My Digital Footprint

WEB 2.0 AND MOBILE WEB 2.0

We mentioned in the previous chapter that the mobile device will play an important part in the debate about the digital footprint. This chapter focuses on the implications of Web 2.0 on mobile but starts by reviewing the mobile value chain and then reflects on how this will change as value is migrating.

The traditional mobile value chain of the access industry is rooted in voice and the consumption of content. Thus, the main players are:

· network operators: who run the telecoms network;

· device manufacturers: who provide the device or set-top, which is often subsidised by the service provider/operator;

· service providers: who create a service;

· content creators: who sell the content often through the operator portal (e.g. ringtones) and directly for TV; and

· consumers: who consume content and services and primarily do not create professional content.

In this ecosystem, voice and text (SMS) are the predominant applications with content taking mainly the form of packaged content. The traditional value chain is depicted in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Traditional value chain

Since the rise of Web 2.0 and Mobile Web 2.0 (which is explained in detail below), we have seen a fundamental shift in the mindset of the customer, which affects the value chain of the industry. The main difference is: customers are now creators of content (point of inspiration) and not merely consumers of content (point of entertainment). Customers (and the mobile devices through which they interact with the network) are at the centre of the ecosystem and the value chain is no longer dominated by consumption but rather by creation, as shown in Figure 10. Access happens and users don’t care how it works as long as it does, it is the services that are available that drives choice.

Figure 10 Consumer centric value chain

Web 2.0 - the creation web

In usage terms, the web took off globally in the mid- to late-1990s. Until the dot-com bust (2001), the web was primarily treated as a consumption medium. From 2002, we see the rise of Web 2.0, which is based on the ideas of social media and the creation web.

Web 2.0 was outlined by Tim O'Reilly in his seminal document in September 2005[i]. After its identification and naming it as a trend, Web 2.0 created considerable controversy, although now it is accepted globally. Many people take a one-dimensional view when it comes to Web 2.0 as with the story of the proverbial blind men and the elephant[ii]; they look at only one facet of Web 2.0 and insist that it’s the whole (see Figure 11). If the blind men looked at the elephant in isolation, they would not perceive it correctly (e.g. the elephant’s trunk could be thought of as a snake and so on). It is only by considering the totality of all the aspects that they can reach the correct conclusion.

Figure 11 The blind men and the elephant

The seven principles of web 2.0

What is Web 2.0? The long answer is: a service that follows all (or as many as possible) of the seven principles of Web 2.0. We will discuss a simpler definition later. These seven principles are outlined in Tim O'Reilly’s original document[iii] as per Figure 12.

Figure 12 Seven principles of Web 2.0

Principle one: web as a platform

Web 2.0 services make the fullest possible use of the web. The principle of ‘web as a platform’ encompasses the concept of Software As A Service (SAAS).

A Web 2.0 service is a combination of software and data. The term ‘web as a platform’ is not new. Netscape was an early example of using the web as a platform. However, Netscape used the web in context of the existing ecosystem: thus becoming the ‘web top’ instead of the prevailing ‘desktop’.

While Netscape was still ‘software’, in contrast, Google is ‘software plus a database’, right from the start. (In this context, we use the term ‘database’ generically to mean that ‘Google is managing some data’.) Individually, the software and the database are of limited value, but together they create a new type of service. In this context, the value of the software lies in being able to manage the (vast amounts of) data. The better it can do it, the more valuable the software becomes.

The term ‘long tail’ refers to the vast number of small sites that make up the web as opposed to the few ‘important’ sites. Harnessing the ‘long tail’ is illustrated by the ‘DoubleClick vs. AdSense/Overture’ example. The DoubleClick[iv] business model was not based on harnessing the vast number of small sites. Instead, it relied on serving the needs of a few large sites (generally dictated by the media/advertising industry). In fact, their business model actively discouraged small sites through mechanisms like formal sales contracts. In contrast, anyone can set up an AdSense/Overture account easily. This makes it easier for the vast number of sites (long tail) to use the AdSense/Overture service.

In general, Web 2.0 services are geared to harnessing the power of a ‘large number of casual users who often contribute data implicitly’ as opposed to ‘a small number of users who contribute explicitly’.

Tags are an example of implicit contribution. Thus, the Web 2.0 service must be geared to capturing ‘many implicit/Metadata contributions from a large number of users’ and not a small number of contributions from a few ‘expert’ users.

Principle two: harnessing collective intelligence

In this context, ‘collective intelligence’ can mean many things:

· Yahoo! as an aggregation of links;

· Google PageRank;

· blogging;

· tagging and collective categorisation (e.g. Flickr[v] and del.icio.us[vi]);

· eBay buyers and sellers;

· Amazon reviews; or

· Wikipedia.

And so on.

All of the above are examples of content created by users that collectively adds value to the service (which, as we have seen before, is a combination of the software and the data). In addition, harnessing collective intelligence involves understanding some other aspects like peer production, the wisdom of crowds and the network effect. Value is created from understanding the data and Metadata, and the connections.

Peer production is defined by Professor Yochai Benkler’s[vii] paper, Peer Production[viii].

A concise definition from Wikipedia is:

‘A new model of economic production, different from both markets and firms, in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the Internet) into large, meaningful projects, largely without traditional hierarchical organization or financial compensation.’

We discuss the motivations underlying peer production in the section on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The most prominent example of peer production is ‘Linux’. However, the same rationale also drives many individuals to contribute in a small way; for example, reviews on Amazon. Collectively, these small contributions lay the foundation for the ‘intelligence’ of Web 2.0, also called the ‘wisdom of crowds’.

The wisdom of crowds is fully discussed in Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki[ix]. The central idea of the wisdom of crowds is: large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant the elite few may be. The wisdom of crowds is better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, and even predicting the future. We discuss the principle of the wisdom of crowds in greater detail in the section on the unified definition of Web 2.0.

And finally, the network effect generated from user contribution. This is where a user can add value (knowledge) easily and subsequently for their contributions to flow seamlessly across the whole community, enriching or refining the whole body of knowledge. A collective brain/intelligence of the ‘web’ if you will, made possible by mechanisms such as RSS[x].

Principle three: data is the next ‘Intel inside’

Data is the key differentiator between a Web 2.0 service and a non-Web 2.0 service. A Web 2.0 service always combines function (software) and data (which is managed by the software). Thus, Web 2.0 services inevitably have a body of data (Amazon reviews, eBay products and sellers, Google links, etc). This is very different to a word processor for example, which comprises of only software (and no data).

While data is valuable, the company need not necessarily own the data. Although in most cases the company serving the data (e.g. Google) also ‘owns’ the data (e.g. information about links), that may not always be the case. In the case of Google Maps[xi], Google does not own the data. Mapping data is often owned by companies such as NavTeq[xii] and satellite imagery data is owned by companies such as Digital Globe[xiii]. Google Maps simply combines data from these two sources. Such combination of data from two or more sources is called a ‘mashup’. A mashup is defined as a website or web application that seamlessly combines content from more than one source into an integrated experience[xiv]. A mashup could be seen as a ‘web API’ (Application Programming Interface).

Taking the ‘chain of data’ further, sites such as Housing Maps[xv] are a mashup between Google Maps and Craigslist[xvi]. The more difficult it is to create the data, the more valuable the data is (e.g. satellite images are obviously valuable). At the time of writing, there are still grey areas in the ownership and creation of mashups. For instance, if a company makes its data available for ‘mashing up’, does it control the functionality of ultimate mashup itself? Conflicts could arise if the mashup creator does not use the service in a way approved by the body releasing the API. Nevertheless, there is a significant industry momentum behind mashups.

For clarity, data only becomes information and then knowledge through analysis and processing, and crucially, when it is in the context of a business process which has an economic value.

Principle four: end of the software release cycle

Web 2.0 services do not have a software release cycle. While Google re-indexes its link indices every day, Microsoft releases a major software release every few years. That’s because there is no ‘data’ in Windows 95, Windows XP, etc. It’s pure software. Not so with Google. Google is data plus software. It has to re-index its ‘data’ every day, otherwise it loses its value. Thus, operations are critical to a Web 2.0 company and there is no ‘software release’ as such. The flip side of this coin is, there are widespread beta releases and users are treated as co-developers.

Principle five: lightweight programming models

Web 2.0 services could be seen as a lighter form of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture). Functionally, a Web 2.0 service acts as a distributed application. Distributed applications have always been complex to design. However, they are central to the web. Web services (SOA) were deemed to be the ideal mechanism to create distributed applications easily. But, web services, in their full incarnation using the SOAP[xvii] (Simple Object Access Protocol) stack, are relatively complex. RSS is a simpler (and quicker) way to achieve much of the functionality of web services.

Simpler technologies, such as RSS and Ajax (explained in detail later), are the driving force behind Web 2.0 services. These lightweight technologies are designed to ‘syndicate’ rather than ‘orchestrate’ (orchestration is one of the goals of web services). Because lightweight programming models are oriented towards syndicating data, they are contrary to the traditional corporate mindset of controlling access to data. They are also designed for reuse. In this context, ‘reuse’ indicates ‘reusing the service’ and not ‘reusing the data’ (they make it easier to remix the service through mashups). As a result of this architecture, grassroots innovation is given a boost because a new service can be created using existing services through mashups.

Principle six: software above the level of a single device

In essence, Mobile Web 2.0 is about the sixth principle. Hence, we do not discuss it in detail here.

Principle seven: a rich user experience

For the web to be truly useful, we need a mechanism to improve user experience. In comparison to platforms such as Windows, the web offered a relatively limited user experience. Technologies like ActiveX and Java applets attempted to improve the user experience, but these were proprietary. The main technological driver for an enhanced user experience on the web is Ajax. Ajax uses web technologies (non-proprietary technologies). Ajax was outlined by Jesse James Garrett in an article published online[xviii]. Ajax is being used in services like Gmail, Google Maps and Flickr, and it already provides the technology to create a seamless user experience combining many discrete services.

Having discussed the seven principles of Web 2.0, let us now look at a simpler definition of Web 2.0. We call this definition the ‘unified view’ of Web 2.0.

If we reconsider the seven principles, we observe that the second principle (harnessing collective intelligence) encompasses the other six.

Thus, we can view Web 2.0 as ‘harnessing collective intelligence’ or ‘the intelligent web’. What kind of intelligence can be attributed to Web 2.0? How is it different from Web 1.0? This is shown in Figure 13.

Web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to stuff canned content down our throats. The dot.com bubble was the end for many who took the approach of broadcast content. What’s left is the web as it was originally meant to be – a global means of communication.

Figure 13 Unified view of Web 2.0

The intelligence attributed to the web (Web 2.0) arises from us (the collective/people) as we begin to communicate. Thus, when we talk of the 'intelligent web' or 'harnessing collective intelligence' we are talking of the familiar principle of the ‘wisdom of crowds’. In order to harness collective intelligence:

· information must flow freely;

· it must be harnessed/processed in some way – otherwise it remains a collection of opinions and not knowledge; and

· from a commercial standpoint, there must be a way to monetise the 'long tail'.

Our essential argument is: if we consider Web 2.0 as 'intelligent web' or 'harnessing collective intelligence' (principle two), and then look at the other six principles feeding into it, Web 2.0 is a lot clearer. Since the wisdom of crowds is so important, let's consider that in more detail. From the Wikipedia entry for the wisdom of crowds[xix] which is a wonderful irony, are all crowds wise? No. They are not. The four elements required to form a 'wise' crowd are:

· diversity of opinion;

· independence: people’s opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them;

· decentralisation: people are able to specialise and draw on local knowledge; and

· aggregation: some mechanism exists for turning private judgements into a collective decision.

Conversely, the wisdom of crowds fails when:

· decision-making is too centralised: the Columbia shuttle disaster occurred because the hierarchical management at NASA was closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers;

· decision-making is too divided: the US intelligence community failed to prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another; and

· decision-making is imitative – choices are visible and there are a few strong decision-makers who, in effect, influence the crowd.

Now, based on this background, let’s look at the seven principles again.

The web as a platform

The web is the only true link that unites us (those with access) all together, whoever or wherever we are in the world. To harness collective intelligence and to create the intelligent web, we need to include as many people as we can. The only way we can do this is to treat the web as a platform and use open standards. You can't harness collective intelligence using the IBM ESA/390[xx], no matter how powerful it is.

This now becomes the 'main' principle or the first principle.

Data is the next ‘Intel inside’

By definition, to harness collective intelligence, we must have the capacity to process massive amounts of data. Hence, data is the 'intelligence' (Intel).

End of the software release cycle

This pertains to SAAS (Software As A Service). Software as a 'product' can never keep up-to-date with all the changing information. A Web 2.0 service includes code as well as data. Thus, SAAS keeps the data relevant (and the harnessed decision accurate) by accessing as many sources as possible. In some examples the data may change and the APIs that expose that data will have a release cycle. Enterprise customers continue to demand release processes.

The heavyweight programming models catered for the few. In contrast, using lightweight programming models, we can reach many more people. Hence, we are working with many more sources of information, leading to an intelligent web, for example, from the seven principles[xxi].

Amazon.com's web services are provided in two forms: one adhering to the formalisms of the SOAP web services stack, the other simply providing XML data over HTTP; in a lightweight approach sometimes referred to as REST (Representational State Transfer). While high value B2B connections (like those between Amazon and retail partners such as ToysRUs) use the SOAP stack, Amazon reports that 95% of the usage is of the lightweight REST service.

More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence.

A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the web: leading to a more 'intelligent' web.

· What is Web 2.0? It’s the intelligent web (the second principle: harnessing collective intelligence).

· What makes it intelligent? We do.

· How does it happen? By harnessing collective intelligence.

· What do you need to harness collective intelligence? The other six principles.

Based on our understanding of Web 2.0, let us consider the implications of extending the definitions of Web 2.0 to Mobile Web 2.0. As we have seen previously: Mobile Web 2.0 is focused on the user as the creator and consumer of content ‘at the point of inspiration’ and the mobile device as the means to harness collective intelligence. Mobile Web 2.0 is happening on a set of 'restricted devices' that have more limited functionality than a PC and we need to think specifically about which 'restricted devices' are important to Mobile Web 2.0 as the seemingly simple idea of extending Web to Mobile has many facets, for instance:

· What is a restricted device?

· What are the implications of extending the web to restricted devices?

· As devices become creators and not mere consumers of information – what categories of intelligence can be captured/harnessed from restricted devices?

· What is the impact for services as devices start using the web as a massive information repository and the PC as a local cache where services can be configured?

Mobile Web 2.0 is happening on a set of 'restricted devices' that have more limited functionality than a PC and we need to think specifically about which 'restricted devices' are important to Mobile Web 2.0.

A broad definition of a ‘restricted device’ is not easy. The only thing they all have in common is – ‘they are battery-driven’. But then, watches tend to have batteries. A better definition of restricted devices can be formulated by incorporating Barbara Ballard’s carry principle[xxii], which introduces the concept of an information device. Using the carry principle, a restricted device could now be deemed as:

· carried by the user;

· battery-driven;

· small footprint (by definition);

· probably multifunctional but with a primary focus;

· a device with limited input mechanisms (small keyboard);

· personal and personalised; but

· not wearable (that rules out the watch). But, there is a caveat, a mobile device in the future could be wearable and its capacities may well be beyond what we imagine today. The input mechanisms in the future may not be keyboards. So, this is an evolving definition.

Finally, there are differences between a small screen, ‘carry/portable’ device such as mobile phones and a device which is ‘carried’, such as in-flight entertainment, which we call a ‘carried/ported’ device. For example, in a car, a GPS navigator is a ‘small screen-based mobile device’ and in a plane, the in-flight entertainment screen is also ‘mobile’. However, both these devices are not ‘carried by a person’ and do not have the same screen/power restrictions as devices that people carry. However, whichever way you look at it, it's clear that the mobile phone is an example of a restricted device. From now on, we use the definition of mobile devices interchangeably with ‘restricted devices’ and the meaning will be clearer in the context.

Extending the web to restricted devices

It may seem obvious, but Web 2.0 is all about the ‘web’ because it could not have been possible without it. Thus, in a ‘pure’ definition, Web 2.0 is about ‘harnessing collective intelligence via the web’. When we extend this definition to ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ – there are two implications:

· the web does not necessarily extend to mobile devices; and

· even though the web does not extend to mobile devices, intelligence can still be captured from mobile devices.

The seven principles of Web 2.0 speak of this accurately when they discuss the example of the iPod/iTunes. The iPod uses the web as a back-end and the PC as a local cache. In this sense, the service is ‘driven by the Web and configured at the PC’ but it is not strictly a ‘web’ application because it is not driven by web protocols end-to-end (iPod/iTunes internals are proprietary to Apple) as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Harnessing collective intelligence from mobile devices

Thus, the characteristics (distinguishing principles) of Mobile Web 2.0 are:

· harnessing collective intelligence through restricted devices (a two-way flow where people carrying devices become reporters rather than mere consumers);

· driven by the web backbone, but not necessarily based on web protocols end-to-end; and

· use of the PC as a local cache/configuration mechanism where the service will be selected and configured.

My digital footprint is not Web 3.0[xxiii], it is firmly in the domain of Web 2.0 as the value is still centred on harnessing collective intelligence. The next phase of the web will be the move to intelligence in the network (Semantic Web); MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT is only improving how it works today.

We have discussed Mobile Web 2.0 and Web 2.0 extensively above. We have seen that Web 2.0 could be viewed as harnessing collective intelligence and, by extension, Mobile Web 2.0 could be viewed as harnessing collective intelligence from mobile devices. This is depicted in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Moving focus to getting more data off a device than on to it

The ability to get data out of or off a mobile device lends itself to the unique advantage a mobile device has.

We explore this idea in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

Considering this concept, that there is more value in getting data off a mobile, let’s consider that sensors (acceleration, temperature, noise level) can easily be placed in or attached to mobiles. Further, a user can send information from their device, by voice, IM (Instant Message) or text, to a centralised service point. Both sensors and people can provide vital data during a disaster-relief operation or outbreak of a disease, for example, could not be gathered. It is known that aid agencies are building systems that use handsets to sense, monitor and even predict population movements, environmental hazards and public-health threats. InSTEDD (Innovative Support to Emergencies, Diseases and Disasters), a non-profit group based in California USA, focuses on the use of mobile-gathered data to improve developing countries’ ability to respond in emergencies. Funded with seed money from Google’s philanthropic arm, it has released a suite of open-source software to share, aggregate and analyse data from mobile phones. It is being used in anger in Cambodia, where health-workers can send an SMS, of observations and diagnoses, to a central number.

FootPath, a system developed by Path Intelligence (UK), aggregates and analyses signals picked up from mobiles as people move through a particular area. The data can be used to optimise the flow of pedestrians through high density areas, such as railway stations and airports. Data can determine, for example, whether customers visit a specific shop. This will be linked to marketing at some point to close the loop.

Dr Alex Pentland, at MIT, describes ‘X-raying entire organisations, cities and countries’ by collecting data in the two ways described: passive (no user intervention) and active (user interaction). Dr Pentland’s algorithms can already cluster information from thousands of mobiles and divide people into ‘tribes’ of like-minded folk. He calls this ‘reality mining’, something I explore later as the ‘rainbow of trust’. Dr Pentland’s company, Sense Networks, is working with Vodafone and other collaborators to build an early-warning system for modelling and predicting the spread of tuberculosis in South Africa.

There is more value in getting data off the mobile!

[i] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant July 2009 and www.naturalchild.org

[iii] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

[iv] http://www.doubleclick.com/us/

[v] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(Metadata) July 2009

[vi] http://www.flickr.com

[vii] http://del.icio.us/

[viii] http://www.benkler.org

[ix] http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html

[x] http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds

[xi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rss July 2009

[xii] http://www.maps.google.com

[xiii] http://www.navteq.com/

[xiv] http://www.digitalglobe.com/

[xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(digital) July 2009

[xvi] http://www.housingmaps.com/

[xvii] http://www.craigslist.com/

[xviii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP July 2009

[xix] http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php

[xx] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds July 2009. Also see http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/

[xxi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System/390 July 2009

[xxii] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

[xxiii] http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2005/09/14/the-carry-principle/