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.'"
Web 2.1! Web 2.0 is going to be really buggy!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Where is this place "far" that you speak of and why can't we access information there? I feel bad for anyone from "far". Oh! You meant too far!
I understand but come on it changes the meaning and more importantly makes it difficult to read. Quick proof read next time please.
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
Bruce Sterling wrote a similar, but even more imaginative article in Wired, about a concept which he called the hyperlocal web. The dept 'long-way-to-go' on this article is interesting in light of Sterling's piece, because in a sidebar, he basically makes the point that Google is already building all the information necessary for this sort of stuff with Google Earth. Combine that with Google's recent interest in the wireless spectrum and GPS and bam! it sorta hits you: Google's already working on this stuff. How far off are they? I guess only time will tell.
My blog
"If I'm driving down a dirt road, I can access the Internet, enter in the key words, "eat, roast beef sandwich'. The next time I pass within 5 miles of an Arby's my device let's me know."
So will it be giving you directions or providing a warning?
Yea this will be the next big thing. The problem is that you will get directions to Arby's but you will not get directions to Bill's deli. You know that little hole in the wall where they bake their own rolls and use real roast beef?
Yea the next big thing in advertising.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I guess I don't really get Web 2.0 then.
That's because it's a buzzword, implying much and meaning little. It's all about Dynamic HTML! No! It's all about centralized data! No! It's all about distributed services!
It's all just a little bit of what the web's been since 1998, only we're getting better at it, so people have to make it into something to puff out their vita, and make them "marketable," even though they were part of the reason we had the other buzzword, the "dot-com bubble."
IT marketers do love their buzzwords.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Be careful what you ask for. If your job can be done remotely from the comfort of your home/a beach/a coffee shop, then it can also be done from third world countries by folks who are willing to work for much less than you are.
Loading...
Your brain is not a computer.
Actually, I think the GP's point wasn't that Arby's was trying to lock out Bill's Deli, but rather that Bill (of Bill's Deli) doesn't understand why he should need a web presence, etc. I've often done web searches to try to find the hours of operation on some of my favorite eating places only to find that they don't have a web presence. I can usually find an article on them by the local paper, but those don't always have the hours of operation (or a menu).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
To bad you don't know how two proof-read.
I think the author of this piece overestimates how much time people spend touring. Sure, this could be handy in the few situations you're in a new place hunting for something new, but people don't spend a lot of time doing that. On the other hand, looking at the other two revolutions listed by the author, people need to find things on the internet all the time, and socializing is a daily thing. You could build a neat digital location tagging game, à la electronic geocaching, but I doubt it'd be long before it was polluted with idiots and spam. And how long can people play hide-and-seek? Sure, there are certainly niche applications, but I doubt it'll be the Next Big Thing.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
You're underestimating the true power of context-based search. When some crazy has you buried in an 18th century dungeon, your PDA from 2019 will give you driving directions to the nearest Ace hardware, and a printable coupon for $2 off lock picking supplies.
FTA: Think of the last time you were at a national park. It's a very good possibility that the only information you had about the park fit on a tri-fold paper that you picked up at the visitor's station. In the information age, how is this acceptable?
It's more than just acceptable. It's exactly what I want when I go to a national park: to get away from the hyper-connected world of technology. The only information I want I will get from the park ranger, who hopefully can't tell his DVD-ROM from his Firewire, but can answer my questions about lizards and rocks.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Your post is late, under-delivered, and does nothing but copy those who've come before you.
Yep, you're certainly qualified to write about Vista!
"People who liked this book dated this person!"
"People who dated this person also dated this person."
I'm only sort of joking...
From my home, I have only 56kdialup available. From the South Pole, I have more.
You're in a land populated by penguins and surprised they have good Internet connections? Where do you think Linux comes from?
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.
That's less true than some wish it were. Wages for capable, experienced programmers in India have shot up dramatically over the last few years (thanks to finite supply and rapidly growing demand), to the point where someone in India with experience, talent, and decent communication skills costs just about as much as someone in a first world country with the same skills.
Bad programmers are cheaper overseas. Good programmers cost the same anywhere you go. Especially once you factor in the cost of the communications overhead inherent in having your workforce in a timezone 12 hours offset from your own.
I was with you up to that point. A nationwide 802.11x mesh is neither economically nor technically feasible. 802.11x is good for what it's currently used for, and not much more. In reality, something higher power and longer range is necessary -- like existing cell networks, and/or WiMAX.
It took hundreds of APs for google to cover the town of Mountain View, CA (population: 70,000). Oh, and you're capped at 1 megbit/sec up/down
Google's proposal to cover SF in a similar fasion is slated to provide only 300 k/sec speeds to free users, and 1 megabit/sec to those paying $22/month; At those prices, DSL is almost certainly a better option. Given the numbers on the page, google expects to use as many as 1500 APs to cover San Francisco, an incredibly compact city with an area of only 47 square miles (which it's probably safe to assume this project would only cover some of)
Even generously assuming that 1,500 802.11g APs can cover all of San Francisco's 47 square miles, that's still 32 APs per square mile. At that rate, covering the city of Los Angeles would take roughly 20,000 APs, and covering Los Angeles County would take 150,000. And while you may deem that somewhat practical, applying the same treatment to the rural US (which, coincidentally, makes up *most* of the country, by area) is far less practical -- covering the state of Wyoming would require 6 APs for every resident!
Covering the country's densest cities in 802.11g APs is just barely practical. Covering the entire nation is laughable.