Earlier this week, Steve Rubel had a terrific post on the challenges facing content owners at a time when consumers can compile the information they want (RSS feeds, images, video) into personalized portals such as Pageflakes or Windows Live. He contends this will make it increasingly difficult for content owners to make money online.
“If almost all content can be lifted from one spot and placed somewhere where it’s more convenient to the user, just how will it be monetized? The ramifications reach far and wide. It will impact anyone that wants to attract eyeballs – media companies, brand marketers and community/social networking sites.”
Rubel’s theory got me thinking about the Web 2.0 landscape where thousands upon thousands of applications/services are battling for attention. Since most of these applications are free, they need to attract a lot of users to be stay viable when the venture capital runs out.
One of the big challenges facing these applications is intense competition and, I would argue, a short attention-span among users. This means an application that is interesting enough to try and perhaps use today is quickly discarded when something that seems more interesting comes along. My Roboform database, for example, is chock-a-block with passwords for applications I haven’t used in months.
What be the salvation for many Web 2.0 applications is a place where users can aggregate all their favourites through widgets. For example, you could have GMail, Facebook, Skype and Basecamp accounts on a single destination with a common username and password. Whenever you found a new and interesting application, you would simply hit the widget button and have it imported into your Web 2.0 Portal/aggregator.
For consumers, this would offer a lot of convenience and maybe encourage people to use their applications on a regular basis or, at least, be aware they are available as opposed to gathering dust unseen and unused. For Web 2.0 companies, it could give their applications some stickiness based on the idea that once a consumer adds a new application to their portal, there would be a higher likelihood it would actually be used.
5 Comments
Hi Mark,
That’d be a very useful tool. I’ll suggest it as an idea for the Toronto Startup Weekend (http://toronto.startupweekend.com). Maybe your idea will come alive in a few weeks.
Andrew
Now, that would be very cool.
I’d vote for images and videos on my readers anytime. Saves a lot of time when you’re viewing all your news sources in one 2048 x 1536 screen
This newly launched website for aspiring authors and the literary community was envisioned as the first time publisher of original works. However, the site which describes itself as “Publishing 2.0″ appears to also be serving as an agrregator for works published by the likes of Booksurge, Lu Lu and AuthorHouse.
NovelMaker.com actually makes the entire text of a novel, short story etc. available at no cost whereas the other sites require the purchse of either a printed copy or ebook, i.e. the reader must pay before reading.
The NovelMaker.com format allows free reading with the decision to purchase hard copy or ebook formats made subsequent to perusal of the online work.
It will be interesting to see how the literary community responds to this new “web 2.0: approach. Steve Weinstein Sc.D.
Isn’t this being done by RedHat through Mugshot:
http://mugshot.org/features
One Trackback
[...] Mark Evans piece that muses about the possibility of a “web 2.0 aggregator” that could bring [...]