I just read this by Tim O’Reilly over at the O’Reilly Radar ( aggregated by Planet Intertwingly and via Scoble’s Link Blog – thats Web 2.0 for you)
It strikes me that one of the big differences between the 1.0 class of data aggregators and the 2.0 class is the difference between “back office” and “live” applications. The credit card company mines its database to select you for direct mail offers; it may even get close to real time in monitoring your card activity for fraud or credit limit detection. But Google or Amazon mines its database in real time and builds the results right into its customer-facing applications.
If Google or Amazon were your bank or credit card, they’d let you know which merchants had the best prices for the same products, so you’d be a smarter shopper next time. They’d let merchants know what products were popular with people who also bought related products. They’d help merchants stock the right products by zip code. They’d let you know when you were spending more on dining out than you have set in your family budget. They’d let you know when you were approaching your credit limit, with a real-time fuel gauge, not just a “Sorry, your card has been declined.”
If Google or Amazon were your phone company, they’d give you access to your entire call history, not just your last ten phone calls. They’d build a dynamic address book for you based on everyone you’d ever talked to — and they’d build p2p phone number lookup from your friends right into that address book. They’d get rid of 411, and just help you search for what you need, and then make the connection for you.
This is one reason I think that Microsoft’s term, “Live Software” is so right on. (I thought of naming this piece “Why Live Software is a better name than Web 2.0.”) It’s unfortunate that Microsoft has chosen that name for its own products only, because it goes right to the heart of what makes Web 2.0 applications so interesting: they are alive, or as close to it as you can get with a computer. They learn from and interact directly with their users (and more specifically, provide services to individual users that benefit from the aggregate interaction of the system with all of its users.)
Tim is right on as usual. This is the whole idea of Web 2.0. It shows how Google is becomming much more than a search engine (not that it’ll be buying banks next).
In the past, computers really were dumb terminals connected to a mainframe. Then we got he Personel Computer revolution that mved the mainfraom into a beige box that you plugged your screen into directly. Now our Desktops are turing into terminals again. The avaliability of Software as a Service over the web is essential to using our computers. The enxt Google will take all this one step further and render our pricy desktops using without a highspeed broadband connection (or Verizion Fiber-Optic for you guys in the States – we still have our broadband in Europe 🙂 ).
Soon, Banks and the like will realise the power of the Google Way of handling data. The ways of aggregating this infomation over the web makes it even better to savour the possibilities.
Just to highlight Tim:
It’s unfortunate that Microsoft has chosen that name for its own products only, because it goes right to the heart of what makes Web 2.0 applications so interesting: they are alive
Reminds me of Frankinstien:
It’s Alive!!! <Evil Laugh/>
Random Musings 