I’ve whined before about how web 2.0 was/is a threat to open source software. Open source is an ideology (although watered down from Stallman’s initial version) about openness, democracy, and participation. Web 2.0 is about free of cost. It’s a soul-less version of open source that relies on certain external conditions for it’s existence. Ideologies can outlive many waves of change. It’s too early to say that web 2.0 is on the wane due to economic pressures, but a concept tied to external realities (markets, politics) will always be challenged to live in tumultuous times. Web 2.0 Called; It Says It’s Just An Ad Platform Now: “Time and time again, many of the most innovative services online today run out of money before the huge number of potential and diverse users that could find value in them end up discovering them. Those services end up serving instead the world of advertising, or as is the case with many of the most awe inspiring research technologies – financial services professionals.”
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
4 Comments
Perhaps the optimistic future lies with open source Web 2.0. Compare Ning (Web 2.0 and ads) with Elgg (open source with Web 2.0 variants such as eduspaces). WordPress is another hybrid model. There is hope
I’d have to say you’re wrong about Web 2.0 being about free. I hate the ’2.0′ moniker because in truth, the web is evolving and user generated, accessible content, housed and shared in collaboratively built applications (largely open source) is how I often view Web 2.0.
There are plenty of examples of good social media with useful pay options, like Flickr. Okay, maybe not ‘plenty’ but the possibility is there.
I do agree with the notion that people expect everything to be free and there is easily another impending ‘crash’ on the horizon. Anything that’s going to survive at this point, usually does so when it’s gobbled up by a big, ad-supported, player.
I’m not sure that makes it a gigantic ad platform, but it does raise interesting questions about a much better model than currently exists.
Some financial services firms have access to the whole technology tree where they can pay technology firms to create customised versions of free web tools because they can see the benefits of being connected yet also continue to use the free web tools whilst they attempt to integrate the customised ones, possibly on a global scale. In some cases, it has been reported that use of wikis has helped (last paragraph) to encourage a culture of openness – it would be interesting to know the extent.
Does that mean that financial services professionals are using free open source, commercial open source and also promoting adoption of ‘sharing stuff’ and making everything more accessible to everyone – giving something back in return for being in such a fortunate position? Or is it just a convenient adoption of technologies but still an idealogy that some things need to be closed due to regulation?
I think that now is a great opportunity for financial services professionals to demonstrate leadership and engage the wider community so that even small startups can have a realistic picture of whether they are going to make it or not, whether obtaining venture capital is an option, or an alternative revenue model ? They seem to have a number of tools at their disposal to do this?
Oh and I seem to have lost the ability to spell
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] points to an article in the Read/Write Web about Web 2.0 being an “ad platform.” Ad [...]