Gmail Engineer Paul Buchheit has a lovely post in which he explains why he created Gmail for Google. He begins by noting that email has just turned 34 - only one or two months younger than me as it happens. He goes on to say that Gmail gave him "the opportunity to change email". This description is fantastic:
"We didn't want to simply bolt new features onto old interfaces. We needed to rethink email, but at the same time we needed to respect that email already had over 30 years of history, thousands of existing programs, and nearly a billion users. So we started by learning which features were most important, and which problems were most aggravating. We also realized that solving everyone's problems was too big of a challenge for the first release. It would be better to build a product that a lot of people love, than one that everyone tolerates, and so that was our goal."
Gmail was released on 1 April, 2004. Apart from the gimmick of offering 1000MB of storage, Gmail had these innovations:
"Gmail included a quick and accurate search. It introduced powerful new concepts to organize email, such as the conversation view (so now I can finally see all those replies at once). It provided a fast and dynamic interface from web browsers everywhere, popularizing the techniques that have since become known as AJAX."
I'm a big fan of Gmail. Even though it's not perfect and the occasional "oops please check back later" messages can be annoying, Gmail is to my mind the first email system that was built purely for the Web. There were earlier web email systems, of course - Hotmail and Oddpost for example. But it wasn't until Gmail came along that I felt comfortable using a Web email system as my main and preferred method of email (I hardly touch Outlook now). That's because Gmail is in the same class of functionality as Outlook, only it has Web-native features such as the ability to check your email from multiple computers.
Some people prefer their Web email systems to mimic the functionality of desktop email systems. Sure it's easier for people to adjust to Web email if it's the same paradigm as desktop email, but the Web era is different in many ways to the PC era and so Web email should reflect that. Gmail was an outstanding attempt at introducing new concepts to Web email and they've largely been successful.
Say what you like about Google's stand-offish nature and perceived arrogance, one thing I admire about Google is that they continually look to disrupt (there's that word again) traditional computing paradigms and markets.
I'm looking forward to the next round of Gmail innovations. Thanks Paul for the great post!
Gabe Rivera's memeorandum got a great write-up in Wired News today. Also TechCrunch reported that memeorandum has a new feature, a news widget that bloggers can include on their site. As I was looking at tech.memeorandum again this morning (as I do multiple times a day), it struck me that the Flock coverage is a perfect example of how memeorandum tracks both a story and how the blogosphere mood for that story changes over time. Check out these headlines, in order of how they are running down the tech.memeorandum page at this point in time:
Flock - Why All the Buzz?
Will mainstream people flock to Flock?
Bloggers don't flock together
Flock Lands To Cheers & Jeers
Flock: It's your turn to fly
FLOCK: THE WEB 2.0 BROWSER TAKES OFF
Flock Not Ready for Primetime
Advanced browser gives taste of Web 2.0
Flock has Launched [TechCrunch post that started the thread, but which has now run its course and is off the memeorandum homepage]
Notice how the mood of the blogosphere changed from the launch (positive, excited) to the middle period when bloggers started to question ("Cheers and Jeers") to the slightly negative mood we're in now of wondering why all the buzz. The only odd headline out is 'Flock Not Ready for Primetime', which is a brand new link (15 mins old at time of this writing) and somehow isn't ready for being at the top of the page. Other than that, tech.memeorandum has accurately tracked the mood of the blogosphere - as well as the story.
Now, if only my headline - Will mainstream people flock to Flock? - would get back into the number 1 position ;-) I enjoyed a brief and unexpected reign at the top of the memeorandum pops this morning with that post :-)
By now most of you know that Flock, a trendy new Mozilla-based "social web browser", has gone live. Because it's said to be a quintessential Web 2.0 application, I feel duty-bound to try it out. So I've downloaded it and will give it a go as my main browser for a while. I won't however jump to conclusions and give you a half-baked review right now. But fear not, for there are plenty of great reviews around - including from members of the Web 2.0 Workgroup: TechCrunch, WeBreakStuff, SolutionWatch, Dion Hinchcliffe. ZDNet Aussie has a good write-up too.
There's also an interesting post by Bart Decrem, founder and CEO of Flock, in which he defends their choice to create a brand new web browser instead of just extending Firefox:
"One of the most appealing aspects of building on the Mozilla platform is that we can build on top of a platform that is designed, developed, and maintained by top engineering talent at Mozilla, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, Google and hundreds of community volunteers. Flock is a small startup, and our business model is premised on being able to build on top of all that work."
Fair enough. In my own testing of Flock, I'm going to focus on whether Flock will be suitable for mainstream, non-geek users. I'd like to think that if Flock is really a flagship Web 2.0 product, then it won't just end up being used by bloggers and Slashdot readers. Web 2.0 has to reach out to mainstream people, before the blogosphere implodes from all the 2.0 hype and anti-hype (the latter is worse than the former IMHO, because it has the added fuel of cynicism).
So 'Will Flock ever be mainstream' is going to be my angle when exploring this new Web 2.0 browser. I'll let you know how that goes.
UPDATE: Ben Barren picks up on my current 'disruptive' theme and asks: "My 'is this real disruption or not' question with flock is not whether it is an extension on Firefox, but will people really switch?" Ben's post is well worth reading. Also check out this BusinessWeek article in which Bart Decrem says he "hopes to have 100 million users within five years." Well, that would make it mainstream - if it happens. Also I meant to say: congrats to the Flock team on building and releasing what on the surface is an innovative browser play.
In my ZDNet blog, Web 2.0 Explorer, I've launched an Indiana Jones-like quest to find the Great Disruptive Web 2.0 Start-Ups of our era. I'm on the hunt for two separate types of disruptive start-ups:
1) disruptive technologies that could change the Web - like Google did.
2) non-geek services built using Web 2.0 technologies. These will be disruptive because we don't have many of them right now and Web 2.0 won't hit the mainstream until we do.
If you think you have a disruptive start-up, or you know of one, please email me: readwriteweb AT gmail DOT com.
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has filed a lawsuit against Google "over its plans to digitally copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owners". I liked how John Battelle summed it up:
"I really don't get this. I have been both a publisher and an author, and I have to tell you, these guys sue for one reason and one reason alone, from what I can tell: Their legacy business model is imperiled, and they fear change. Of course, if they can get out of their own way, they'll end up making more money. But that never stopped these guys - the MPAA, the RIAA, and now, the AAP."
Emphasis mine. It reminded me of my response to Nicholas Carr's Web 2.0 is Amoral post. Whereas Mr Carr and the 2.0 bashers over at The Register want to remain in cosy old 20th century mainstream media land, the reality is the Internet is changing media business models - right under their feet.
Just as you can't control who creates "quality" content in the age of the Web, you can't control how content is catalogued and made available to the masses. Wake up and smell the coffee MSM: you need to adjust to 21st century media business models, before they make you irrelevant.
And lest you think I'm a bit stir crazy, there are plenty of examples of MSM that are taking this seriously and leading the charge into 21st C media. BBC, Yahoo!, even Barry Diller in his funny way. Those are all great role models (well, perhaps not Diller...).
"Google has dropped the Gmail name for its e-mail service in the UK following a long-running row with a small British company that has claimed the rights to the trademark. [...] From today new users of Google's e-mail service will get an @googlemail.com address. Those that have already signed up will keep their @gmail.com addresses."
This is a blow to Google, because the name Gmail has become almost as synonymous with web email as Skype with Internet telephony.
I wonder if the 'G' brand of products is being re-thought? ;-) Google has already purchased these domains:
Gbrowser.com
Gbrowser.net
Gbrowser.org
Gcalendar.com
Gchat.biz
Gchat.us
Gdrive.com
Ben Barren's posts just keep getting better and better. Today he ponders the question: What Connects Richard MacManus + Jessica Alba?. He writes:
"we may need a "Post-Valley Intervention" - Since The Father of Web 2.0 has left The Valley he has gone stir crazy. He was last seen walking around the set of Lord of the Rings - Prequel to the Fifth Sequel, posting on a Treo 700 he'd bought on ebay qwertying -"what happens if Romanian birds eat the Web 2.0 worms?"."
Heh! :-) I have to admit, I have gone a bit stir crazy since leaving the valley... I do love being back in New Zealand though and being with my family.
Nicholas Carr, a real journalist, has a blog post that argues that Web 2.0 is amoral. That's a relatively uninteresting academic argument though. Of more practical import, is his rage against the "cult of the amateur". But I find it curious that he bases his argument against amateurs on a completely false statement:
"The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional."
Well I for one don't "distrust" professionals. Web 2.0 for me is about amateurs having the tools and opportunities to compete with professionals. Never in our history has it been so easy for "amateurs" (and I dislike that word) to publish to the Web - and via social software and networks stand a real chance for their voices to be heard.
My counter point: the best of these scruffy little amateurs will eventually rise to professional status and write/create for professional publications, or create their own professional brands and businesses. If I believed in Mr Carr's argument, those amateurs-turned-professionals would then turn into untrustworthy publishers. Wrong. Then Mr Carr says:
"The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices."
His reason? Because "free trumps quality all the time". He spends a lot of time denouncing the quality of the Wikipedia, to back his position up. My counter point is that of course more competition is going to make it more difficult for 20th century mainstream media to earn their living. But I think Carr is far too dismissive of our (as 'consumers') respect for and need for quality content. His assumption is that most people will choose free content over "quality" content. But what he's conveniently overlooking is that people these days are far more critical and active in their judgement of content quality. When I read the Wikipedia, I always do so with a critical eye. Likewise when I read blogs. Likewise when I read the NY Times (e.g. the Times' fluff piece about Inform.com the other day). It's not a question of free vs quality, it's a question of: what is my judgement of this piece of content, whether free or paid for. I don't consider that to be restricting my choices.
It is true that Web 2.0 is changing the economics of creative works, but quality will always rise to the top. Whether it's mainstream media or "amateur". The challenge for 21st century media companies is to leverage both professional and user-generated content; and find new ways to earn money from the best quality of it. Old 20th century media thinking won't work in Web 2.0.
Today The Register's Andrew Orlowski gleefully reported the existence of the first "Web 2.0 worm". Wrote our man in San Francisco: "It's been a rough weekend for Tomorrow's People. A JavaScript exploit that has been called the first "Web 2.0 worm" knocked out MySpace.com - and the $500m-valued website, recently acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp - was still struggling to get back on its feet two days later."
What I want to know is - what happens if Romanian birds eat the Web 2.0 worms?
A predictable disaster. ®
Microsoft Emerging Business Team member Don Dodge has another thought-provoking post on Internet business. Don notes how so many innovative companies who were market leaders in the 90's have been overtaken by the new era of "fast followers". Here's his list of examples:
* AltaVista -> Google
* Napster -> iTunes
* VisiCalc -> Lotus 123 -> Excel
* Word Perfect -> Word
* Netscape -> Internet Explorer
* Apple Newton -> Palm Pilot -> Blackberry
* IBM PC -> Compaq -> Dell
* Double Click -> Google Ad Sense
* Ofoto -> Flickr
* Compuserve -> AOL -> @Home -> Comcast & Verizon
That list is similar to Tim O'Reilly's list of Web 1.0 --> Web 2.0 companies. Tim mentioned two of the same examples in his list:
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Don suggests that inferior management decisions rather than inferior technology was the main reason why the 2.0 companies usurped the 1.0 ones.
It's also interesting to look at all the Web 1.0 companies that have continued their success in the 2.0 era. Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Microsoft too. All of those companies are known for their smart business management, as well as continuing to innovate and react to disruptive technologies.
Also of note is that a few of the old 1.0 companies are now attempting to re-invent themselves as 2.0 companies - e.g. Lycos building a "social interaction platform". In those cases, you have to wander whether it's a case of 'slow follower' and will it be enough?
Finally, the same principle of 'fast followers' can be applied on a micro scale to segments within 2.0. One example is RSS Aggregators, where Bloglines was the dominant force in Aggregators 1.0. I'd suggest we've entered the 2.0 era of Aggregators now and products such as tech.memeorandum are beginning to make their presence felt.
