August 13 2009
First off, from what I’ve seen so far Google Wave is an absolutely ingenious product. It blends different technologies together to create a very robust collaboration environment. The Google team believes that Wave could eventually replace email. However, I’d argue that Google Wave will be more of a niche product due it’s high-level of complexity.
What is Google Wave?
Watching the following presentation is the easiest way to answer this question, but essentially it’s a mash-up of email, instant messaging (IM) and wikis. Online collaboration and communication are the primary functions of Google Wave.
In the enterprise context, Wave could play a very important role in capturing collective intelligence and facilitating communication as well as being used as a collaboration tool. Obviously, these are all very important things which many companies currently have trouble doing. Current technologies such as SharePoint offer some tools for accomplishing these tasks but are generally not being utilized.
Who will use Google Wave?
I believe that the Google Wave users will be tech savvy people who work in a project based environment. IT project teams will be the biggest user group and will use Wave to collaborate on creating requirements, design documentation and project plans.
I believe that Wave’s high complexity will prevent it from being widely adopted by enterprises and consumers as a whole.
If we look at other technologies such as Twitter, email, blogs and wikis we can observe an important trend. Technologies with low levels of complexity tend to be more widely adopted than technologies with higher levels of complexity. Figure 1.0 is a back-of-the-envelope estimation of complexity levels and adoption rates of various communication technologies.
Why is this the case? Lower levels of complexity create a larger pool of potential users because there are more people who have the technical abilities required to use the technology. More users increase the positive network effects of a given technology which further drives adoption rates.
I believe that Google Wave’s high complexity level means that the pool of potential users will be small—limiting adoption rates. I believe Wave will be a successful niche product. Will Google be satisfied with that? Considering they have publicly mused that Wave may one day “replace email”, I think not.
Tags: Google, Innovation, Web 2.0
June 19 2009
I recently read Dana Blankenhorn’s great article about the future of eBooks. Dana argues that eBooks in their current form are not taking advantage of being a digital product because they fail to leverage the power of hyperlinks. I would completely agree. Furthermore, it has been proven time and time again that repurposing old ideas from the offline world doesn’t translate into success in the online world. Let’s take a look at a couple of examples, banner ads and SecondLife.
Banner ads on a website are conceptually easy to understand for marketers who are used to working in an offline world. Essentially banner ads are digital equivalents of newspaper or magazine ads. These types of ads fail to tap in to what makes the web a powerful tool. In this case, the ability to dynamically change based on user behavior and the ability for business owners to easily create their own ad content.
In contrast, text based ads such as Google AdWords harness the unique powers of the web by changing based on what a user searches for on Google. Other benefits include the marketplace Google has created around the purchasing of AdWords and the fact that any small business owner can easily create their own. This DYI aspect of AdWords are another uniquely digital idea that empowers end users to create their own content without expert intervention. Text based ads such as AdWords consistently outperform banner ads because they are based on digital ideas that succeed in the digital environment.
The ways which companies flocked to the virtual world SecondLife provides another example of how old ideas repurposed for the virtual-world fail. In the article “How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life“, Frank Rose describes how companies are spending millions of dollars to set up a virtual presence in SecondLife. The problem is these virtual corporate headquarters sit empty, generating little or no ROI. So why are companies wasting millions on this? Rose points out that these companies are falling into the trap of repurposing old real-world ideas for the online world. To them, it makes sense to have a virtual company headquarters because they have a real-world company headquarters. SecondLife itself makes these bad ideas even more attractive because it looks like the real world—virtual people walking around virtual environments.
I feel that if eBooks never offer anything more than being a digital copy of a real-world product they will never be widely adopted. Ideas and products that are uniquely digital are the ones that will find the most success online. Currently eBooks aren’t there yet.
Tags: AdWords, Google, Innovation, SecondLife, Web 2.0
May 19 2009
I’ve been messing around with Wolfram|Alpha and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s essentially a computer driven version of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia’s major advantage is that its users create value by editing, creating, and improving content. Essentially, Wikipedia gives its users a platform to create value. This is one of the basic principles of success in the Web 2.0 era. Basically, you’re getting your users to do your work for free.
For example, Flickr users create value by tagging photos with relevant metadata which allows for searching and marketing activities. A photo of the Eiffel tower may be tagged with words like “Paris”, “France”, “Eiffel Tower”, etc. This allows users to quickly find that photo via search or browsing and allows marketers to target specific keywords and photos. Traditional stock photography companies spend huge amount of money on employing people to tag their photo collections. Think of the costs that Flickr is saving.
Currently, the data that drives Wolfram|Alpha is combined and curated by the Wolfram|Alpha team. These are internalized costs. Basically, it’s the Wolfram|Alpha team that is creating value. The resources it would require to turn Wolfram|Alpha into a truly useful tool are just too much for one company to bear with internal staff. In the Web 2.0 universe, users create value and platforms that don’t allow users to do this face an uphill battle.
Tags: Flickr, Web 2.0, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha