You want disruptive? Here's disruptive...
In today's ZDNet column, I review Internet TV start-up Brightcove:
"Brightcove was presented at the Web 2.0 Conference and is what I would class as a disruptive Web 2.0 start-up - one to keep an eye on. Whether or not they meet their ambitious aim of becoming a Google-scale Internet TV business, will play out over time. One thing's for sure, watching their progress will be as entertaining as the many videos uploaded onto their platform." [Full story at ZDNet]
Also today I came across the latest project of a man who wants to tear down Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web and replace it with his own vision. It used to be known as Xanadu, but has since morphed into Transliterature, A Humanist Design. I am of course referring to Ted Nelson, who invented the term "hypertext" in 1965 and is generally regarded as a computing pioneer.
Ted Nelson recently wrote an essay about "Indirect Documents", which got Slashdotted today. In the essay Nelson outlines why (in his opinion) the Xanadu project failed and he explains his new vision for Transliterature. He takes a number of potshots at Tim Berners-Lee's WWW on the way, e.g.:
"Why don't I like the web? I hate its flapping and screeching and emphasis on appearance; its paper-simulation rectangles of Valuable Real Estate, artifically created by the NCSA browser, now hired out to advertisers; its hierarchies exposed and imposed; its untyped one-way links only from inside the document. (The one-way links hidden under text were a regrettable simplification of hypertext which I assented to in '68 on the HES project. But that's another story.) Only trivial links are possible; there is nothing to support careful annotation and study; and, of course, there is no transclusion."
Ted Nelson is certainly an original and I'm glad he's still around to throw spanners in the works. I've written about him before and I'm sure I will again, Web 2.0 or not.
4 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2540
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I have been following your discussion pertaining to the lack of disruptive start-ups. I could not agree with you more. However, don't worry, there are those of us out there who are thinking on a larger scale. Let's just say that some of us agree whole heartedly with Ted Nelson. Current document-centric paradigms are fundamentally flawed. There is no need to have a seperate desktop and browser. Hierarchical filesystems just do not cut it. This problem is only going to get worse as the barriers to publishing are lowered. We need new paradigms. Web 2.0 provides a great opportunity to introduce those paradigms. Stay tuned because I think you will see some extremely big things are on the horizon.
Current ILL is just too creaky. Amazon et al just emphasise the lack of an adequate library fulfilment mechanism. It is the bane of the UK and Ireland scene too. See my post on the Panlibus blog. ìI can discover it but I canít have it: resource discovery and fulfilmentî It picks up on these themes.
http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/archives/2005/09/i_can_discover.html
WEll...Your lists are not disruptive AT ALL.
I want real disruptive company even making google useless as well.
So It is not a company but 'disruptive algarithm' to destroy search engine business itself including google.
The sole candidate is defintely
The essential of PageRank algorithm is just for the valuing links that are highly referred to by other people.
Just think about real disruptive to Pagerank algarithm itself.
If One site or 'people network' is always more relavant in terms of 'valuable links' and so about any keyword that site is most relavant, Is there any needs to use google???
Because people already know the most relavant 'knowlege network', just go to that site.
In terms of algarithm, If there is only 'one' place that google should send users in whole internet, google useless.
Is this situaltion reallistic?
Sure.
Already the early stage of Wikipedia is relavant for most subjects.
And Highly LINKED.
Ideally If Any entity of 'highly linked knowlege network' like wikipedia becomes more and more relavant by peopel, It's disruptive itself.
but wikipedia is not answer.
If enthusiatic 1000K 'nickelback' fans in the MYSPACE community makes all the information about the group cumulative like wiki, what would happen?
probably google must always send users to this 'nickelback page' for every 'nickelback' keyword.
I know News corporation do not have ability to tranform community like MYSPACE into more cumulative knowlege platform.
But In the community or social network category, If any smart compaly can provide the plaform that easily collaborate to make structured story like wiki for the people, All the needs(=subjects) will be expressed.
So. most disruptive company is MYSPACE + WIKIPEDIA.
Example> Actually, google is 'minor' search engine in South Korea.
maybe the rank is #13. there is 10 more popular search engine than google.
the reason is the fact that google is always pointing out small group of 'knowlege community'
the example is http://tong.nate.com
It is the MYspace + wikipedia.
In the broadband age, gatherd people produce all the information about their interest and the information is linked into knowlege like wiki.
here the lists that actually destroyed google.
(even though that is the local market result, it gives any hint.)
search.daum.net
search.naver.com
search.empas.com
www.cyworld.com
tong.nate.com
planet.daum.net
search.paran.com
all've beaten google.
the key is to transform community into knowlege network.