For many users of Google Docs, that answer is "no." According to Google's Help Topic on SSL as well as their Google Apps Edition comparison guide, SSL is a feature only made available to users of Google Apps Premier and Education Editions. However, in some informal testing on our part, it appears that users of Google Apps for Your Domain were given that option as well, despite the fact that their Google Apps edition clearly reads "Standard." For everyone else, though, Google Docs remains an unencrypted HTTP session.

In a business or educational setting where Google Docs is being used, your I.T. admin has probably turned on SSL for you by activating the feature that forces SSL sessions for all users. If they have not, though, you can still switch on SSL for yourself, says Google, but their help documentation fails to explain how that can be done. All the documentation says is that "your users can enable HTTPS when necessary."

What they probably mean is that anyone can type in "https" when entering in the URL for a Google Apps service in the address bar of their browser. Since your average internet user doesn't think about these sorts of things, though, that's probably not the best solution in terms of security.

While we hope that any I.T. admin in a corporate setting knows well enough how to enable a basic security feature such as this, it would still make us more comfortable if these sorts of things were enabled by default. The only reason to not enable SSL is because it can slow down your connection to Google services. Still, in the event of network issues, I.T. admins could temporarily disable this feature to speed up access for their users. But Google hasn't chosen to make security the default - they've chosen speed.

Outside of Google Apps, everyday users of Google Docs don't have an option in their Google Docs settings to force the service to always use SSL. Like those with a neglectful I.T. admin, these Docs users would have to remember to type in the "https" prefix if they want to use a secure connection.

SSL Implemented Haphazardly

Manually typing in "https" is all well and good, but let's face it - most users won't ever know to do this and those of us who do know won't remember. Not only is this process laborious, it's inefficient, too. For example, those who want to take advantage of the Gmail Calendar and Docs widgets, which allow for one-click access to other Google services from within Gmail, would have to forfeit a secure connection in order to do so. The only recourse would be to not use the widgets at all, and that certainly disrupts our workflow.

However, if you've enabled SSL within your Gmail settings, connections to your other Google services will also be encrypted if you use the navigation bar at the top left of your Gmail...but only if you use the navigation bar. Even when signed into your Google account, typing in "docs.google.com," "calendar.google.com," or using the Gmail widgets will still take you to the HTTP site.

At Least They Have SSL...

What's really unfortunate about this potential security issue is the fact that Google is actually leading the way among webmail and web app providers when it comes to offering SSL to its users. Although other free webmail services from Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL, for example, may authenticate you upon login via HTTPS, they drop down to unencrypted mode immediately after the authentication is completed.

However, it could be argued that those other services are not claiming to be a secure replacements for business use. Since Google promotes Apps as a web-based alternative to expensive desktop software, many people mistakenly assume that means Google services are, in general, "pretty much" secure for personal use, too. Apparently, that's only true to a point.

It's also worth pointing out that nothing, not even SSL, can keep a determined hacker out of your account. As ZDNet reported at the beginning of the year, even SSL can't keep blackhats from hijacking your session through the use of "sidejacking," a trick that enables hackers to take control of any Web 2.0 app that relies on saved cookie information. (There have also been other reports of Google Docs security issues, but we couldn't reproduce the problem.)

Providing SSL to everyone is the least Google could do. And to the other webmail/web app providers out there: it's time you followed suit.

In addition to displaying account balances, this new gadget, now available for download from Fidelity Labs, can also be configured to display alerts on certain account-related activities, including trade notifications and price trigger alerts. Customers can choose to either add the Secure Gadget as a standalone gadget or they can click a button to add a customized Fidelity Tab to their iGoogle. The tab includes the gadget itself, plus two RSS feeds from Fidelity: Fidelity Investor's Weekly and Fidelity Investment Insight Podcast.

Fidelity iGoogle tab (click to view larger):

To use the gadget, customers log in using their SSN or Customer ID and PIN, as they would do online. That information is not saved on Google's servers on any other 3rd party servers, says Fidelity.

The Fidelity Labs web site states that they developed the gadget, but it looks to us like it came from WorkLight, an enterprise 2.0 startup whose banking 2.0 survey data we reviewed earlier this year. At that time, the survey results showed that nearly half of the respondents said they would use web 2.0 tools if offered by their current bank. We also took note of the secure banking gadgets they had under development - gadgets that greatly resemble this one from Fidelity - which we considered to be very promising technology.

The release of Fidelity's gadget may hint at the beginnings of a new trend in banking - making banking 2.0 mainstream. Along with numerous web 2.0 services for managing finances, many of today's banking customers can manage their money from their mobile phones while other customers are receiving personalized recommendations on their iPhones, as well. However, none of the services offered so far have the potential for mainstreaming banking 2.0 the way a Google homepage gadget could. It's already a technology most everyone is familiar with and it's being offered by the financial institution itself, which should help customers feel comfortable about its security. We hope more financial institutions will start offering gadgets of their own in the near future.

• Hardware costs: You have to either buy machines or add your software to existing servers and manage them. If it is a mission-critical application, you will probably need dedicated machines and back-ups.
• Additional software costs: You will most likely need an OS, application server software, a database, monitoring software, etc. Many of these products are open source now, but there are still associated costs.
• Implementation costs: In my experience, the implementation costs associated with a behind-the-firewall solution are always higher than those of a SaaS application. There is simply more to do. You will either pay consultants or use your own valuable resources and time to worry about installing software, integrating it, building servers, configuration, etc.
• Maintenance labor: If you have in-house software, there is going to be some level of effort required to keep it happy. Your IT people will need to take care of it, which will keep them from doing more value-added activities.

Another huge factor here is the ability to get the latest and greatest technology. Once you install software in a data center, it becomes more difficult to upgrade and maintain it (especially if you customize it). In such a case, you will be stuck with old software that you will have to replace in the same time frame described above. In other words, unless you are absolutely sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your licensed software is going to meet your business needs for 5 years or more, then SaaS might make financial sense.

Let's look at a real-world example. A 100-person company has been sharing files via email and internal servers. The executives have finally concluded they need to join the 21st century and put a solution in place. One option is to implement SharePoint. Here is a rough estimate of what that might cost:

Year 1
MOSS server = $4,500
User client access license = $90
Hosting and maintenance = $5,000
Implementation and developer support = $20,000
Total = $29,590

Year 2 and on
Hosting and maintenance = $5,000
Developer support = $3,000
Total = $8,000

I know of a SaaS solution that has 80% of the file-collaboration functionality of SharePoint but charges $850 per month for 100 users.

Year 1
SaaS fees = $10,200
Implementation support = $10,000
Total = $20,200

Year 2 and on
SaaS fees = $10,200
Total = $10,200

It would take over 4 and a half years before the licensed software became cheaper. By that time, I'm quite sure there would be another solution that could replace SharePoint, and the cycle would start again. We can quibble about the numbers, but you get the point. Plus, the numbers don't reflect that the SaaS solution is likely to improve and innovate faster than the licensed software by a significant amount.

What do you think? Have you done this analysis, and what did you conclude?

While systems and software used to be very "behind the scenes" and often transaction-based, that is the case no longer. Consumers and businesses alike buy differently, consume differently, and recommend differently. Trends such as social networking, video on demand, and e-commerce will continue to force businesses to adapt to keep up with their customers. They cannot rely on systems that take years to implement, and most don't have the budgets to make large investments, at least they won't for the next couple of years.

The growing focus on SaaS, cloud computing, application platforms, etc. are all responses to this growing trend in the market. There will be other solutions in the future for mobile, etc. that we haven't even imagined. They all drive businesses to use systems that they can deploy, change, and retire quickly. In my main job, I remember meeting a venture capitalist who talked about how his firm looks for opportunities in which it sees lots of "wiggling." He couldn't describe what that really meant, or how one gets paid for wiggling. I thought he was a lunatic.

In retrospect, he does make a good point. Things happen quickly on the Internet and in this changing global economy. When a business sees wiggling (or opportunities), either positive or negative, they need agile systems to respond. One-size-fits-all software and packaging are going the way of the VCR. I think this will continue to grow in importance and focus as enterprises evaluate new systems and invest in new technology. What do you think?

Jott moved to a paid model following a successful free beta. I spoke with Jott CEO John Pollard to learn how they did it and how it is working out for them.

Jott still has free service, but it's been put together such that if you are a frequent Jott user, you'll be very tempted to upgrade. The upgrade itself is less than $4 so I suspect many people will go for it. Jott has a variety of plans to choose from including free, basic, pro, pay-as-you-go, etc.

The company based these plans largely on user behavior and lots of data. When they started the company, they knew they would ultimately have a free and paid version, but had to learn the rest along the way. For example, they had to find out if their customers were home makers, road warriors, students, professionals, etc.

Some of the factors they experimented with during the beta program included turnaround times, length of recordings, and features. By collecting data around user behavior and usage, they were able to model scenarios and identify trends. They then used focus groups, the Jott user group, and conjoint analysis (a very cool survey technique requiring users to make trade-offs on product features versus price) to come up with the different packages. They were very confident that some professionals wouldn't want an ad-supported service, and the research confirmed it.

As you can imagine, they overcame significant challenges along the way. While many users understand that Jott has to put food on the table, there were users who were shocked that a company dare ask for money. Personal note: this is both a common and ridiculous sentiment that has grown as more "free" things pelt us, but that is a conversation for another day.

John and company decided to be extremely transparent about the process and spent significant time in their forums, hitting the blogs, and using other marketing mechanisms to tell their story and let users know what was going on. John admitted they could improve on the communication front, but they did a solid job. The communication philosophy was to tell the users what was coming, tell them when it was coming, and explain why - as many times and in as many places as they could.

The company is very pleased with the conversion process so far. They are apparently hitting their goals and on plan. One pleasant surprise according to Jott is the percentage of people selecting annual plans; John said they are getting 10 times the number of annual subscribers that they expected. I'm not surprised as I'm sure a large percentage of Jott users are business customers, and this is the most efficient way to get something expensed; although this is pure speculation on my part.

John has good advice for other companies embarking on this journey. First, talk to your customers as much as possible. Really talk to them and understand the problem you are trying to solve and how they use the product or service. Second, utilize web-based tools like conjoint analysis to gather quantitative information to make decisions. Finally, try to be transparent and don't surprise your customers; they hate that. If you build something that people want and value, you can ask them for money and it is good business.

Getting Started

After signing up, you will be greeted with the currently empty dashboard, which gives you a few shortcuts to start customizing your plan with your company logo, invite your team members, and create your first goal.

As you customize your plan, you also get the option to set a default currency for your financial information. The default currencies are Dollars, Euros, Yen, and Pounds, but you can also change this to any other currency you might need.

Setting Goals

You goals can only fall into three categories: Solutions, Marketing and Sales, or Organization. While this simplicity makes sure that you do not unnecessarily complicate things by starting to micro-manage your goals, some companies might find this too limiting. On the other hand, as the folks at Organized Wisdom point out, PlanHQ is not so much a project management tool, but "an action management tool."

Correction: You can actually create your own categories, though this function is a bit hidden and can only be found in the settings menu. The folks at PlanHQ assured as that they were going to make this more obvious and add more links to these customization options in a couple of spots throughout the site.

The overall process of creating a goal is quite simple and asks you to define your goal, the importance of that goal, the team members responsible for achieving it, and, optionally, you can also send a message about the goal to your team and board members. Of course, you can also set the deadline for your goal here.

As is typical in this kind of application, once a goal is created, other users can comment on it and add attachment to it as well.

As you add more goals, you can then later reschedule them, mark them as done etc. PlanHQ will keep track of this and will gently remind you if you start falling behind at some point.

As PlanHQ's founder Tim Norton told us, some customers also use the goals feature as a bug tracking tool, with the advantage that all team members can easily keep an eye on the development instead of the developers working only in the silo of their own system.

Financials

The 'Financials' section of PlanHQ follows the same guidelines as the goal setting section, in that it tries to keep things simple, but without dumbing down the process. You can add information about your budget and actual expenses here and based on this, PlanHQ creates a number of graphs and general statistics indicating if you are on your path to profitability yet. It's important to note that PlanHQ here is trying to give you a general overview of your financials and that it is not a complete financial planning tool.

What was missing here, we thought, was the ability to import or export any of this data. However, we have heard from PlanHQ that they are planning on adding the ability to import and export spreadsheet in the near future and that they are especially considering some form of integration with the spreadsheet component in Google Docs.

Cost

PlanHQ offers a three month free trial for RWW readers, but after that, you will have to sign up for a paid plan. PlanHQ offers three different plans, ranging from $9 a month for a plan with 3 team members and 10 active goals, to the 'Small' plan for $24 a month and 15 active goals, up to the 'Pro' plan, which offers an unlimited number of team members as goals. Both the 'Small' as well as the 'Pro' plan include the ability to set private goals and connect through a secure SSL connection.

What About Basecamp?

Basecamp, at first sight, would be the closest direct competitor to PlanHQ (even the URLs are similar, after all). But even though they share a lot of functionality (to-dos, writeboard, milestones, etc., PlanHQ is more focused on teams and achieving goals. During our tests, it seemed that using PlanHQ would make it easier to focus on the big picture, while Basecamp seemed to invite more micro-managing.

Signing Up

PlanHQ is giving our readers a special deal: while you would normally only get a 30 day free trial, signing up through this link will get your thee months of free service.

In this latest post, a summary of the speech Haque had planned for the conference, he claimed that 21st century capitalism needs a revolution. As businesses focus solely on profits, large part's of the world's population still fight extreme poverty. And our wealth, he says, isn't even sustainable:

We're richer, but that wealth doesn't reflect durable, authentic economic value - which is hitting fast diminishing returns. The growth that we're pursuing is neither sustainable - nor is it, in many ways, real growth at all.

This manifesto for change comes at an important time, when a recent, but growing trend of Web 2.0 ennui is beginning to strike the citizens of the social media landscape. Even VC Fred Wilson was recently caught wondering if he was "bored with Web 2.0," saying:

But I am a bit jealous of friends who are working on finding and funding alternative energy or biomedical technologies that have the potential to address the serious problems facing the world. At times it seems that helping the web become more social, intelligent, mobile, and playful is not as impactful.

Looking For Meaning

Our recent obsessions of late with all the latest new shiny objects, while fun, often leave us with an emptiness that comes from participating in what's ultimately inconsequential behavior in a world that's filled with turmoil. Thanks to the non-stop information flow coming in from all areas of the web, we're acutely aware of the suffering that's going on in countries with political turmoil, of how the latest natural disaster has torn apart people's lives, and even what challenges the disadvantaged populations from within our own borders face.

While a healthy dose of social media is fun and sometimes informative, it rarely taps into our desire to feel as if what we're doing has meaning or purpose. Being "social" online tends to be a casual activity where you make friends or share news, and not one where you're fighting to solve the world's problems. (Although we did discover a few ways to use social media for social good not too long ago, they're often few and far between). Web 2.0 is is like Internet candy (well, maybe not as sweet as lolcats and YouTube), but it's definitely not, for the most part, a satisfying meal.

Maybe that's as it should be - there's nothing wrong with having fun - but perhaps it's time for a shift. The social tools we know and love won't go away, but do we need more and more of the same? In the end, Web 2.0 is supposedly not making any money anyway, so why not use our knowledge to build tools to better the world instead?

Ideas Exist, But Where's the Money?

The ideas are already out there. Take for example, this post by Paul Lamb on MediaShift Idea Lab. He envisions a mobile app that could empower poor communities through the power of technology.

The fictional app called LOCOBEAT makes social media and collaboration a real tool for change for empowerment. The app, designed for use by the overlooked, low income segments of the U.S. population would map the neighborhood to provide users with safe routes to work and school; send alerts which post to the map when new job openings are available; the social network of the apps' users would keep them connected so as to communicate to each other about possible job postings, like a mobile LinkedIn; the app's music sharing service would let users rate music, and that is used by the community to promote local artists; text messages from the grocer would be sent to alert users when items go on sale; etc.

Alexander Vanelas also reminded us about Muhammed Yunus's idea for Microcredits, small loans to help poor gain employment.

Those are just a couple of ideas, and LOCOBEAT only lacks the people willing to fund and develop it. But where are the rest?

Time To Change?

In a post on SeedWatcher, Marc Hustvedt responds to Haque's article and ponders "how can we use Twitter to fight global hunger?" However, the real question may be "can we use Twitter to fight global hunger?" Will the tools of change really be the Twitters and Facebooks of today, or will we need to embrace a whole new paradigm designed just for the purpose of change? Isn't about time we put our money where our mouth is and find out?

Image Credits: Boredom: ArSiSa7; Shift: emilyd10; Money: TWCollins]]> Discuss]]> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bored_with_web_20_demand_chang.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bored_with_web_20_demand_chang.php Trends Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:36:33 -0800 Sarah Perez Yahoo! has joined forces with the Seven Network, one of Australia's leading television and media companies. A new 50-50 holding company will be formed that will own Yahoo Australia & NZ and operate under a new name, to be announced in January. A PDF presentation about the deal is here, which states (among other things) that Seven and Yahoo! "will use this vehicle as the exclusive online and mobile platform in Australian and NZ." See also paidcontent.org's take on the news.

At first glance this is a straight forward business deal combining Yahoo!'s global search and technology platform with Seven's localized "rich media and entertainment content". I wonder though if this is a test case for Yahoo's future media plans, signaling bigger things to come. Is a major deal with a US television network on the cards in 2006? Stranger things have happened - i.e. Time Warner's tumultuous marriage to AOL.

Yahoo CEO Terry Semel was quoted in the press release:

"Yahoo! and Seven have very complementary businesses and brands, and we see this as a tremendous opportunity to build a leadership position in Australia. This is the best combination to benefit from increased broadband penetration, rich media consumption, and the growing cross-media advertising spend. Together, I believe we can deliver the most engaging and innovative rich media experience for Australian audiences and advertisers."

Look for more Internet-bigmedia marriages in 2006 - rich media will be huge next year I believe. Let's hope such deals will be more successful than Time Warner and AOL, who ended up sleeping in separate bedrooms.

Now Jason Calacanis, who recently pocketed a large sum of money by selling weblogsinc to AOL, has come out and said BoingBoing's value is closer to "between 500k and $3M". Jason wrote:

"Boingboing, like any other web property, is worth 1-10x revenue and 5-30x earnings. So, if BB does 30-50k a month/360-600k a year (which seems possible to me based on the ~5m page views a month) it would be worth between 500k and $3M (based on revenue since with five mouths and server hosting to pay for it doesn't really have earnings--yet!). Those numbers fall into line with my calculation of a really loyal user being worth $1-3."

Personally I like Om's numbers better, because it makes me a multimillionaire on paper. But I suspect Jason's figures tell a few home truths about what it takes to actually do a deal. On the other hand, eyeballs still seems to be the currency of choice in the Web world - bubble or not. How many current Web 2.0 companies are earning decent revenue? Perhaps that only goes to prove Jason's point, that it's all bubble talk.

I'll stop now before I get totally out of my depth - financial analysis not being my forte. But I'm interested in what people have to say about it. Who do you think is closer to the mark - Om (eyeballs, $34M for BB) or Jason (revenue, earnings, 500k-$3M for BB)?

Ben's made a start with the big Internet companies:

G (GOOGLE) - $109B, 86 P/E
E (EBAY) - $61B, 61 P/E
M (MICROSOFT/MSN) - $290B, 23 P/E
A (AMAZON) - $17B, 35 P/E
Y (YAHOO) - $54B, 35 P/E
A (AOL/TIME WARNER) - $83B mkt cap, 31 P/E incl Time Warner

Others.
IACI - $9.2B mkt cap, 6.6 P/E
NEWSCORP : $48B, 21 P/E
APPLE : $51B, 39 P/E

See also my ZDNet post on Alexa stats, where I mention that Yahoo and Google's market cap was essentially equal in May this year. But Google has since grown to over double the size of Yahoo!

"Google does innovate in some spaces but has largely innovated in order to gain entry in markets that already existed. As a rule of thumb, they've been very smart at breathing new innovations in those markets. However, their competitors are generally quick to notice and are catching up."

Jeremy Zawodny outlines his Google is Building Yahoo 2.0 theory in response - which btw I had the pleasure of hearing first-hand last month when I visited the Yahoo! campus. Jeremy wrote:

"...it's as if someone decided to re-invent more and more of Yahoo's popular services in random order, giving them a fresh user interface, less historical baggage, and usually one feature that really stands out (such as Gmail's storage limit or Google Talk's use of Jabber)."

Scott Gatz, who is Senior Director of Personalization Products at Yahoo!, also weighs in on his blog:

"Google is replaying Yahoo’s playbook circa 1996. Back then, we simply looked at what people were searching for and then built services that they wanted. Filo called the query logs “our to-do list”."

A lot of other people are saying that Yahoo! should focus on producing their own 2.0s - e.g. Dave Winer and Om Malik.

My take is that of course the Big 3 (I think we can discount AOL from this level of competition) have a very similar product line - because they're all building 'portals'. It may not be currently fashionable to call them portals, but basically Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft are all trying to integrate products and services into one-stop shops for their millions of users.

Of course Yahoo! has been doing that for 10 years or so now, although Microsoft has been no slug either with its MSN offering. Google is relatively new to this game, so it appears like they're copying the other two. But I see it more as a generic product and service line that any big player hoping to be an Internet Portal needs to pad out.

What's of more interest to me is the 2.0-izing going on in each of the Big 3 right now. Dave and Om are right to point out that this is what each of the Big 3 should be doing. I think Yahoo! is already doing that with their media focus; and Microsoft is making all the right noises in its Windows Live and Office Live announcements.

I'm not sure what Google is doing, other than continuing to create portal products (some of them killer, like Gmail) and generally scaring the bejeebers out of Silicon Valley start-ups with beta experiments like Google Base. Everyone is waiting for Google to announce a cohesive and integrated Web 2.0 plan of attack, but Google isn't talking - even Sergey Brin at the Web 2.0 Conference didn't get drawn into the portal debate. And that's what makes them so dangerous!

"The idea that human judgment can improve a search engine's automatic findings is hardly new. From the dawn of the Web's history - that is, over the last 15 years - companies have invented tools to help users assess the quality and relevance of information, often by relying on others' opinions. Examples include Amazon's user reviews, eBay's feedback ratings and "trusted networks" created on many sites.

What is different is Yahoo's systematic plan to build "community intelligence" into nearly all aspects of its operation - and in turn, to entice users to spend more and more of their time on Yahoo sites, where they can see Yahoo ads. The clearest example, of many I heard about, can be seen at http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com, the beta version of a new search site."

(emphasis mine) Also a couple of great soundbites from Yahoo! staff:

"We're really about getting the average consumer to move their lives online."

"The value of the system is in the aggregate."

The word "system" was mentioned 8 times in the article - not sure if that was the NY Times reporter's particular obsession, or the word was used frequently by the Yahoo! people he interviewed.

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.

* 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.

My thoughts

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.