Dad pointed me to this article as a possible show topic, and while we are going to discuss it, a text component couldn't hurt. The article lays out what the title suggests, and authored by the CEO of Mashable.com, its worth paying attention to. Reading through these at first I felt like we've already seen them. However, the "web 2.0" waves were made outside the web community in 2007, not earlier when it was the web community alone embracing the user-generated content era. So now are these trends- already found online, but likely to make bigger waves outside the web community next year. Here's the list:
Real-time ramps up
Location, location, location
Augmented reality
Content 'curation'
Cloud computing
Internet TV and movies
Convergence conundrum
Social gaming
Mobile payments
Fame abundance
Privacy scarcity
Rather than do what other, bigger, blogs do and break down each point- I'll just offer some comments on a few that interest me more than others.
Cloud computing
Cloud computing was very much a buzzword of 2009, but there's no doubt this transition will continue. The trend, in which data and applications cease to reside on our desktops and instead exist on servers elsewhere ("the cloud"), makes our data accessible from anywhere and enables collaboration with distributed teams.
The cloud movement will see a major leap forward in the first half of 2010 with the launch of "Office Web Apps," free online versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote released in tandem with Microsoft Office 2010.
Next year will also see the launch of Google's Chrome OS, a free, Web-centric operating system that forces us to ask: How many desktop applications do we really need?
As a listener of "This Week in Google", I hear a lot about cloud computing. Unless I'm mistaken we discussed it- most likely with no depth- on an early show. My argument is that cloud computing won't be nearly as big as we think it will- for at least a few years. For the sake of how I'd like to explain it, here's three archetypes of possible cloud computing users:
What's a browser? You know, the people who may still be using IE6 (Internet Exploiter 6). These people use the internet to check email, shop, and research things. They never embraced the "web 2.0" evolutions as anything more than a young persons thing. These people may belong to social networks, but likely for no more reason than to spy on the kids, or play Farmville. They won't be using cloud computing because they have no idea it exists. They don't know that Google Docs is a fine replacement for Microsoft Word, or that its safer to store photos online than on the hard drive. They have no reason to look for other services online, thus don't know that for them- the non-web savvy- most of what they use computers for can be done entirely through a browser. Thus- they'll maybe check out the new- free- Office 2010 web apps, but in no time they'll go back to using Office 2003 and continue using the internet in the same way they have since 2001.
Cool, but why? These are the Web 2.0 power users. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, all done by these people- and often. They may "get" cloud computing, but don't see a reason for it. These people are in many of my classes, and use the web all the time, but fail to see a reason for dumping desktop apps. After all, if Office desktop works fine- why do I need to drop it for Office online? These are the people who might- just might- be willing to get a Chrome OS netbook, but might not be happy with the results.
It's impossible. This is me. Cloud computing is great, no doubt. But I'm the reason that dropping the OS altogether isn't viable at all. Glancing across my taskbar, I see 5 things I can't do with cloud computing. Photoshop- sure, paint.net may be fine for someone who wants a nifty effect for a Facebook photo, but it doesn't cut it for me, or anyone else who uses photoshop for image editing. Skype, Skype Recorder, and Audio Software- Necessary for communication, recording for the show, and subsequent editing, there is nothing online that I can use for these tasks, at least that is tolerable to use. Steam- as a stand-in for games in general, its kind of hard to play a pick-up match of MW2 with your brother when the OS doesn't support it. I'm the kind of person who is enthusiastic about cloud computing, but won't be able to utilize it in a way that will make it take off.
Internet TV and movies
Is 2010 the year the majority of our television starts coming to us via the Internet? There's certainly more activity here than at any other time: Among the early-adopter set, Hulu, Boxee, Apple TV and Netflix's Roku box lead the field.
Hulu in particular has sustained remarkable growth this year, while the movie studios are getting on board with the launch of Epix, a Hulu for films.
Let's hope so. I haven't had a tv since August, but I've managed just fine. I'd say I've managed better than before except for a few things: content needs to be delivered at the same time as original airing- or with just a slight delay (not a day or more), there needs to be a bigger back-catalog of content, and a better way to advertise. I feel like networks are stingy with content because the ads are roughly 1/5 the volume they are on tv. They don't allow for a big back-catalog because they want more dvd sales, but they could use a few episodes from past seasons to advertise the dvds. The idea of a dedicated media pc connected to a tv has been around for a while, it was already accepted in 2004, but it remains a weird concept to many people. There is still a disconnect in many minds between pc and tv, and people that hear about Hulu only think "why would I watch tv on my computer".
Fame abundance, privacy scarcity
Warhol was right: Fame is now abundant. Social media has birthed a galaxy of stars in thousands of niches: We're all reality stars now, on Facebook, Twitter and all the myriad online outlets where we hone our personal brands.
We're seeing the ongoing voluntary erosion of privacy through public sharing on Facebook and Twitter, the rise of location-based services and the inclusion of video cameras in a growing array of devices.
We've talked about privacy almost too much in one of my classes, but the fame thing is a little overblown in my opinion. Here's how I feel about the "galaxy of stars": aside from the select few celebrities whose presence graces the web, there aren't many online stars. There are however people who represent "local celebrities", the current evolution of local newscaster or high school football coach. These people don't have millions of Twitter followers, but they don't have less than 100 either. They are known to a select group of people, but aren't the full blown celebrities that they seem. As for the concept that "everyone's a star" that the news loves to toss around, its total garbage. Sorry news. If that were true, I'd fall squarely into the "celebrity" category, and thats just not the case.
Original article from CNN.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment