Below is a list of such apps - and it is a fairly wide-ranging list, and open to contention about what exactly is an "online collaboration platform". I've included the main Web Office suite players, as well as project mgmt apps and some wiki platforms. And I'm bound to have missed a couple of obvious apps (do me a favor and yell out which obvious apps I forgot to include, asap, in the comments!).

The poll is also multiple-choice, as I know a lot of people will use more than one of these apps (I know I do). So please participate in the poll and let's see which online collaboration platforms are the most popular.

With so many different platforms to aggregate, noise levels are surging. An underlying issue in the level of noise is that some of these services were not made to interact with one another. Users of social aggregation tools should understand that what you may consider noise is actually a side-effect of using a social aggregation platform. Users should also note when you may be confusing aggregation with importation.

Though importation may be a necessary step within aggregation, there is a difference between the two. Importation is usually more selective and limited to the inclusion of select items of other services. This may include common specifics such as names, ages, and locations. However, with aggregation a service attempts to conglomerate key features and entire contents of other services. This makes aggregation seemingly more flexible due to it's ability to encompass a wider scope of content.

Using Platforms for Different Purposes

The services that are aggregated are usually used for entirely different purposes. For example, some platforms are used to keep in touch with others such as family, friends, or business contacts. On the other hand, you have services that are used only for the purpose of finding more content and conversations pertaining to certain contents.

When you pull in an account from a platform that is completely unrelated to to the usage of another, you will inevitably create a small amount of noise. However, with social aggregation platforms it's hardly ever just one account. This can increase the noise level to an irritating high for other members of these services, including those within your personal network.

Services Cater To Various Audiences

Aggregated services are not only used for entirely different purposes, but also cater to different audiences. Consequently, who you may be catering to is dependent upon why you may be using the service. While some articles or content submitted to services may overlap, this is only because there are overlapping interests for the different audiences on these platforms.

How does this affect noise levels? If you're using a service to promote content, you may be considered noisy to those that are looking for conversations. If you're using a platform to keep in touch, then those looking for content and in depth conversation surrounding particular content would need a way to block out idle chatter.

Filters Are The Future Of Social Media

Filters are rapidly becoming a pertinent issue for developers of social media services. As a result, social aggregation platforms are in the perfect position to lead the pack. While this is no easy task and one that cannot be solved in its entirety, it would help resolve another issue social media users are facing: courtesy.

Instead of being able to freely add whatever service you wish, some users like myself are taking into account what others may consider noise on certain services as a courtesy to members. In essence, you are becoming our own filter. You may refrain from important other services for fear of being labeled as "noisy". With better filtering options, users can use these services to their fullest extent without becoming a nuisance to others or missing the benefits of aggregating all of their accounts.

The M.insight application sorts the feeds into four main categories: social media, public relations, marketing and branding, and advertising. It also includes two "in-house" categories which feature feeds from the MWW Group themselves ("MWW/DialogueMedia" and "D.insight").

M.insight functions like an RSS reader, but one that you don't have to set up on your own, meticulously adding feeds one-by-one. Instead, this blog reader is already configured and ready to go. You can, though, add and delete feeds within a category if you so desire.

The app is available on three mobile platforms: the iPhone/iPod Touch, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile. On all three platforms, the app does full feed caching (including images) so you can read your feeds even when offline - a feature more useful on the WiFi-only iPod than the others. On the Blackberry and Windows Mobile platforms, M.insight lets you email articles from within the app or post them to Twitter or Delicious. You can also access other news and info like weather, stocks, sports, flights, etc. 

Although targeted toward the PR/Marketing niche, we think many of you would also enjoy this application, especially the "social media" category which features feeds from top blogs like ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, Chris Brogan, Web Strategist, CenterNetworks and Scobleizer.

To try M.insight for yourself, you can download it from the iTunes App Store by clicking here or for Blackberry and Windows Mobile platforms, click here.

Now enterprise mashup platforms, such as Presto Wires from JackBe, are starting to gain traction. In January 2007, an Economist Intelligence Unit survey (PDF - please note that this is a separate report than the Forrester report mentioned elsewhere in this post) revealed that mashups were the most popular traditional web 2.0 technology in the enterprise, with 64% of companies saying they already use or planned to use mashups within the next 2 years.

Mashups come in three distinct flavors in the enterprise, says Forrester:

• Presentation layer mashup. This is the most simple variety. Presentation layer mashups present content from disparate sources together in a unified view. A start page like Netvibes would be an example.
• Data mashup. More complex than presentation layer mashups, data mashups "combine, manipulate, and tie together disparate data sources to present a unified view." An example would be Twittervision.
• Process mashup. Says Forrester: "The most complex of the three, process mashups allow users to mashup not just data sources but also business processes themselves, customizing process design and invoking business logic across multiple applications."

Forrester believes that the enterprise mashup market will hit a tipping points in 2009-2010 and will fold into the IT landscape by 2013. "As a result," writes Forrester, "we expect traditional collaboration and productivity vendors like IBM and Microsoft to ultimately come to dominate the mashup platform market, rolling mashup platforms into major products like SharePoint and the Lotus application suite."

Yahoo's Big Bets for the Next 5 Years

See slide 16:

1. Next Generation Experience --> a.k.a. a customer focus, the user experience

They listed a progression of user experiences, from the Directory in the early years, to Content Verticals, to Web-based Services (communicate), Social Media (communities) and multi-device (“I want to have access to my stuff wherever I go and on any device” -- e.g. Yahoo! Go).

2. Monetization

3. Platforms

4. Beyond the Browser - a particular focus on Yahoo Go and mobile (see slide 51, which states Yahoo has a "Mobile Leadership Position")

Media Group priorities

Slide 58:

2006 Priorities: Create Superior User Experience

• Build robust platforms
• Develop key strategic relationships
• Maximize user generated content
• Build core brand extensions

Lotsa Mollah!

Slide 170 - The Internet Ecosystem: Roughly An $80 Billion Global Industry

This is why Microsoft wants to be a media company!

So in summary, Yahoo as usual is making all the right noises. Focus on user experience, building platforms, user generated content, etc. Of course as Greg Sterling noted, "The theory is right on, executing is very hard."

When I first installed the Rock Your Firefox app, I wasn't too sure what it was for. But I soon discovered its main purpose is to be a community list of Firefox add-ons, where you can share your favorite add-ons with other Facebook users. Likewise you can see which Firefox add-ons your friends are using. A social network for Firefox add-on users, basically.

A commenter on the Rock Your Firefox homepage asked how this is different from browsing the Mozilla Add-ons site. Paul Kim, marketing director at Mozilla, replied that the main difference is that the Facebook app enables you to "find recommended add-ons from your friends on Facebook who use Firefox, and in turn letting your FB friends know the add-ons you think are useful."

This has its uses, because I have to admit that I'm curious what add-ons my friends use. For example I was able to click on Jay Meattle's FB profile and see that he is using the following two Firefox add-ons:

The main problem with this app? It doesn't display your existing add-ons. It only shows add-ons you add using Rock Your Firefox. There needs to be an automatic way for the app to detect existing add-ons and add them to your profile.

Also, it must be asked: why did Mozilla decide to create this social network on Facebook and not add their own social network functionality onto the Firefox Add-ons website? The 34 Million Facebook users was certainly a factor. And in a way it demonstrates how Facebook is becoming like a 'social network add-on' for other web apps and platforms. Why re-invent the social networking wheel when you can plug into Facebook?

What is a platform? It's a technical welcome mat that allows developers from outside of a company tie their software to the software offering the platform. How's that for an explanation? Feel free to share your one-line explanation, too.

Comparing Five Recently Announced Platforms

Each of the platforms above has a flavor and in order to clarify all the talk about platforms, I decided to make a chart. These are the things I look at when trying to understand where a new platform lies in the landscape. All of this is so new that it's hard to know how to compare them for sure, but I think most of the following is from a user's perspective. It's also mostly prediction as almost none of these platforms are live yet. These comparison charts are always a challenge, and they're usually pretty subjective - but please let me know of any details I've gotten wrong and I'll correct any mistakes.

OpenSocial

The Google-lead but open-standards based initiative could be huge, or it could just be for cross-site widget publishing. It's all about the applications, it appears so far. It is open to any participant and many companies are announcing that are building apps that leverage OpenSocial to travel freely from one social networking site to the next.

Facebook

The original platform, at least as far as this wave in concerned. It's a walled garden application-wise, those apps aren't going anywhere but Facebook. Anyone can create a Facebook app, they can pull content in from offsite but cannot publish offsite and it's not really about cross site identity, either. The Facebook app platform is pretty limited, really, and those who treated its arrival like a divine act are liable to feel silly shortly.

Android

Google's open mobile OS was just unveiled to the developers of the world and probably only belongs on this list because it's a platform that's open to anyone. Otherwise it's like apples and oranges - hard to compare with the other platforms here.

Box.net

Online storage startup Box.net released today some limited access to their new platform, OpenBox. OpenBox will in time let any application access your media content stored at Box.net. It's not as ambitious in scope as the other platform plays, but it might prove to be one of the most utilitarian. This platform makes me think of an Amazon web service, but direct to consumers. For more in-depth coverage of today's announcement from Box.net see Josh Lowensohn's post on the platform.

Bebo

Bebo is big in the UK and New Zealand but readers from elsewhere may not think much of it. None the less, its userbase is substantial (40 million) and today Bebo announced a platform of its own. It's called Open Media but it doesn't appear terribly open. It looks like a white listing of professionally produced, big media content. While it won't get nearly as much hype as some of the other platforms, and perhaps is only loosely deserving of the platform title - it's probably going to be another very smart move for this growing social network. If you've got users and you're making money, who needs geek hype?

MySpace

Note that MySpace isn't included here, but they appear determined to continue developing their own platform in addition to participating in OpenSocial. It will be interesting to see if they do anything that pushes the envelope.

Conclusion

I hope that this brief comparison will prove helpful in comparing these darned platforms. They are popping up like weeds, so I'm sure this list will seem woefully short by the end of the week.

Platforms are good, standards are better - data portability is some peoples' ideal, others see superior service even in walled gardens as the ultimate goal. There's every reason to believe that more platforms are on the way, though.

Earlier this week we heard that MySpace will launch its 3rd party developer platform in just a few weeks. And of course the instigator of large scale social networking platforms, Facebook, announced their "open platform" in May 2007. Although it turned out to be not quite so open, the Facebook platform has been probably the year's biggest Web success story to date.

So the social network 'platform wars' will be well and truly on, once MySpace and now Bebo launch their developer platforms! Watch this space for more on the Bebo news...

For many years, Salesforce.com has had the policy of announcing their next big move on the eve of their annual Dreamforce event (aka, where Salesforce partners get to pitch their stuff). In past years they announced internal facing applications, used by employees. Even if the employees were talking to customers, it was still an internal app. The news was simply that it was SaaS.

Today Salesforce.com Says Hello World

They are announcing a way to build apps that connect the internal facing processes that drive and account for transactions with the external public web based apps. This is a big move. The two examples they showed were travel and recruitment, but it does not take too much imagination to think of more. Given the size of the Dreamforce ecosystem on display in the convention center, one assumes that there is a big pipeline of apps under development.

Which Way Do You Face?

As with any new tool or API, there are other ways to achieve the same end. The question is simply which way is more efficient. It is really a question of which way you face. Do you look from the web into back end enterprise systems? That is the traditional way it is done today. The web developer asks the back end system how they want their data and how it will get data back. The Salesforce.com way looks the other way, from the back end systems out to the world.

Timing Is Good To Get Developers

They are likely to get a lot of traction with developers for three reasons:

1. Enterprise SaaS is going mainstream, it is a big market to get into right now.

2. Consumer services are facing a downturn, developers need something new.

3. Getting into back end processes is a better way to build long term client engagements.

Platforms Here, Platforms There

Platforms are everywhere. Developers love Amazon Web Services and Google App Engine looks so cool. There will be a bit of tug within the developers between what looks most technically elegant with least lock-in, versus what will make money quickly and reliably. It is possible that Salesforce will appeal to these more pragmatic types, the ones who have been the mainstay of the Microsoft ecosystem in the past.

There are more and more ways to get your instant messaging done, with a large number of new online and offline clients from third parties. With so many instant messaging options, it's hard to figure out which one to use. Below, we've listed a large number of online and offline instant messengers, as well the various protocols supported by each, so that you can more easily find the one that's right for you. There's really not all that much difference between each except in interface and supported protocols. The best option for you will likely be the one that supports the networks your friends connect to and has an interface that you feel comfortable using. If there are any we've missed, please mention them in the comments. (Note: we did not link to any official offline clients.)

Name: Meebo
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber

Name: FlickIM
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber

Name: Kool IM
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu, Xfire

Name: eBuddy
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, MySpace

Name: ILoveIM
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, webcams/video chat

Name: RadiusIM
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk

Name: Imo.im
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk

Name: Mabber
Supports: Proprietary Jabber-based (aimed at mobiles)

Name: IMUnitive
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, gim (proprietary)

Name: Snimmer
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber

Name: EasyMessenger
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, Jabber

Name: MessengerFX
Supports: MSN

Name: IMhaha
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, QQ

Name: Google Talk
Supports: GTalk, Jabber

Name: Yahoo! Web Messenger (web.im)
Supports: Yahoo!, MSN

Name: MSN Web Messenger
Supports: Yahoo!, MSN

Name: AIM Express
Supports: AIM

Name: ICQ2Go
Supports: ICQ

Name: JWChat - Jabber Web Chat
Supports: Jabber

Name: Trillian Astra (closed alpha)
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, MySpace, iChat

Offline Clients

Name: Trillian
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, IRC
Platforms: Windows

Name: Pidgin
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, QQ, MySpace, iChat, IRC, Lotus, Novell
Platforms: Windows, UNIX

Name: Adium
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, QQ, iChat, Lotus, Novell, LiveJournal
Platforms: Mac OS X

Name: AirTalker
Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, MySpace, Friendster, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, blogging
Platforms: Windows, Mac OS X (via Adobe AIR), also has web version

Name: Miranda IM
Supports: AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, IRC, IAX, Tlen, Netsend
Platforms: Windows

At the Connected Innovators program at Supernova last night PostApp revealed the high level of WidgetBox, its "web widget marketplace". It's basically a marketplace for developing and managing widgets (i.e. small web-based apps). It aims to bring together the programmatic and participative Webs, in the words of CEO Ed Anuff. In other words, it's a marketplace between developers and regular Web users - where WidgetBox sits in the middle. TechCrunch has a review, plus profiles another company called GoodStorm which is doing e-commerce within widgets.

There are other services popping up to manage widgets too, e.g. Snipperoo which I mentioned in my prior post. The possibilities of widgets seems endless right now. Susan Mernit mentioned another angle on this, that the intersection of widgets with structured data is an area ripe with opportunity:

"Widgets could be flavor of the moment, but the ways that some widgets intersect with structured data (as opposed to intersecting with flashy, AJAX DHTML fancy effects) is one of the things I find compelling (Yes, I am fascinated by microformats, in particular)."

Susan says this opens up the ability to embed mini-apps in hugely popular platforms like MySpace. Over time I expect the big media companies will enable this kind of functionality in their platforms too - e.g. BBC, Yahoo (who already have all pieces of the puzzle, with its Konfabulator product and media platforms). For a taste of what Yahoo can do on a large scale, check out the NewsGator Podcasts & Buzz app - which searches RSS feeds to find video and audio podcasts, plus buzzworthy stories, and allows you to view that within Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. That kind of mini-app within an app is where all this is headed, from a product perspective. The bigger picture is that it opens up more opportunities for developers to leverage others platforms, and users to get more and varied sources of content.

At press time we have not had a chance to try out Six Apart's new free, open source plugins but Wordpress users can read more about them and try them out here.

He goes on to identify three types of platforms:

1. Access API - where data is pulled from a service and reconstituted to create something new or add value to something else (think Flickr, or Google Maps)
2. Plug-in API - where developers plug their applications directly into the platform (think Facebook, Firefox, or, well, Google Maps again (Mapplets))
3. Runtime Environment - like a plug-in API but where code is executed directly on the platform, and the "platform itself handles everything required to run your application on your behalf" (think Andreessen's own Ning, Second Life, or Salesforce.com)

"Think about it: For a Level 1 or Level 2 platform, if you kill the platform, you still have a working and useful system. If the Google Search API gets killed -- and it was! -- you still have Google Search which is still useful to its users. If the Facebook platform gets killed -- which presumably it won't be -- you still have Facebook which is still useful to users as a social networking service in exactly the same way it was before they introduced their platform.

On the other hand, if you kill a Level 3 platform, you destroy the whole reason people use your system to begin with -- to develop and run custom code. If you remove the platform from Ning, Ning is useless -- applications don't run, and users can't do anything. If you remove the platform from Salesforce, all the users who are using customized apps can't use Salesforce anymore. If you remove the platform from Second Life, none of the objects or experiences in the virtual world work anymore and the whole user experience collapses."

What strikes me as odd about that argument is that the point he makes about Salesforce is equally applicable to Facebook, and vice versa. Salesforce still has value without the apps that third party developers have created -- not nearly as much, but it doesn't lose total value because Salesforce is more than just a platform for third-party apps. In reverse, any user of Facebook who relies on an app built for their platform would no longer find as much appeal in using Facebook if the platform was killed. I'm also not really sure why Firefox is a plug-in API but not a runtime environment. These oddities lead me to believe that Andreessen hasn't quite completely sorted his definition yet (or it a needs a little work).

It further strikes me that there's not a whole lot of difference between these types of platforms. That is, it isn't a huge leap to go from level 1 to level 3. It wouldn't be very hard for Flickr, for example, to allow outside developers to plug applications into their platform and run them on Flickr.com (think of a flash photo editor running inside your account). And, it wouldn't be much of a leap for Facebook to host the applications made for its platform.

The reason they don't do that is because each platform plays to its strengths. Andreessen's Ning is attractive because it makes creating a social network simple, cheap, and quick. Facebook's platform is attractive because it opens developers up to a huge installed user base. Flickr's API is attractive because it opens access to a ton of data (photos). And the common thread between all of them is that they all operate on the platform of the Internet. The services Marc Andreessen talks about are all platforms within a platform. They exist to make creating applications on the web platform easier, or to provide access to data for use in creating web applications.

Conclusion

Nearly two years ago, Fred Wilson, writing about the web as a platform said this: "The Web is a Platform and you must build on top of it and you must be open and you must not try to lock people in. If you do, you are eventually going to regret it." What does that mean in terms of looking at the various platforms cropping up on the web, many of which still exist as closed systems? In a comment today on Andreessen's post, Wilson poses this question, "And isn't it also true that building apps on the web itself, instead of plugged into Facebook, or resident in Ning, is more attractive to developers because the app is less reliant on the owner of the environment to continue to act in good faith toward the developer and their app?"

I think he makes a good point. If the entire web is a platform, why would a developer choose to cede control over his app by locking himself into a single, third-party platform? The answer is that these platforms give developers access to something they can't easily build themselves -- such as users, data, or development tools. The more open the platform, though, and the more in control the developer remains, I think the more attractive they will be to application creators.

As Andreessen concludes, "lots and lots of people have opinions about platforms." So what are yours? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

According to TechCrunch, Michael Arrington has heard from several sources that Google has made plans to launch a competitor to the Data Availability and Facebook Connect platforms on Monday.What we know so far is that the "Friend Connect" platform will be another set of APIs for developers to use in order to securely push profile information into third party websites.

Possible Restrictions

Don't get your hopes up just yet. The most interesting part of this story is that it seems Google will be keeping a tighter reign on its data compared to the Facebook Connect and Data Availability platforms. Where Myspace and Facebook will be using their APIs to distribute data, Google will be requiring third parties to show data directly from Google's servers in an iframe. While third parties will be able to make the connection, it will unfortunately have to be on Google's terms.

Is Google Taking OpenSocial In The Wrong Direction?

Wait a minute. If the rumors are true, isn't this the opposite of what the OpenSocial network stands for? All of these companies are vying to get their product out the door first, while maintaining as much control as possible. Yet, this is a particularly unorthodox move from Google for the OpenSocial network. Thinking on what users and developers are hoping Google will accomplish with the OpenSocial network, Google should be leading the pack with settings, features, and restrictions for the Friend Connect platform. Instead, it seems they'll be doing the exact opposite.

Competing with the platforms of Myspace and Facebook will be no easy feat, even for a giant like Google. While the Friend Connect platform would be a welcomed addition to OpenSocial, developers and users will suffer if Google plans to implement limiting restrictions. If the rumors are true, Google may have already lost this battle.

Market Players

Geocities itself is still active in the website creation market. Here are some of its competitors:

• Google Sites (it evolved out of one of Google's acquisitions, JotSpot, and is now available for free separately from Google Apps)
• Weebly (a Y Combinator company)
• SynthaSite (our coverage)
• Sampa (our coverage)
• SiteKreator
• Webon (a recently launched offering from Web 1.0 stalwart Lycos)

Who's using these products? Website creation platforms are aimed at people who just want a regular website; for example people who want to chronicle their wedding or holiday, families who want to track their family history and growth, or retailers who want to build a web presence.

Often these tools have 'drag and drop' functionality, so you can create a new website in a matter of hours without needing to know HTML or have particular design skills. Lycos told us that their product Webon is "geared toward more casual users, e.g. parents, travelers, shutterbugs, who want more control and a more stylized web presence than typical blogging tools or social network profiles allow for."

Note that you could argue that DIY social networks like Ning are competing in this space, although Ning co-founder Marc Andreessen thinks otherwise. I'm inclined to agree with him, because social networks, blogs, wikis, and websites are all different beasts.

Social Web Twist

Website builder platforms in the web 2.0 era, where mashups and open data are common, typically offer ways to integrate with 3rd party apps. This can take the form of widgets, or even utilizing other sites' APIs. This is probably the biggest difference between Geocities 1.0 and the 2.0 era web publishing platforms. But also these platforms usually offer the ability to add blogs, RSS feeds, multimedia, privacy controls, and more.

Google Sites diagram, from their homepage

As an example of what these products now offer, Lycos told us recently that Webon supports the OpenSocial API "for thousands of add-ons and widgets (such as iGoogle gadgets and Google FriendConnect), with no HTML or CSS knowledge needed, as well as OpenID to enable DIY social network connections."

Another common feature in the new website creation tools is use of Ajax to build sites. While at the Web 2.0 Expo a couple of months ago, I dropped by the SynthaSite booth and was very impressed with the rich functionality and the ability to drag n' drop ajax widgets.

Who's Leading This Market?

Geocities and Google Sites have the biggest presence, simply because of their bigco backing. Among the startups, according to stats from Compete, the leading small co is Weebly with SynthaSite showing positive growth.

Conclusion

An old cliche that Web entrepreneurs often wheel out at press time is that the market pie (for whatever segment they're in) is only getting bigger, so there's plenty of room for them and their competitors too. Well in the case of website creation tools, that's certainly true! One of the primary characteristics of the social web - aka web 2.0 - is that anyone can easily publish content to the Web. So there is a lot more need these days, compared to the 90's, for web publishing platforms of all varieties. Many RWW readers probably use blogging and/or social network tools, and micro-publishing tools like Twitter and FriendFeed. But for many other people, straight website creation tools - like Geocities and its many competitors - fit their needs better.

To finish, here's a brain teaser for you: what will Geocities 3.0 look like? ;-)