That claim is probably meant to fight back against some people's initial concerns that hosting files on their own PC will leave them open to attack. However, simply addressing security issues is somewhat missing the point about the real trouble with Unite: it's not solving a problem we actually have.

According to the interview, Tetzchner addresses the concerns of those in the security community who fear this technology that aims to put a web server on every PC. He says, "when you're hacking a single system, if you have everything that belongs to everyone in one location, you only need to break in once. If you have it in different computers it's a little more complicated. If you get into one Web server and everyone's data is in there, that's easier than getting into a million computers."

While Opera and the tech community continue to debate the technology's security or lack thereof, the rest of the tech early adopters have simply moved on. Outside of the Opera fanatics (we know who you are!), most of us either skimmed the news briefly or, at the most, may have downloaded the alpha and played with it for a bit. But did the lot of us switch browsers and start sharing files? No.

Why is that? Shouldn't this be just the sort of thing that has techies all a'twitter? What's going on?

Where's the Geek Love?

When Opera revealed the mysterious (and perhaps overly-hyped) Unite, they probably didn't get the response they expected. After numerous emails and teases about a new technology that was going to "reinvent the web," for the most part, the community response was "huh?"

Oh sure, Opera fanboys and girls got it right away as did web developers and other geekier-than-thou folks, but even within the tech community itself, there was confusion...and a bit of "bah humbug" too.

We remember reading through various blog comments where users dismissed Unite as nothing more special than a browser with P2P plugins - a statement that's only true to a point. While the technology enables P2P between browsers, it does so via a proxy server in the middle at operaunite.com. That middle service could easily be a single point of failure for the Unite infrastructure. Opera Unite's proxy goes down, you go down. Sure, that might not be any different than the cloud services we rely on now: Gmail, Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, etc. However, even if one of those was to crash-and-burn, it wouldn't take our whole web of services down with it.

But Unite wants to replace just about every cloud app you use today with its own apps for file sharing, social note-posting, chat, photo sharing, and media playing...and that's not to mention how Unite wants to let you host your own web server, too. In other words, Opera wants to (partially) move the cloud back off the the web to your PC.

They even go so far as to claim that their single point of failure is an improvement on what we do today: "We place our trust in these third parties, and we hope for the best, but as long as our own computers are not first class citizens on the Web, we are merely tenants, and hosting companies are the landlords of the Internet," writes product analyst Lawrence Eng.

Thanks, but we'll take our numerous cloud apps over the Unite+PC combo any day.

What Problem Does Unite Solve?

When we started moving from desktop to web, initially testing the waters with email services, later moving to photo and video sharing services, and finally to social networking sites like Facebook that let us communicate and share media, the solutions being implemented were solving real challenges. Setting up desktop email was hard for non-techies (what's my email server's address? what's SMTP?). There were mailbox storage limits and attachment size limits. Letting grandma and grandpa see our digital photos wasn't easy. Getting in touch and staying in touch with our wide network of friends was downright impossible. But then these web applications came along and made it possible for everyone to use technology. They were simple, straightforward, and fun. And soon a Web revolution was underway. A real one, that is.

What problem does Opera Unite solve that could kick off the next revolution of the web? Are we having trouble with cloud services? Are we concerned that they're so insecure that moving everything via P2P through Opera is somehow better? Is Unite easier than Facebook? Than flickr? Heck, than email? No.

It's not easier for us techies by any means (especially since its tied to one browser) and it's not even close to being easy for the "regular folks" of the online world...you know, the ones who don't even know what a browser is

So security concerns aside, what is Unite doing for us that we can't get elsewhere? Anyone?

If you think we're missing the point, chime in below.

Hyperspeech Transfer Protocol (HSTP), a protocol designed to seamlessly connect telephony voice applications, will enable users to browse across voice applications by navigating the Hyperspeech (the voice hyperlink) content in a voice application.

In a 2007 paper describing the technology (PDF), IBM scientists explain the concepts of Hyperspeech using this scenario:

Jonathan is a busy salesman who travels frequently. His work typically requires him to stay in a place for a few days. Once he is in a new place, he has to go around looking for grocery stores in his locality for his daily needs. He prefers taking phone numbers of the identified stores and places orders on the phone subsequently. Home delivery services deliver the goods to his home. However, often the home delivery boys don't accept credit cards and even if some do, Jonathan tries paying by cash since he doesn't want to share his credit card information with untrusted home delivery agents. This often causes problems since he often runs out of cash.

The delivery boy comes within half-hour and delivers the goods to Jonathan.

Given India's position as the fastest growing mobile phone market in the world, this new protocol may be particularly useful in India, where mobile phone sales are booming despite our current economic crisis.

If you're interested in reading the entire paper, HSTP : Hyperspeech Transfer Protocol, you can download it here (PDF).

For big Internet companies, 2009 is going to be a very bad year for sure. Advertising profits are going to plunge, and consumers will spend less money overall, particularly on the web. There is little that can be done to change that. But what big companies can do is invest in innovation and killer moves that will bear fruit in the years to follow. Here is what we think would be cool for various big web companies to do in 2009.

Despite the downturn, Google remains a lean, mean revenue-generating machine. The search king has a strong hold on this area of the web, and as soon as things get better, its revenues will go up as well. So it makes sense to invest in its next strongest assets: video and its new adventure, the web browser.

1. Integrate Web-Wide Video Search in YouTube

We recently wrote here about YouTube and its rising popularity among kids. In a couple of years, a lot of web content is going to evolve from text to video, making YouTube a much bigger asset for Google. Even today, YouTube is already the second-largest search engine on the web.

However, it is a portal featuring only user-generated content. Google should seamlessly plug its video search into YouTube and bring videos from around the web to the surface using this same user-friendly interface. This would make YouTube the destination for people searching for any video content on the web.

2. Make Firefox Extensions Compatible with Chrome

Google Chrome made a big spash when it was launched earlier this year. Surely Google's foray into the browser war is very deliberate. Chrome looks like an excellent modern browser and already has a solid base of followers. But the road to mass adoption is quite steep, even if Google promotes Chrome via its home page and makes bundling deals with computer manufacturers.

One of the things that can definitely help Chrome gain adoption is extension support. Most early adopters use Firefox these days and love the Mozilla extensions that allow them to make the browser their own. A killer move would be for Google to support Firefox extensions. This would save a whole lot of time for all developers and users and would show that Google respects the existing web eco-system.

Tips for Microsoft

Everyone knows that Google is the new Microsoft and that Microsoft is the new IBM. Ever since it lost the search war to Google, the Redmond giant has been playing an agonizing catch-up game. And it has yet to make a dent in Google's market. Perhaps its most successful recent move has been investing $250 million in Facebook, which was valued at $15 billion. But while it was a clever strategic play, there is no impressive technology here. And this is really what Microsoft needs to invest in: execution and innovation.

1. Execute Faster and Better

This problem nags large companies. Bureaucracy takes over for common sense and introduces rot. Endless meetings, hierarchies of approval, and "what if" scenarios turn any large company into a beast. Microsoft needs to fundamentally restructure its approach to delivering products: reduce the coupling between products, shrink timelines, throw away old rotten code. In short, Microsoft needs to be more like Google in order to compete with Google.

2. Innovate

Sure, Microsoft has a lot of things going on in research. But every time we hear of a new product announcement, it sounds like "Me too" envy. First, there is the rivalry with Google in search. Many people think that advertising is the killer app for the web. Sure, it is, at least today. But it does not mean that search is the only way to deliver it. Microsoft is stuck in a battle to build a better search engine, while the answer may be to deliver advertsing in a fundamentally different way.

Similarly, Amazon has made a big push into cloud computing. Microsoft followed a year later with yet another "Me too." Zune was another fiasco, an attempt to chase the beloved Apple product. The problem is that the age of "Me too" is over. The only way to own the future is to define it. Microsoft needs to truly embrace innovation in order to have a chance of coming back.

Tips for Amazon

Amazon has executed its web services play remarkably well. The company took its core infrastructure, which runs the biggest shopping store online, and turned it into a product. More importantly, Amazon's foray into web services marks the true beginning of the cloud computing era. But at the same time, strange things are happening with the store, such as advertising appearing on product pages. Amazon should continue to accelerate its web services strategy, but it also needs to go back to the store and clean up the way it looks.

1. Continue the Rapid Push into Web Services

The first-mover advantage sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Many first movers in the market are overtaken and ultimately defeated by the second comers who know how to improve on what has been done. But if the first move is brilliant (think Apple kind of brilliant), then it is becomes hard for others to keep up. Amazon has rapidly innovated in the web services market and has a very substantial lead.

Its delivery to date has been nearly perfect, and the company needs to continue to invest in its core stack. The more useful the blocks that are there, the less reason users will have to switch to something else. Cost and reliability are already there, so it boils down to adding a few more blocks and then re-focusing on customer support and enablement.

2. Simplify and Clean Up the Product Pages

Amazon pages, despite the recent cleanup, still feel so 1990s. There is just too much going on. First of all, the banner ads need to go. Sure, they make money, but it is insulting to see completely irrelevant truck ads when a user is looking at Freedman's latest book.

Secondly, the pages are difficult to read because of both the design and the amount of information on the pages. Most of the information is not needed and will not enhance transactions. Instead of geeky bar charts, give users a simple popularity indicator. People do not need to see 400 reviews; five should do. The lists promoted in the sidebar are distracting. And the list goes on; there is a lot of room for clean-up.

Tips for eBay

eBay has just not been an exciting company since the 1990s. It has not executed well, its site has not evolved, and it failed to make much of its acquisitions, such as Skype and StumbleUpon. What eBay needs to do is reinvent itself through relevant acquistions.

1. Buy Etsy

Etsy is a rapidly growing online marketplace for hand-made goods. With sustainability and green poised to be on people's minds for the next decade, hand-made is the new black. Etsy has got a stellar team behind it, a user-centric culture, and a knack for innovation. If Esty were to be unleashed on eBay's site, the user experience would likely be much more improved and fun.

2. Buy Craigslist

If one company other than Google has cracked the secret of simplicity on the web, it's Craigslist. It has discovered the most effective and simple way to do online classifieds, buy and sell things, find a job, and make a hire. Cloning the same simple service for many markets was genius, and Craigslist just nailed it. It is unclear whether they would be willing to sell, but if there is a transaction there, eBay's coolness level would shoot up high. And the revenue would likely follow, because Craigslist has been rather conservative when it comes to charging users.

Tips for Yahoo!

Yahoo! is in a really tough spot. It seems the only way out is through a focus on innovation (that is, if it really doesn't want to sell to Microsoft). First, Yahoo! needs to figure out what business it wants to be in, and then it needs to execute flawlessly in the direction it chooses.

1. Invest in Best Directions, Cut Out the Rest

Seems like a lot of internal projects were coming out of the brick house and then didn't go anywhere. The problem with incubating products, launching them, and then dropping the ball with user adoption and marketing is that it is not good for business. Take Yahoo! Shortcuts as an example: great idea, competitive space, well executed. Where is it now? Lanched in 2007, it works only on WordPress, hasn't really been promoted much, and is unlikely to go anywhere.

We see a similar pattern with acquistions. Too much time was lost getting the ball rolling with MyBlogLog and del.icio.us. The result? Momentum was lost, and so were users and opportunity. Yahoo! can't afford misses like these. Execution needs to be quick and flawless -- and relevant to the business. Yahoo! needs to assess its entire product line, pick the things to invest in, and then put both engineering and marketing dollars behind them.

2. Compete in Search

Not all is lost, especially when you are number two in the space. Sure the gap to get to number one is big, but you are only one spot away. Google attracts users with its simple user interface, speed, and relevancy. Yahoo! needs to fix the speed and relevancy of its search engine and then invest in a different user interface. I really think that the Search Monkey project is on to something. Out of all the recent innovations in the search space, this one stands out with its simple yet powerful approach.

And the recent idea to open up its search engine as a web service is great too. It just needs to be done better and faster in order to really undermine Google. Yahoo! should look to Seattle for the model of how to do this sort of thing quickly and elegantly. If Yahoo! can create a simple way for everyone to build vertical search applications, Google will surely take a hit and have to start playing catch-up.

Conclusion

2009 will surely be a tough year for everyone. Yet it is the year to revamp and invest in the future. How exactly the big web companies will execute really matters. What do you think they should be doing?

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I've elsewhere called "harnessing collective intelligence.")

We can perhaps simplify that even further: Web 2.0 is the web as a platform and collective intelligence (or, leveraging of user created data). Now let's look at Tim's definition of Web 3.0 (which actually predates his last Web 2.0 definition):

Recently, whenever people ask me "What's Web 3.0?" I've been saying that it's when we apply all the principles we're learning about aggregating human-generated data and turning it into collective intelligence, and apply that to sensor-generated (machine-generated) data.

Which we can simplify to mean, the leveraging of the things we created in Web 2.0. And here's the Web 2.0 defintion he had up on a slide yesterday during his keynote:

• The Internet is the platform
• Harnessing the collective intelligence
• Data as the "Intel Inside"
• Software above the level of a single device
• Software as a service

O'Reilly talked about Web 2.0 in terms of taking user-generated data and turning it into user facing services. So now we're starting to see a lot of overlap between the two definitions. He's also brought in a lot of Web 3.0 definitions that other people have given and used them as part of this broader definition of Web 2.0. For example, Eric Schmidt of Google talked about Web 3.0 in terms of sofware as a service and cloud computing. Our own Alex Iskold talked about Web 3.0 in terms of web sites being turned into platforms. And so on.

"For 'Web 3.0' to be meaningful we'll need to see a serious discontinuity from the previous generation of technology ... I find myself particularly irritated by definitions of 'Web 3.0' that are basically descriptions of Web 2.0," Tim O'Reilly once said, which is mildly ironic given that his current Web 2.0 definition basically eclipses his old Web 3.0 definition. But in reality, I think O'Reilly is saying that the versioning doesn't really matter -- the web is the web.

"The points of contrast [between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0] are actually the same points that I used to distinguish Web 2.0 from Web 1.5. (I've always said that Web 2.0 = Web 1.0, with the dot com bust being a side trip that got it wrong.)," wrote O'Reilly last fall. In otherw words, the versioning of the web is silly. Web 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 is all really just whatever cool new thing we're using the web to accomplish right now.

And he has a point. A couple of days ago, we wrote about the history of the term Web 3.0 and noted that the term itself doesn't really matter, what matters is the discussions we have when trying to define it. "It is the discussion that is helpful rather than coming to any accepted definition. Some might argue that version numbers are silly on the web, that Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 are just marketing ploys, and that we shouldn't use terms that are so nebulous and difficult to define. Those are all fair points. But at the same time, the discussions we have about defining the next web help to solidify our vision of where we're going -- and you can't get there until you decide where you want to go," we wrote.

Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 -- they don't really exist. They're just arbitrary numbers assigned to something that doesn't really have versions. But the discussion that those terms have prompted have been helpful, I think, in figuring out where the web is going and how we're going to get there; and that's what is important.

So next time someone asks me what we cover on ReadWriteWeb, maybe I won't use the term "Web 2.0" in my reply, I'll just tell them that we write about the web, what you can do with it now, and what you'll be able to do with it in the future.

We've come so far in just a few years and while there's a lot of integration and reflection going on now about 'web 2.0', it's also useful to think about where the Web is headed. What's beyond web 2.0? And no we're not talking about "web 3.0" (whatever that is!).

Alex mentioned some Web Future ideas in his post: Digital Life, Attention Economy, Intelligent Machines, Semantic Search and Web Sites as Web Services. What others are there? And if there's any particular Web Future topic or theme you'd like us to explore this week, please let us know in the comments.