Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

And of course, the web is already overflowing with head lines saying "The Second Life Killer is finally here!" Hmmm... While you ALWAYS have to take Google's project seriously ... is hard to see a Second Life "Killer" here.

Lively reminds me of IMVU, Vivaty and the early Kaneva. It is not a virtual "world" but a network of loosely connected scenes. This is a quite popular model for many platforms calling themselves "virtual worlds", which appeared on the market in the last 3 years. I am uncertain, if this model will be too successful in the long run.

This does not mean, that this could not reach a huge target audience. But the competition is already there. And some of the products already on the market do not look too bad. Vivaty, which has a very similar approach (as far as one can judge it now), has the big advantage of being tightly integrated with Facebook and AIM.

Let content creators sell ads.

$90 million this year; other estimates have it as high as $200 million. Even at the high end, that would be just a touch more than 1% of Google's total revenue

YouTube targets advertising by channel or vertical, such as comedy or music, rather than around specific videos.

Obasanjo writes, "Google is tipping it's search results to favor Knol. Or at least that is the conclusion of several search engine optimization (SEO) experts and also jibes with my experiences." He Danny Sullivan, who writes, "I was surprised to see a post covering how Knol's How to Backpack was already hitting the number three spot on Google. Really? I mean, how many links could this page have gotten already?" Also, Aaron Wall notes that "if Google notices duplicate content then it favors the content on Knol over a site that has existed for years and has decent PageRank."

What Is Web 2.0? Web 2.0 is the next evolution of the web that has a new usage paradigm as well as a new technology paradigm. The former is characterized by “architecture of participation” and the latter is characterized by “architecture of partition”. The “Consumer-centric” View Causes Confusion There is no doubt that the “web 2.0” phenomenon is ignited by the success of consumer websites like MySpace, YouTube and Flickr.  From these consumer website, analysts established “social networking” via the network effect as a key feature of web 2.0. Though it is possible that enterprise oriented social computing applications may emerge to address specific enterprise concerns, it is not clear how social networking can change enterprise IT on a more fundamental level. Analysts further characterized “Architecture of Participation” as another key element of web 2.0, as evident from YouTube and Flickr. Similarly it is unclear whether/how “architecture of participation” would impact enterprise IT mission. Enterprise IT’s mission is simple: to enable and facilitate the interaction and integration of IT systems and people. There is no doubt that web 2.0 applications like blogs and wikis based on “architecture of participation” can be useful to enterprises, but is there anything beyond blogs and wikis? The key technology behind most consumer web 2.0 websites, Ajax, is not new. The popular “mashup” concept sounds new but in reality is based on what has been built into the browser for many years. The “consumer-centric” perspective limits how we look at the technology aspect of web 2.0 and leads to the conclusion that web 2.0 involves no technology advancement. Further, “architecture of participation”, “social networking” and “harness the collective intelligence” are all usage patterns. They do not relate to technology. In fact, they can be supported well on web 1.0 technologies; reinforcing the common belief that web 2.0 has no technology foundation but rather a buzzword created by marketers.  The Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Tim O’Reilly observed the differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0 from a consumer perspective in his original essay: Web 1.0   Web 2.0 DoubleClick --> Google AdSense Ofoto --> Flickr Akamai --> BitTorrent mp3.com --> Napster Britannica Online --> Wikipedia personal websites --> blogging evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB domain name speculation --> search engine optimization page views --> cost per click screen scraping --> web services publishing --> participation content management systems --> wikis directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy") stickiness --> syndicationFrom Consumer Web 1.0 to Consumer Web 2.0    From an enterprise perspective, web 2.0 introduces a very different set of changes:  Web 1.0   Web 2.0 Browser --> Application Client Container HTML --> Declarative application markup HTTP(pull, unreliable) --> Push, pub/sub, reliable Application Server --> Mashup Server Appilcation Integration --> Enterprise Mashup/SOA Press release --> Corporate blogs Packaged software --> On demand/Saas Close source --> Open source Top down (dictatorship) --> Bottom up (democracy) Superbowl Ad/TV --> Google AdFrom Enterprise Web 1.0 to Enterprise Web 2.0 The Two Pillars: Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0 Web 2.0 has two pillars: consumer web 2.0 and enterprise web 2.0. These two do overlap, in particular, in the area of social computing. Consumer web 2.0 and enterprise web 2.0 have different characteristics, as shown below: Consumer Web 1.0   Enterprise Web 2.0 Architecture of Participation Architecture of Partition Social networking On Demand computing/SaaS Harness collective intelligence Enterprise social computing HTML Mashup Enterprise mashup Rich User Experience Rich User Experience The Web As Platform The Web As PlatformKey Characteristics of Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0 The technology paradigm shifts with web 2.0 brings tremendous, tangible and measurable ROI to corporate IT. Further, the new possibilities enabled by web 2.0 such as social computing are bringing corporate IT to new horizons.

Males and females are distributed unequally across the age categories, as shown in Figure 1 (for the earlier sample) and Figure 2 (for the later sample). That is, there are more female than male “teens,” and more male than female “adults.” Participation by gender is equal only in the “emerging adult” category in the later sample.

Age was coded into two categories for the earlier sample (adult and teen, operationalized as less than 20 years of age). For the later sample, we added an “emerging adult” category for authors between the ages of 20 and 25 (cf. Arnett, 2000), based on our impression after coding the first sample that many “adult” blog authors were in their early 20's

Google Wave is a new communication service

formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more

free-form workspace