I think you will continue to see the mega networks continue to lose regular users as new technologies now allow people and organizations to easily develop their own unique, branded, niche networks. In addition, open social, etc. will make people's social networks portable. At our firm, we are having a lot of success within open source mash-ups specifically for health care organizations and consumers. http://blog.dlc-solutions.com. These open source solutions, such as drupal and moodle, are enabling us to provide robust, cost effective Web 2.0 solutions to medical societies and not-for-profit organizations.
Social networks aren't going anywhere. Some of the new ones that take lots of VC money might though because as they struggle to make money, smaller sites like http://www.subbmitt.com spring up and get going with no VC money at all.
Big sites like Facebook & MySpace will continue to be successful because the longer you use a site like those, the harder it is to leave since it would be impossible to migrate all of your information to other sites.
I'm going against the grain and saying Facebook. Why? Because they are dangerously skating on spam-like waters, the switching cost is pretty low (think how many sites have autopopulated your profile) and people will flock to the sites that have the least intrusion. I think Facebook could be taken over by a better innovator with more value. (plus, their tagline points to a clear lack of deep understanding and vision / business management -- Facebook is not a "utility" -- pick a more insightful direction. Maybe I'll be convinced then. I use LinkedIn but really any current social "utility" can be eradicated by an compelling social experiment much like Starbucks did with music. Someone will invent a whole new game that supercedes what Facebook is doing today. Facebook will be kindergarten to us in 5 years.
The major mass generic social networking sites will peak out and either fragment into special-interest and professional niches, or they will die or become obsolete digital junk piles of personal trash.
Web 2.0 is just an expression describing a new wave of dynamic applications on the internet. Similar to the DotBOMB epidemic in the late nineties-early 2000's - we'll see where it goes.
The trick really is just staying innovative and on top of technology (which is spread so thin and wide now). Being first is always a plus, but being right is always better.
It's paradoxical but I think that global web 2.0 communities are likely to struggle in the near future. As one general community emerges as the evident leader, the others will start to lose their capacity.
I say its paradoxical because I think the future of web 2.0 is smaller communities that really engage niche markets and special groups, however, it's hard for anything less than a global initiative to get the startup capital needed to launch a successful community.
I believe the key is what I call the 98-2 equation. Either the user percieves a 98% value or he/she is not prepared to give in exchange the 2% that produces a profit, may that be whatever, advertising, value added payments, service fees...
In the words of Seth Goodin, "Its got to be remarkable" If the 2.0 idea is not one people want to talk about, if it is just another 2.0 tool, if it is not a purple cow, it will not make it. Would thousands of web masters and bloggers be willing to remark on you 2.0 site?
10 Total
May 1, 2008 at 10:11am
Jeremy LundbergI think you will continue to see the mega networks continue to lose regular users as new technologies now allow people and organizations to easily develop their own unique, branded, niche networks. In addition, open social, etc. will make people's social networks portable. At our firm, we are having a lot of success within open source mash-ups specifically for health care organizations and consumers. http://blog.dlc-solutions.com. These open source solutions, such as drupal and moodle, are enabling us to provide robust, cost effective Web 2.0 solutions to medical societies and not-for-profit organizations.
May 1, 2008 at 3:02am
Dimitri SokolovSocial networks aren't going anywhere. Some of the new ones that take lots of VC money might though because as they struggle to make money, smaller sites like http://www.subbmitt.com spring up and get going with no VC money at all.
Big sites like Facebook & MySpace will continue to be successful because the longer you use a site like those, the harder it is to leave since it would be impossible to migrate all of your information to other sites.
Social sites are the ultimate sticky sites.
April 27, 2008 at 12:36am
Richard GreenwoodWas web 0.2 when we went from phones to BBSs???
April 15, 2008 at 2:49am
Kris FuehrI'm going against the grain and saying Facebook. Why? Because they are dangerously skating on spam-like waters, the switching cost is pretty low (think how many sites have autopopulated your profile) and people will flock to the sites that have the least intrusion. I think Facebook could be taken over by a better innovator with more value. (plus, their tagline points to a clear lack of deep understanding and vision / business management -- Facebook is not a "utility" -- pick a more insightful direction. Maybe I'll be convinced then. I use LinkedIn but really any current social "utility" can be eradicated by an compelling social experiment much like Starbucks did with music. Someone will invent a whole new game that supercedes what Facebook is doing today. Facebook will be kindergarten to us in 5 years.
April 6, 2008 at 2:26pm
Frank FeatherThe major mass generic social networking sites will peak out and either fragment into special-interest and professional niches, or they will die or become obsolete digital junk piles of personal trash.
April 2, 2008 at 1:32am
Josh VonFeldtThere are thousands of websites out there utilizing web 2.0 tactics. Picking out websites that might struggle could be a lengthy project.
If a website is truly innovative, and ahead of the curve as web 2.0 sites should be, they should not be allowing themselves to fail.
April 1, 2008 at 4:13pm
John JosefWeb 2.0 is just an expression describing a new wave of dynamic applications on the internet. Similar to the DotBOMB epidemic in the late nineties-early 2000's - we'll see where it goes.
The trick really is just staying innovative and on top of technology (which is spread so thin and wide now). Being first is always a plus, but being right is always better.
April 1, 2008 at 2:45pm
Michael EdwardsIt's paradoxical but I think that global web 2.0 communities are likely to struggle in the near future. As one general community emerges as the evident leader, the others will start to lose their capacity.
I say its paradoxical because I think the future of web 2.0 is smaller communities that really engage niche markets and special groups, however, it's hard for anything less than a global initiative to get the startup capital needed to launch a successful community.
March 31, 2008 at 3:16am
Rodolfo CarpintierI believe the key is what I call the 98-2 equation. Either the user percieves a 98% value or he/she is not prepared to give in exchange the 2% that produces a profit, may that be whatever, advertising, value added payments, service fees...
**Rodolfo**
March 29, 2008 at 11:24pm
Jacob MinettIn the words of Seth Goodin, "Its got to be remarkable" If the 2.0 idea is not one people want to talk about, if it is just another 2.0 tool, if it is not a purple cow, it will not make it. Would thousands of web masters and bloggers be willing to remark on you 2.0 site?
Share your ideas