web2.0 has something in common with web 1.0?
Yesterday Hal Stern posted a simplified definition of web2.0: 'read/write web'
I happen to disagree. As proof he claims that everything in Tim O'Reilly's list
has embedded in it "read/write web". But, how is AdSense
read/write? Or Search Engine optimization? Or
cost/click? Or syndication?
In other words, I think Hal is missing the part where web2.0 is about
aggregating services offered by others. e.g. the Google Map
mashups. In general there's a number of services that expose an
API (google, yahoo, amazon, ebay, paypal, del.icio.us, etc), and other people build something off that API.
Adsense is not read/write, but it's clearly an aggregation of
services. Syndication is also an aggregation of services. I
don't understand why SEO and cost/click are on Tim O'Reilly's list,
since both are simple extrapolations of web marketing.
But what has me going to the blog right now is: Yahoo gobbles up Del.icio.us
What this has me thinking of is partying like it's 1999. Namely,
in the late 90's there were a bunch of startups that founded web sites
but didn't have a business model that would gain revenue. I think
del.icio.us falls squarely in that camp. It's given away for free
and there's no clear way for them to charge a fee. What would you
charge for? Hence, the only way del.icio.us is going to pay off
is for them to be bought out ... which is what Yahoo has just done.
That's what I suggest web2.0 shares with web1.0 is the people involved
still aren't thinking about how do I make this a self supporting
business.
(2005-12-09 16:11:36.0)
Permalink
Comments [2]
CNET: Power could cost more than servers, Google warns
Here we go: Power could cost more than servers, Google warns
The CNET article is referring to an article published in ACM's Queue: The Price of Performance (ACM Queue vol. 3, no. 7 - September 2005, by Luiz André Barroso, Google) An Economic Case for Chip MultiprocessingHis point is that as system performance is going up, power consumption increases to match. Hence as system performance increases lets you cram more and more into your data center, the power needs for the data center will increase dramatically. Eventually, his numbers say, the cost of powering your computers will cost more than the computers themselves.
As I wrote before I'm just happy that the new systems we're selling have lower power needs than previous systems. I am very interested to have the world I live in be clean, and I know that the more power we humans use the more polluted our world becomes (because of the way we get the power).
I know that one can often do the same work (e.g. light your room) while using less power (e.g. using compact flourescents or LED lightbulbs), which makes me itch for the rest of the humans around me to catch on that they don't need to use as much power as they're using today.
It's about efficiency and I like the way Luiz puts it in his paper. Performance per watt.
It's also about coming up with the right measurement to capture the desired end goal. See, the results one gets are always based on the question you ask. If you ask simply for "give me more processing power" then the easy answer is to make the CPU run faster and faster. But we've seen with Intel's CPU approach how the faster you make the CPU go, the more power it consumes, the more heat it dissipates, the more you have to spend on cooling systems and the more you spend on power.
But if you ask for a broader picture of "more power at lower cost of ownership" that changes how you approach the problem. And if you toss in "oh, and it would be nice if it saved the planet" the approach is changed again.
I'm a software guy and if I say anything more I'll probably get in trouble.
(2005-12-09 09:45:07.0) Permalink Comments [0]
