Pageflakes blurs read/write line
Pageflakes, one of the little startups in the
'personalized start page' market, has come out with a page publishing feature that
nicely connects with my post the other day: Web 2.0 market segment
mashups. In that post I noted that we're seeing a lot of market segment cross-over
nowadays, in terms of functionality and feature sets. I also made the point that
'personalized start pages' (such as Pageflakes) are designed to be a user's private homepage on
the Web for their content subscriptions and web apps. But at the time I thought they
didn't have much in common with the 'Microcontent Aggregators' I'd been reviewing (such
as Peoplefeeds and Suprglu), which are more focused on aggregating and publishing a
user's personal content onto one page.
However this new feature by Pageflakes puts those definitions to the test, because it enables you to publish your Pageflakes homepage so that others may view it - perhaps just friends, or even make it totally public. As explained by Ole Brandenburg:
"It's a good way to quickly setup a readonly site of yours on the web. Put notes, todo list, some feeds, a clock on your public page and you have a nice site of yours!"
So in a way, this publishing feature intersects with the content management functionality of the likes of Peoplefeeds and Suprglu. Or as Ian Kennedy from Yahoo! put it so well, in a comment on my market segment mashups post:
"The line between what you read and what you (re)publish is, as you point out, becoming blurred. This is a complex design problem but everyone's thinking about it so we should see some interesting solutions in the next couple of months."
Currently I think this feature by Pageflakes is 'read only' [update - correction, shared pages can in fact be edited] - but what if they went
even further and enabled other people to (re)write the site (subject to some security or
approval mechanism perhaps by the start page owner). That would add another layer onto
web services. Because if you publish your personal homepage so that others may read/write
it too, well then essentially you're creating a new web service. Or does that get too
confusing? :-)
At any rate, Pageflakes has around 70 widgets now (they call them flakes) and is one of the best start pages on the market currently. Both Pageflakes and Netvibes are doing some unique things and pushing the boundaries. I get the feeling there is room for more than a few 'little guys' in a market which also features Microsoft (live.com), Google, AOL and Yahoo widgets.
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2666
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Hi Richard,
thanks for the nice article. Two minor comments: I am not the CTO but responsible for marketing and bizdev. You mentioned the "read only" feature - however, we already offer the "sharing" feature which allows users that you invite to edit the team page. So you actually have 3 options:
private page (only you read/edit)
shared page (you and the people that you invite read/edit)
public page (you read/edit, others read only)
Cheers
Ole
Posted by: Ole Brandenburg | May 9, 2006 6:41 AM
Thanks for writing about us, Richard!
With regard to your comment that public pages are "read only" and that we could go even further: Actually, you can already share a page with your friends and allow those friends to edit your page as well.
So there are three privacy levels:
a) Private: Completely private. Only the owner of the page can view or edit it.
b) Shared: Invitation-only. Can be viewed and edited by the people invited by the owner.
c) Public: Can be viewed by anyone, but only the owner can edit.
Of course, all of this is still in its infancy. But maybe there's already a bit more than you noticed. :)
Posted by: Christoph Janz | May 9, 2006 6:47 AM
Oooops...Ole, when I wrote my comment, your comment was not there yet. Bad timing. ;-)
Posted by: Christoph Janz | May 9, 2006 6:48 AM
Thanks guys, updated my post to correct those things. Also sent an email with suggestions on updates to your info page on this, to clarify it.
http://www.pageflakes.com/sharinghelp.html
...because this is a little confusing:
"Sharing means invitation-only. If you share a page, only the people that you invite will be able to access it. These selected people will also be able to edit the page. If you publish a page, anyone can view it but only you can make changes."
The last sentence suggests it is read-only. Also the feature table confused me.
Thanks for the updates!
cheers, Richard
Posted by: Richard MacManus | May 9, 2006 1:23 PM
And so, I got myself a PageFlakes account to compare it with my Netvibes desktop. I must say upfront that I entered with trepidation, what if I had chosen the wrong one, how hard would it be to migrate - and therefore, I give you an "emotional attachment" alert!
To be honest the differences are neglibible.
Slightly differing ways in adding content (I prefer the PageFlakes method but what the hey). The layout is slightly nicer/easier to customise in Netvibes.
All the content came out similar - a bit more robust on Netvibes (showed "[...]" for rss feeds without titles whereas PageFlakes ignored the item). In essence they are the same product and I am sure one will learn from the other. I am also convident that they will both have their ardent and passionate supporters decrying the use of the other.
The ability to "publish/share" a page is definitely the point-of-difference at the moment though. I was nearly swayed to change because of it ... but then I thought, who wants to see it? Is my ego that big that I think people will come to my "home page"; heck I have enough getting people to come to my blog and that's just me without the BBC News and Wellington weather!
So maybe the sharing, at the moment, isn't the be-all-and-end-all ... maybe. More thoughts required from me on who the audience of my "home page" would/could be - or is it just an electronic version of "vanity publishing"?
Posted by: Mike Riversdale | May 9, 2006 3:11 PM
Hi Mike,
For someone like you (who already has a blog) the publishing feature might not be such an important feature. But I assume that there are still plenty of users out there who find it difficult to setup a blog and thus might like the very simply drag and drop (plus publishing) feature that PF is offering. For someone like you, the sharing feature might be more interesting. It can be used in both, professional and personal context. You could share (view and edit by whole team that you invite) a page with your friends and/or colleagues.
Could you give an example RSS feed where you described the "...ignored them..." problem?
As always, thanks for the feedback.
Cheers
Ole
P.S.: What's wrong with the weather in Wellington? ;-)
Posted by: Ole Brandenburg | May 9, 2006 9:09 PM
Thanks Ole - example of RSS feed title ignored (get it out of the way 1st) would be the standard Blogger Atom feed for JonnyB (http://jonnybillericay.blogspot.com/atom.xml) who never puts subjects to his posts.
Hmm, if it's too difficult to set up a Blogger account (say) then I'm not sure how someone's gonna cope with the wonderful functionality that you guys and gals (I assume) offer. My father managed the 3 step process of Blogger but I suspect he would be lost and confused if I asked him to run a PageFlake account or Netvibe account or 30 Boxes calendar or ... He, like quite a few real (non-ICT savvy) people even have issues with Gmail - maybe it's just getting used "doing" and not just "reading".
And finally, :-), nothing wrong with the weather in Wellington ... is there - unfortunately I'm down in Christchurch at the mo'. Leaving for the UK in 2 months for an 18 month adventure before returning to Wellington, yaaaay - and the weather will be perfect all the time ... probably.
"There's no such thing as bad weather, just innapropriate clothing" - Billy Conolly.
Posted by: Mike | May 10, 2006 2:55 AM
Hi Mike,
thanks again for your feedback. We are currently checking on the Feed problem that you described.
Have fun during your 18 month (!!) world trip.
Cheers
Ole
Posted by: Ole Brandenburg | May 11, 2006 7:42 AM