You are dead!
Anybody who is doing Yellow Pages online? Or thinking of doing classified ads online?
YOU ARE DEAD!
That's the consensus among technology luminaries I listened to this afternoon in Las Vegas.
Screenshots picture by Jeff Ooi
Tech guru Tim O'Reilly, founder and chief of O'Reilly Media Inc. who coined the term Web2.0, led the 75-minute conversation themed: Web 2.0: Show Me the Money. Panel members were Adam Trachtenberg (eBay), Jeremy Zawodny (Yahoo!), and Michael Arrington (TechCrunch).
Web development has been very disruptive, the panel agreed. In answering to a question from Yellow Pages Canada, which has 35% reach of target audience, the model is going to die -- no matter online or offline, the panel said. Though Yellow Pages are in custody of data that command high trust level, its revenue is threathened by content aggregator, even Ad-centric Google.
Screenshots picture by Jeff Ooi
O’Reilly, when he coined the term Web 2.0, has already forewarned that the next generation Internet is going to be a battle over more database and content, with the user-generated content becoming the core. He quoted auction site eBay.com, image aggregator Flickr.com and online bookmark Deli.cio.us as the examples. This is what O’Reilly called the phenomenon of “increasing collective intelligence”.
Here, he reiterated that though Google carries out no conversation with its customers, it has been harnessing 'collective intelligence' to its advantage. It has come from nowhere to eat your lunch.
You are going to die, Yellow Pages Canada was told.
To a guy who is the CTO of an online classified ad company, which has been chipping away newspapers' revenue for some years, was told: "You are dead!".
Because most of the panelists saw online classified ad model as Web1.0. And Web1.0 is dead.
A panelist, however, was kind enough to lay out a carpet of soft landing for Yellow Pages and the online classified ad company. He rounded it up this way: Each industry has to plan for its own obselescence.
Which essentially means, either way you are dead!
That's one of the most eerie tech conferences I have ever attended.
Comments
The second shot - mood was captured well. Which digital camera , Jeff?
Posted by: LittleBird![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 21, 2006 06:27 PM
Man,
You must be doing darn well in your business to be able to afford flying to the US to attend this gab conference.
Looks like the 30sen increase is hardly a dent, eh?
Posted by: Yumcious![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 21, 2006 06:36 PM
Jeff: very interesting indeed. Could you perhaps let us know your personal views about this, from someone "in the industry" as well?
I'm just wondering if the lumping of all yellow pages-like sites into the so-called web1.0, and treating web1.0 as dead, is premature or even a well-supported assertion. Coming from a "normal" user's perspective, I'm not actually sure what's the defining feature of web2.0 that makes it so different: i thought the web was always about "collective intelligence". I'm sure I'm missing something.
Posted by: ruykava![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 02:44 AM
First, it was Y2K armegeddon, now this. Grow up techies. We can survive without computers and the internet.
Posted by: sydput![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 08:58 AM
"You are dead?"
C'mon, this article is hopelessly confusing and doesn't make sense. Unless, you want us to go Google it everywhere?
Just because it's Web 1.0 doesn't mean it's dead, besides why would Web 1.0 spells doom for online classifieds anyway?
Well -- I'm sure there is good reasons for that -- but, from this blog entry, I can't see any.
JEFF OOI says: I expected this knee-jerk response from average Screenshots readers like this one. Don't be a lazy bum. Instead of whining and ranting, get off your butt and write a 7-page response to Tim O'Reilly and the gang and tell them you think web1.0 is doing fine. I believe you can out-argue them since you have so much to say about this subject. Pass me your missive and I can guarantee it will get delivered to Tim personally. Please don't disappoint us, willya?
Posted by: Seymores_2000![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 02:13 PM
Seymores_2000 , remember I mentioned most of the IT events and incidents are hypes.
Web is Web is Web . What is Web 2.0 , I don't understand. Then what was Web 1.0 , if Web 2.0 does not work , then reverse back to Web 1.0 ? I think all these so called
technical evangelists are bullshit
JEFF OOI says: Is this chaos vs 'stagnantism'. Or pureplay 'dianasaurism' that the Earth should rotating since Adam & Eve have found Paradise? TCP/IP and the packet world has opened the windows of the impossibles, it won't turn back. You haven't reached episode two of Star Trek season one, have you? ;-)
World Wide Web was designed to trasnport text but some stupid make it to carry voice , video and what P2P. Now we are talking about security in VOIP, we are shooting our own foot
Tim Bernard Lee willbe amok if he learn about Web 2.0
JEFF OOI says: I think you are refering toTim Berners-Lee instead? If it isn;t wrong identity, the treat him as the prequel to Web1.0 and so will you reason better. Even the HTTP and HTML that Tim "invented" has been hanced and perfected so many times over that xhtml still recalls html as its backbone, and W3C has no problem standardising it.
Posted by: Pentiumboy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 03:58 PM
In case anyone's interested in the web 1.0 / web 2.0 distinction, this is a good place to get a fairly balanced, basic overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Incidentally, I'd think Wikipedia is one of the classic "Web 2.0" sites. I'm not retracting my response in the second paragraph of my first post: although it's not quite the 7 page missive Jeff is asking for.
Posted by: ruykava![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jeffooi.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 07:35 PM