Slashdot Mirror
The Next Big Thing — Why Web 2.0 Isn't Enough
An anonymous reader writes "TechConsumer has an interesting discussion about what it will take for the next big thing, and why Web 2.0 is only just the beginning. 'Realtors have been giving us the answer for years, although they didn't know it. The next big thing is..."location, location, location". Think of how we access all the information of the Internet. We do it at a desk, where wires keep us attached to a specific location. Laptops help us branch out a bit, but even then we are tied to a wireless connection. Go to far and you no longer have access to information.'"
>>Today we have access to an unfathomable amount of information. Web 2.0 has helped us begin to organize and make sense of that information.
I guess I don't really get Web 2.0 then.
Not sure I get the "location, location, location" thing either. Yahoo has had local Yahoos for years now. How would tags work better than regular Google searches?
It has been exciting to see where things are headed with location based applications - for instance, google will be releasing AdSense in the Google Maps API, which will have some very seriously monetization implications for not only our apps, but anyone developing with their API
Shameless plug, but check out our site www.mapgroove.com
What the author is saying is take your PDA with GPS, walk around and have it automatically search for hits at your coordinates, with links to relevant info.
What this depends on is information being indexed by coordinates, via tags or elsewise. Not sure that'll take off.
Instead, why don't points of interest broadcast on an open (but secure, if possible) network? Go to a museum, a list of links pops up on your PDA.
Either that or index the whole world in google earth|maps or something similar.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Think about a Zoo and walking around a virtual zoo, while walking in the zoo and clicking on a virtual sticker that read about an animal. Or a guide for tourist, that gave info on every inch of a city.
Was an amazing job and I enjoyed it. That is where it's going I believe.
"They'd otherwise have to go directly to the fast food chains and cull their franchise records. I'm sure some do this for completeness, but it's definitely not the only way they collect data.
On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals. I don't think the market would ever settle for this given how easy the data is to get already."
Unless it works like Google ads. The highest bidder will get the top billing.
Even if it works like Google search it is likely that you will be sent to a chain. Even among locals most people will go to Subway or Arby's than a local deli.
Think about it logically. How will it decide where you should get your meal? Will it pick first one you go near? How do you know it is any good? Or will it pick the most popular? Or will it pick one based on where you tend to go? Then how will it know that Bill's deli is something like Sam's subs next to your office? Software can not do magic. It must have some way to decide what should go first. And in the example given it will give you only the top hit.
Google Roast Beef sub and you will see the first hit will be a chain. Jersey Mikes, which does make a pretty good sub for a chain.
If they don't put people that pay near the top of the list how will this make money?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Flickr: 18 errors
Reddit: 28 errors
MySpace: 210 errors (no surprise there)
Seems like he's in good company, after all.
(I also checked Digg, they had zero errors, so someone in that space is doing something right.)
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Quick proof read next time
For conflict begins on slashdot
When mistakes are made
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
The government has a specific interest in not putting companies out of business.
If a "open" network that allows VOIP existed, would any cellular carrier still exist? OK, assuming Verizon still has out-of-major-city towers, would any carrier that is mostly big-cities-only (Tmobile) still exist?
Sure, the government doesn't guarantee that a business will exist forever, but if the government starts making a habit out of squashing businesses how long will it be before nobody decides to take the risk on a startup because the government might?
Sort of like competing with Microsoft - they release a new free add-on to Windows that replaces whatever it is you decided to publish. Nobody does that anymore just because Microsoft "might". It happened maybe 8 times total, so it isn't as if Microsoft did it to 100 different players.
So no wonder AT&T would fight it. It is their entire operation at stake. And it is a very difficult question to answer if the government should ever do something like that. Something I am sure the courts are going to have lots of fun with.
I know it's inevitable, but I don't particularly like or need the constant link to information that Internet-everywhere would provide. I don't need to feel connected everywhere I go. I'm perfectly happy to go into my office and use the computer to type an e-mail, or sit on my couch and read news headlines and check local weather on my Nintendo Wii.
:D
I think the urge to move everything to a constant, Internet-everywhere connection is driven by some kind of mental illness. I really don't want to have people constantly e-mailing me, phoning me, text messaging me, sending me stupid links, pictures and trying to get me to join Facebook. If they really want to talk to me, they can come over to my house, or meet me for a coffee, or invite me over. Or even use the telephone.
I also think that most of the information we want so bad to have at our fingertips within seconds of it happening is useless garbage anyway. I don't need my life and my mind crowded with terabytes of crap.
That's why I only browse Slashdot every couple days
Ok, so maybe "touring" is not what I am thinking about, but lots and lots of people go to unfamiliar cities all the time. Business travel is loaded with people like this.
I would use it and I go to places I am already familiar with. I would use it even more if I had never been to that city. Hell, I use it in my own city for that matter.
Imagine, you are looking at your smartphone (whatever flavor)...."Let's see...where is my hotel in relation to the city? Now show me steakhouses within walking distance. Cool, just found a dinner place for tomorrow night. Actually, show me Italian also in case I am not in the mood for steak. Let's see - how about something to do tomorrow night. Is there a theater nearby? What movies are on? How about a ballpark or stadium nearby. Anybody playing?"....and on...and on.
Don't underestimate the need to fill boredom and lack of familiarity in business travelers. This will be HUGE, with spam or without.
The iPhone is lip service. A couple of days ago, that realization hit me.
u al-cell-network-connectivity + Google's no-longer-dark-fiber-network-with-WiFi-access-poin ts-everywhere = no more need for a cell phone.
1) The iPhone is released as a "regular" cell phone. It has a crappy service provider, a sketchy network, and all the lockdowns necessary to satisfy said SP+Network. AT&T takes the bait.
2) Speculation grew over a few days over how much in common parts/software the iPhone shares with iPod. iPod is an established product and brand with no ties to anyone else's product, service, or network. iPhone is "AT&T-locked crap" and even the "iPhone" trademark was disputed with at least 3 other companies. It's not long for the world because...
3) The next iPod is supposedly an iPhone device without the cellular capabilities. This sounds limited, but it's not. It'll still be a phone. Regardless of whether Apple includes an actual "handset" shape to the device, there have been microphone+speaker add-ons for the iPod for years. There's also an iPod SDK. This means...
4) Someone will develop a SIP client for iPod. Hell, Apple will probably make one themselves. It will use the iPod's soon-to-be-added WiFi feature. You will have a "cell phone" anywhere with a hot spot. That leaves you SOL if you're away from WiFi hotspots, though. Unless...
5) Google bought assloads of dark fiber and is talking up the prospect of a nationwide WiFi network.
Apple iPod-with-all-of-iPhone's-capabilities-except-act
AT&T just stepped on a land mine and no longer has any legs. It was a land mine shaped like a stylized apple with a bite out of it.