« Magic and Fun with Emerging Technologies | Main | FAST Strategy and Learning »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451954769e200d83451954969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Complacency and Web 2.0:

Comments

sayen

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.

Jim Alateras

I suspect that it is more about the data than the api. The api to the data/resource is much uniform. Protocols such as the Atom Syndication Format and the Atom Publishing Protocol are providing a standard mechanism for publishing and syndicating data, which is at the core of web 2.0 (mash-ups).

Fabio Masetti

Mr Haghel I really aprreciate your work since Net Gain and Net worth.
I founf interesting this Vecosys post I wrote about in my blog.

http://www.vecosys.com/2007/05/18/mapstraction-provides-a-common-mapping-api-insurance/

Tom Smith

What are mashups for anyway?

Ty Graham

My feeling is in line with John here, if the business model can benefit from charging people to use the API then why not? If an infomediary provides services to consumers that companies want to tap into, for convince of both parties the API must have some sort of transactional component to leverage the cost of maintaining the benefit of the APIs service. Only time will tell, John, but soon, everyone is going to get blipd :)

kid mercury

i am surprised you forsee API usage being charged for. i was thinking the ones who issue the API are primarily infrastructure players, and that they will include ads in their APIs and share revenue with reconstructors that use the API. for instance, amazon affiliates can use amazon APIs to create their own custom amazon storefront and profit from affiliate fees on sales.

Charlie Wood

The tension between companies that are both platform and application providers (think Microsoft and Oracle) and the ISV's that build applications on their platforms (think Lotus and Salesforce.com) isn't unique to Web 2.0. The successful platform vendors and ISV's have been able to manage that tension to the benefit of all.

Salesforce.com runs on a big Oracle database while at the same time competing with Oracle applications. Lotus Notes runs on Windows... OK, bad example. :-)

But I disagree that the solution is to charge ISV's for API access. Microsoft made its billions not by levying such taxes on its ISVs, but by cultivating a fertile ecosystem. Of course it ultimately decided to crush the most successful ISV's in that ecosystem, but one could argue that its doing so coincided with the beginning of its decline.

Salesforce.com is beginning to require a $5,000 "certification" fee from ISV's that want to build and sell applications for its platform. Google on the other hand doesn't even require registration to use its API's. Time will tell which is the more successful approach. My money is on Google.

Regards,
Charlie

The comments to this entry are closed.