects that would be saved such that when looking in Box.net, I can click a spreadsheet file and have it open in Google Sheets where it was created.
5. Format Meta-Data Stardard: A central repository of DTD’s/XML Schema descriptions for data/file formats, to allow for easy conversion of file types between applications. I don’t want to be locked into a particular application by its format. Format owners retain ownership of their format (and could GPL it if desired), but regardless of ownership it should be available in parseable format for other to build converters around.

Ok - that’s a tall order to be sure. I have trouble imagining many companies wanting to give away control to that degree, and to that point, this post is more to plant a seed or spur discussion than anything. Plus, as noted, I may be in conceptual never-never land and all of this sounds really dumb.

At the end of the day, though, I want to jump into the cloud. I’m ready. I just don’t think the cloud is yet.

EDIT: Cloud Talk is getting some action out there. [via Techmeme]

applications, cloud, google, laszlo, s3, writely, xcerion, youos zoho

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!