MappingTheWeb //

Google officially launched its Microsoft PowerPoint killer. The cleverly named Presently is a very simple, slick presentation builder. The project appears to be the culmination of Google’s acquisition of Zenter earlier this year. Now, users of Google Docs can quickly and easily create a document, spreadsheet, presentation, or folder, essentially completing the office suite.

What do I think of the offering so far? Friggen sweet. I highly suggest everyone check it out. It’s a must for anyone looking to put together a stellar presentation. Here are some of the features that sold me:

• Group-editing - numerous users can edit a given document, not just the creator.
• Revision-viewing - the ability to view revisions allows you to revert back to previous editions.
• One-click functionality - most features and functions are a single click away.
• Slick, intuitive interface - all elements are well presented; this minimizes the learning curve. 
• Web-based - presentations are saved on Google servers and can easily be accessed from anywhere with an Internet connection. 
• Free - no money out of my pocket. 

If Google Docs really wants to make a solid impact in the ‘office’ space, it is going to have to crack the enterprise market. The company has made steps toward doing, most notably with a partnership with CapGemini last week. Nevertheless, I still think there are many doubts, hesitations, and concerns from the institutional side. Large corporations, organizations, and goverments will be difficult to penetrate, as they have historically used Microsoft. Such a dramatic change would not only present huge infrastructure changes, but it would also incur huge costs. Furthermore, education around the new system would be critical. In other words, I still think Microsoft can breathe safely for a *bit*. However, complacency will ultimately lead to failure, as we have witnessed over the years with this giant. Constant innovation is key.

[Google Presently screenshot via TechCrunch]

For more info, be sure to check out posts from Mashable and Read/WriteWeb.

Will Wikipedia one day be the central hub for all human knowledge? This may sound crazy, but I’m not so sure that it’s as far-fetched as it may seem. The site has developed a loyal following and continues to generate an unprecedented amount of traffic. Founder Jimmy Wales always had a vision “to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language”. In other words, if someone wants to learn something about anything, they can find it on Wikipedia in their native language. This seemingly unrealistic goal is now within reach.

This is where the nay-sayers step in. Many discount the credibility of the site, stating a lack of accuracy and accountability. Some refute the reliability of sources. Others even claim that the ‘mediocrity of the crowds’ depreciates the quality of articles, arguing that a single, expert voice can provide a more clear, authoritative perspective. These are the critics of social media.

One thing is for sure: most numbers, measurements, dates, and quantitative data cannot be argued. It’s fact - it’s indisputable. Qualitative data, however, is a whole different story. Biases and opinions can creep into articles at any given point, subtlely manipulating the thoughts of the reader. Though Wikipedia users and editors do a good job of controlling this type of behaviour, it will always be present. When disputes arise, authority must be present. A moderated system such as Wikipedia can create bureaucracy and formalization, but it also helps to deter potential gaming.

Wikipedia has also successfully opened the playing field. Transparency and accessibility are key. Anyone can access all information in all languages without the need for a login or special permissions - this even includes all edits. A by-product of this is that information inefficiencies are eliminated. It is well known that many companies and organizations profit from a lack of information distribution. The introduction of such a system levels the playing field for all.

The concept of a free service also eliminates another tall barrier to entry: price. Historically, people had to purchase books or other learning materials to educate themselves on a particular topic. Now, this can be done at no cost. Anyone can view all information without paying a cent.

Finally, anyone can edit any article at any time. This is probably the most important feature. Furthermore, it probably carries the heaviest weight outside the walls of the site as well. Though there is a level of moderation, anyone can provide input, information, details, clarification, or data to further enhance the quality and depth of articles. The potential effects and widespread reach of this function simply cannot be articulated.

Obviously I am a big fan of Wikipedia. But it’s not so much the brand I’m a fan of, as the idea behind it. The principle is what interests me. Creating a free learning network for all mankind in every language is not an easy task. It’s not about Wikipedia, or competition, or brand names, or fames, or eyeballs. It’s about human knowledge. Once we can all access all information, the potential is only limited by our own creativity.

The typical marketing plan of a clueless, old-school Internet company looking to kick it up a notch with some new-school, trendy social marketing strategies. 

Sound familiar? Countless Internet companies have become brain-washed. They are convinced that these new technologies are critical to their future success. In some cases, they may be right. But for the most part, they lack fit. Successful marketing techniques have to be strategized on an individual basis. What works for one start-up may not work for another. In other words, RSS may work for company A, while widgets may be best suited for company B.

My consulting background has really driven this point home. I’ve heard things like: “Our website NEEDS tagging” or “Let’s throw in some AJAX”. My subsequent steps are as follows:

1. I laugh (well, not aloud).
2. I describe the technology in detail and outline the benefits.
3. In most cases, I dismiss the use of the given technology.

My basis is simple: the ‘trendy’ technology MUST further the user experience and/or provide a greater marketing punch. The simple implementation of a technology for the sake of an implementation is pointless. Simply put, the questions that a company needs to ask itself are as follows:

• Will this technology create a more enjoyable user experience?
• Can we reach more potential users if we implement this technology?
• Do we simply find comfort and security in new, buzzword-compliant marketing techniques?

All jokes aside, this is a serious problem. More and more, we are seeing the use of these technologies in places they shouldn’t be. They are a waste of resources and confuse the offering.

Simplicity is key.

If traditional Internet marketing strategies (such as e-mail marketing or SEO) will provide the greatest ROI, then forget about RSS, podcasting, and the rest of their buzzword siblings. With all due respect, I am a huge advocate of all the technologies mentioned. Their place on the Internet cannot be argued, but they must be used in the proper context. 

PS. Another correct answer to the initial question would have been: the typical business plan of a Silicon Valley start-up. Too many start-ups are looking to jump on the web 2.0 buzzword bandwagon - VCs just don’t buy it anymore, literally.

Web 2.0 is an echo-chamber - let’s face it. Many deny the fact, but it’s true. Ask anyone on the street about RSS, widgets, APIs, or wikis and you’ll get a blank face. Chances are they’ll think you’re speaking another language. Even fairly tech savvy Internet users frown upon such terms and phrases. As much as we’d like to think web 2.0 is mainstream, it isn’t.

Those who live in this echo-chamber glorify the trends and technologies, as their value and potential is recognizable. This bleeding-edge Internet group wants the world to learn about these technologies, but the fact of the matter is that they are very daunting and intimidating to the average user. In other words, web 2.0 needs to be humanized before it can ever be adopted by the mainstream.

Who is leading the pack when it comes to humanizing web 2.0? Facebook. Here is proof: ask any Facebook user if they know what RSS is or if they’ve ever used it? Chances are they have no idea what it is and they’ll admit to never using it. Little do they know, the Facebook ‘News Feed’ is essentially a rebranded RSS reader. Instead of pulling blog posts and news articles, the reader aggregates updates from your friends’ profiles.

This brings me to the most important point of all: Facebook is educating the masses about web 2.0 without them even knowing. In other words, Facebook IS bringing web 2.0 mainstream.

How is Facebook accomplishing such an improbable feat? By rebranding the terms and phrases that seem so daunting and sophisticated. This facilitates the education process and reduces the learning curve, making it easier for regular folk to adopt these technologies.

The term “social network” is synonymous with web 2.0. Though the nature of the term may be rather self-explanatory, people understand it. Sites such as MySpace, hi5, and Friendster have helped to provide clarity around its meaning. This education process is exactly what is happening at Facebook as we speak.

Let’s explore some of the web 2.0 technologies that Facebook has rebranded as internal features:

Wikis - By definition, a wiki is a collaborative space that can be edited by anyone with access to the site. This notion of participation and cooperation creates a more productive, usable information portal for all affiliated members.

Facebook has rebranded this concept as ‘Groups’. Within a given group, you are able to start a conversation (with a message), add photos, and provide simple commentary. Furthermore, administrators and officers have added control and functionality.

Blogs - When a user writes a ‘Note’ on Facebook, they are expressing their thoughts or opinions in a given manner. A collection of these notes, in reverse chronological order, can be classified as a ‘weblog’ or blog.

The offline concept of a diary has been around for centuries. It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to consider a jump into the online world.

User-Generated Content (UGC) - Once again, the term may seem rather self-explanatory, but it does need some clarification. UGC is content created by the user - it is not production quality. Examples include photos, videos, and audio clips.

Not only does Facebook upload an astonishing amount of photos each day, but they also provide a simple, yet powerful video experience. Simply put, users are constantly interacting with user-generated content. They just don’t know it.  

API - An API is an Application Programming Interface. In other words, it is a way to let others integrate with your service by tapping into your data. This is what Facebook has done with their new ‘F8 Platform’. They’re allowing others the ability to tap into Facebook’s database and create applications which can then be added to the system and adopted by users.

Micro-blogging - This new phenomenon is essentially a mini-form of blogging. Recently made popular by companies such as Twitter and Tumblr, micro-blogging is a way to provide a short message (usually less than 200 characters) about your life, mood, or current state via the web, e-mail, text, or IM. To meet demand in this area, Facebook launched ‘Status Updates’, which is simply another way of labelling micro-blogging.

Widgets - Though the comparison may be a bit rough, it is still worth acknowledging. A widget is an embedded device that provides some level of value to the publisher. This is somewhat akin to what Facebook has done with their ‘F8 Platform’, and more notably ‘Applications’. Once a user adds a given ‘Application’, it appears on their profile page, where other users can see it and interact with it (or even add it themselves).

RSS - The concept of the ‘News Feed’ acting as an RSS reader was outlined above. Having said that, Facebook has started to integrate actual RSS protocol within the site as well. Anyone now has the ability to subscribe (via RSS) to another user’s ‘Notes’, in many cases. I’m sure RSS is being used in other places within the site, but I have just failed to notice them. In any case, I expect the adoption of RSS within the Facebook community to be slow, but steady.

On top of all these obvious examples, Facebook also makes extensive use of AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) throughout the site. This creates a more intuitive, enjoyable user experience.

I could probably go on and on and outline further examples, but I think we can all get a grasp of the situation that is unfolding. What can we learn from all this? Facebook is a rebranding machine. The ability to provide such advanced technologies in a simple manner is truly remarkable. The day that excites me the most is the day that people realize that they understand what all these web 2.0 technologies are. That will be the day that web 2.0 goes mainstream - and I have a funny feeling that that day is coming sooner than we imagine.

Everyone is comparing newcomer Pownce to various existing services. Names such as Jaiku, Tumblr, and Box.net keep arising. In particular, Twitter has been mentioned the most. Furthermore, comparisons are being made to IM clients, e-mail applications, and P2P programs. None of these seem to fit the bill for me. After some hard thinking and due diligence, it became abundantly clear to me that Pownce is more like Digg than anything else. This should have been obvious from the start, as Kevin Rose is the mastermind behind both operations.

When you think about it, Digg is nothing more than a link-sharing network. Users are encouraged to share links that they think the community and other users will find useful and valuable. Pownce is no different. However it takes the concept a couple steps further.

Firstly, Pownce enables sharing with a select group of people that you have control over. You can share with one individual, a group, or your entire contact list. With Digg, you are forced to share with everyone. Taking this concept one step further, one could say that Pownce is a Digg-like social network - the main difference being that stories (i.e. links) are not voted to the front page, but rather viewed by a select group of individuals.

Secondly, Pownce further expands upon what you can share using Digg. The service allows you to share links like Digg, but also messages, files, and events. These cannot and will not be shared using Digg for several important reasons:

• Messages often provide little value unless you know the author;
• Files may be corrupt or copyrighted;
• Events are only relevant to certain people and regions.

Furthermore, these three categories do not bode as well as stories and links for creating hype and buzz. This is the very basis for Digg.

My guess is that Kevin Rose an his team recognized these downfalls and wanted to create a more personalized method of sharing. Hence, Pownce was born. Instead of sharing a generic link with the world, you are now able to share more meaningful, relevant content with a select group. The core idea of sharing remains the same. However, the target group and item of interest have changed.

Is this a reasonable comparison or are there other services that Pownce is more closely related to that I have overlooked?