Today we can almost find anything from as simple as how to take a decent sleep to as complex as how to build a satelites. These remarkable progress of information is in debt of the magnificent benefit of the Internet. Internet have developed from just a couple of connected university mainframes into a modern day fast information path. I viewed internet like a huge UNIX cluster machine connected to each other with services each provide. The growth of the internet is not just felt “better be” but its more like “needed to have” regarding of the benefit it resulted for various importance.

Lets look forward to the future and imagine what internet would like in say… 5 years. Referring to the growth rate for the last 25 years since its first developed by ARPA, whats like likely that the internet can be an operating system ? or a Desktop computer? Well.. regardless of the answer, its gonna be really2 nice to imagine.

magine in 5 years, you still own your current 1.7Ghz CPU ( which will already be standardly slow at the time in question ), with 512 MB, Standard graphic card, 40GB HDD, and cable ( or maybe FO ) internet connection. You turn the computer and run your OS ( open source or propietary ) which took like 3 minutes or so. As soon as your computer is idle, you open your Mozilla v7 browser ( hopefully this browser still exists ) or Opera 20 or IE 14, and browse a 2.0 ( maybe 3.0 or 4.0 ) website that provides online mp3 players which was uploaded from your iTunes playlist. While the music plays, you open another website ( probably ajax based ) for online word processor / office suite ( like ms word, powerpoint, excel, etc ), which today is already exists with startling similarity with the common word processor we use ( search for “ajaxWrite” ).
How about image editing, like Adobe Photoshop?? Well.. in case you havent notice that such thing is already exists. Try to Google “picasa” and you’ll see. Well.. what do you know?? Its already started right in front of your eyes. Sorry, i say that like its some kind of conspiracy =)

Actually why do these things could or would happen? If you think about it, by using online applications end users only need their browser to run the apps. They dont need to install anything ( well.. maybe some plugins or something ), they dont need to read the minimun requirements. And the most important thing is, that these methods will dramatically and significantly reduce software piracy since software crackers these days always quote “No Webwares” on their cracked distributed software package. So its a positive side for the end users and the software vendors.
Okay, there’s gotta a down side of this right? On the top of my head, i can think about the security side which always been an issue in the double sided world of the internet. Online security company will work extra hard to provide robust and sophisticated security and intrusion detection systems. And of course the antiVirus company will have to view their work from a whole new direction because ( probably ) similar with a common desktop apps, online apps can be infected by malwares, virus, worms, etc. But of course, the antiVirus guys are very dedicated to their job and we owe them a lot for doing a very nice job.

Here’s one other threat that would most likely be haunting online users ( now and then ), Fraud and Phishing! A simple failure of filtering queries can lead to a fatal result. It needs only on click from a deceived user, and .. well you know what would happen next . So, at the end of all this, internet is still a double sided sword which can provide vast field of benefits, yet still a lot sense of insecurity. As the Jigsaw said in Saw4, ‘you cannot save everyone, they must save themselves’.
Then again 5 years is not that long, dont you think??!

There’s a lots of new startups going on these days and i simply cant keep up, not even near from keeping up. Approximately there’s 20 new webapps launched every single day. So how the hell do we keep up to this? How do we know which webapp really kills, or even better -the new killer startup-.

That’s why i’m relieved that i found KillerStartUp.com. This website gives reviews on new web startups / apps submitted to them. They actually receive more than 50 submission perday, but they bottle it up only 3 - 5 reviews per day. If you’re an internet venture looking for new startups to invest into, or simply an internet enthusiast trying to keep up with the move, this website is very helpfull.

Their review is highly accurate and objective so i personally their website is credible and relevant for analysis. And hey, if you own a web apps / startup that needs promotion and review, killerstartup can be very helpful to you.

I was blogwalking the other day using my Google Reader that subscribed to just over 40 blogs ( mostly indonesians ) and i saw this little arrow icon link on right top corner that said “read offline”. Wow, i can read this offline?? that’s neat!! So i follow the lead and i stumble into Google Gear download link. The page initializes your OS and browser and automatically generate a download link ( you can always change this ) for the setup file. It was 219kb so it was quick and i run the setup file in my Windows Vista & Firefox 3 ( my ubuntu crashed earlier this morning, sad.. )

After installed all i have to do is sync-it with my online Google Reader, and it will download all blog entries i subscribed. After that, i can always disconnect and go offline… but i can always open my firefox and enters http://www.google.com/reader in the address box and the offline Google Reader shows up and i can blogwalking without even connecting to the internet.

Its insane how easy the installation was.. it took less than a minute and the sync process took less than 3 minutes. crazy right?? but, before you do all this you better already have a gmail account, besides Google is way better than… you know what.

The mobile industry is predicted to rise above the web2.0 technology in the next years to come. The foundation build by Web 2.0 in connection with its content has ease the evolving process and convergence with mobile applications. Its now relatively easy for mobile providers to please their customer better using the information architecture blocks that had worked out and verified by the web2.0 phase. This is a huge opportunity for mobile operators and anything in relevance to reach out more profit using these techonologies.

There are basically 3 factors that form the concept of mobile content or mobile2.0 and they are : People, Time, and Place. These factor must be considered fully by the provider, and if they dont.. THEY WILL FAIL!

For example, Nokia in their new phone releases has integrate a lot of mobile content applications such as the new Search Engine that based your search result on where you are so the ads that got to you is the ads from the location near you, and of course the most relevant.

Also, there’s a lot of blogging provider / platform that enhancing their mobile content for viewing or to post/publish. In the next couple of years, people will gonna post blogs from their cellphone, upload their picture form their cellphone. Whether it uses SMS based applications or not, these application must fulfill the factors included in order to succeed.

Wow.. here’s another startup. This microblogging service is pretty similar to twitter coz maybe they actually adapt the whole concept if not duplicate. Developed by some 3 talented dudes from India, Kwippy has quite numerous users. I dont know the factual statistics, but most of the users are from india. This -i think- is because of the lack of promotion, since it runs under the shadow of Twitter, Plurk, Identica, etc. Running under the shadow, an underdog should cost more on promotion, of course you better have something special that other microblogging services doesnt have or ever think of. The only reason im signing up for kwippy is because its easy to update from my Ping.FM account.

Yeah its now about the small services.Well by that i mean the small services that actually works! Why would i say that? Because there’s some new microblogging startup that failed to identify the core of microblogging in relation to the Web 2.0 definitions. The chat feature is almost essential in microblogging services, but somebody actually take it for granted, and of course they’ll going to have to pay for that decision. The point of this post is to identify the benefit and positive side of microblogging compared to “normal” blogging. FYI, we’re going to talk about microblogging services that actually works like Twitter, Plurk, and Tumblr.

Okay, so first of all why do we even blog in the first place? Because we wanna be heard. Not just listen to other people, but to be heard by other people. Sometimes we have a lot to say, such as posting a tutorial or FAQ, or something long enough to bore your reader.

Blogging sharpen your mind. Why? Coz it makes you think, it makes you analyze things, keep those in your memory, and process it before you can type it down and post it.

The best lonely time. Most of the time, we cant blog in the middle of a huge crowd. We normally blog in loneliness and that’s actually a good thing. We are able to concentrate and focus at the same time.

Blogging is uniquely you. You dont have two people exactly blogging about the same damn thing! Some people maybe have the same interest, but they have different mind so it will differ clearly.

Bossless. The idea that blogging can be done without a boss’s existence is cool.

You blog about something about something you can blog about, and that thing is influenced by the X factor.

These are all forms of disintermediation on the web — disintermediation defines distribution on the web, made possible by RSS and hyperlinks.

The funny thing is that disintermediation is like a hall of mirrors — there’s really no end to it.

As Dave Winer posits:

There will of course eventually be the equivalent of Technorati, which assembles in one place, all the comments about each blog post.

In other words, somebody will come along and disintermediate FriendFeed, Shyftr, and all these other services by pulling all of the comments created on those services into yet another service.

How about a WordPress plugin that gathers all the comments about my blog posts on FriendFeed, Shyftr, etc. and displays them right here? That’s the beauty of data on the web — you can easily disintermediate the disintermediator.

Which is why disintermediation, i.e. CONTROL, is the wrong way to look at — it’s a very analogue media (i.e. old media) mindset.

The objective on the web isn’t to keep the data on your site — it’s to have an open exchange of data. It’s a wonderfully counterintuitive way of thinking.

If Shyftr or FriendFeed or anyone else wants to enable their users to comment on my blog posts, I say fine — so long as I can easily display any comment created on their services over HERE. Heck, I’d even give them a feed of the comments created here to display over THERE.

Think about it from the user perspective — too often these debates overlook what would best serve the USER.

The user is ill-served if there are conversations about a piece of content going on across multiple services, and the user has to go to each service to participate. Those participating in a conversation on one service are ill-served because they can’t hear what’s been said on other services.

What would be best for users is if all the services were connected, so that all the data appeared on EVERY service, and it didn’t matter which service I used to read or contribute — the data would propagate throughout network.

Remember, it’s the WEB — the network, right? Stop obsessing over YOUR blog or YOUR service or YOUR node — focus on enabling EVERYONE’S network. There’s only ONE web.

The pressure isn’t just on Facebook to open the flow of data — it’s on every web service and every publisher.

The winners won’t be those that control the most data — the winners will be those that channel the most data — and those that create the most value on top of the data flow.

Always remember Google.

Google makes billions of dollars by sending people away. Google doesn’t control any of the titles, URLs, or excerpts that appear on its search results pages — these are all determined by publishers. Google doesn’t control any of the pages where AdSense ads appear.

Google’s business model isn’t about controlling data or people — it’s about CHANNELING data and people. The more people and data that pass THROUGH Google, the more money Google makes. That’s why they offer a free blogging service and want to offer free internet service. That’s why they are evangelizing OpenSocial.

Google profits from liquidity in the system, from the free flow of people and data. Google dominates the web because they are the only company that really understands this.

You could say that Google’s control over the web is a function of its lack of control.

Go meditate on that for a while. I will, too.

Users fell 5% to 8.5 million in January from 8.9 million in December, according to data from Nielsen Online. (Via BBC)

I suspect the same thing was happening in newsrooms - and other workplaces - across Britain, as an older generation decided that if the kids were finding it impossible to run their lives without Facebook, it must be worth trying. That all helped propel Mark Zuckerberg’s company to the top of the social networking league in the UK, with 8.9 million users by the end of 2007. But by then I was already finding that many of my wrinklier Facebook friends had tired of the ceaseless vampire-biting, hugging, poking and other daft aspects of the increasingly cluttered and annoying site. Their status updates started to say “…falling out of love with Facebook” and then they disappeared altogether. (Via BBC dot life)

To be clear, I’m not saying that social networking is not for business — this is an issue of application design, where one size most certainly does not fit all. Just because Mark Zuckerberg wears jeans and flip flops doesn’t mean that’s appropriate for all business professionals, and just because Facebook is great application for sharing ones personal life with close friends and family doesn’t mean it’s useful or appropriate in a business context.

I think the big problem for Facebook is that it’s not clear what it is you can DO with Facebook in a business context that you can’t do with LinkedIn or, dare I say it, email. Sure, it’s cool because all the cool kids use it, but coolness should not be confused with utility.

Social networking applications can and will be a killer app for business, but only where it’s clear to prospective users what they can accomplish with the application that they can’t accomplish without it.

In short: How will this social networking application help me do my job better?

Generic social networking features — friends, message walls, groups — can help professionals connect and share information, but the promise of cheap, flexible application development is being able to create precisely the right tools for the job.

For instance, with Publish2, we designed the application to help journalists, editors, and newsrooms do their jobs better — help them organize story research, stay on top of news on their beats, and collaborate on creating news aggregation editorial products. We’re building the social network feature around the process of journalism (both traditional methods and new, innovative approaches), rather than trying to shoehorn journalism into some generic template.

I think you’re going to see more social networking sites go vertical, but they will be customized in large and small ways to the type of collaboration they are intended to facilitate. This will be a big challenge for Ning, which is certainly “good enough” for casual networking and collaboration, but may not pass muster for serious business use.

Facebook’s application platform makes it extensible, but in many ways it ends up being a hodge podge of bolted on features, rather than an elegantly integrated application, designed to optimally serve the needs of one type of user.

In many ways, Facebook is like mass media — and we all know what the web has to done to that.