Web 2.0 and the Long Tail, Part 2

After posting his Web 2.0 "meme map", which he apparently hadn't expected people to find until he was finished with an accompanying essay, Tim O'Reilly has now posted the full essay: What is Web 2.0. He'll be talking about it at his Web 2.0 conference next week in San Francisco.

I think Web 2.0 is a real and powerful concept, but the precise definition is, despite Tim's work, still a bit of a muddle. His essay, for instance, is approximately 6,000 words long and largely defines by example. You might quibble with his examples or think different ones make the case better. The Wikipedia entry is no clearer.

I don't think that means that Web 2.0 is any less important. In an era of bottoms-up creation and user-driven networks, the messy heterogeneity of the real world makes simple, monolithic definitions difficult.

What, for instance, defines a "blog"? Although you could try to give some common characteristics (individual voice? chronological order? permalinks?) my friend Jeff Jarvis is wise enough to refuse to answer that question:

A blog is merely a tool that lets you do anything from change the world to share your shopping list. People will use it however they wish. And it is way too soon in the invention of uses for this tool to limit it with a set definition.

This is no surprise. As I've said before, "The first rule of the blogosphere is not to generalize about the blogosphere."

Blogs are a Long Tail, and it is always a mistake to generalize about the quality or nature of content in the Long Tail--it is, by definition, variable and diverse.

The same goes for Web 2.0. Paradoxically, the lack of a crisp definition is a feature, not a bug. And as the world shifts from the limited variety of bottlenecked distribution to the infinite variety of open distribution, there will be more examples of phenomena that are hard to define but are nevertheless real and true. The future is increasingly heterogeneous, not homogeneous.One size doesn't fit all.

Regardless, I think Tim's off to a good start (and not just because he begins with the LT) in laying out a framework for Web 2.0 with these general principles:

Web 2.0 Design Patterns

1) The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

2) Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.

3) Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.

4) Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.

5) Some Rights Reserved.
Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."

6) The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are ongoing services. Therefore: Don't package up new features into monolithic releases, but instead add them on a regular basis as part of the normal user experience. Engage your users as real-time testers, and instrument the service so that you know how people use the new features.

7) Cooperate, Don't Control
Web 2.0 applications are built of a network of cooperating data services. Therefore: Offer web services interfaces and content syndication, and re-use the data services of others. Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely-coupled systems.

8) Software Above the Level of a Single Device
The PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications, and applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected. Therefore: Design your application from the get-go to integrate services across handheld devices, PCs, and internet servers.

By the way, if you'd like to learn more about Tim, I can highly recommend Steven Levy's profile of him in this month's Wired. I'm biased, of course, but I think it's the best thing ever written about Tim, who really is emerging as the guru of the participation age.

Comments

[John "Z-Bo" Zabroski]

Chris, I applaud you for pointing out the very reason why I refuse to adopt the phrase "Web 2.0": the definition of what Web 2.0 is so far only defined by example, and not by an actual definition. So, for now, I keep telling software engineers and business people to describe by example what they think will attract customers.

One thing, though. "The Perpetual Beta" is not something new, in the slightest. Blizzard Entertainment has been doing this for years with their online games and servers, Linux has pretty much always been known (at least by the early adopters) as the perpetual beta operating system kernel, and Frederick P Brooks pretty much advocates the same software engineering methodology about fourty years ago. Really, anything FOSS **with the right licensing agreement** is a perpetual beta. I'm not sure if you heard, but GPL3.0 is supposedly going to close a loophole where web applications that use GPL code have to disclose how they use that code. This is a mindblowing concept in terms of the Long Tail and may give a new peculiarity to the Long Tail not discussed before (out of what I have read).

So the premise "When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are ongoing services" is blatantly false. Causality is very important when explaining things.

[chris anderson]

John,

Good points. You may be interested to see that since my post Tim has actually taken a stab at a short definition here. I still think it's pretty fuzzy, but as I say, that's probably unavoidable.

[John "Z-Bo" Zabroski]

Chris, excellent of you to point that out to me, thanks.

I think Tim would be a lot better served if he took the phrase "Web 2.0" and instead of making it a definition, making it much, much more of a framework/methodology like CASE. That's difficult to do, though, since "Web 2.0" is a meme and has become its own life force of sorts. Right now, most of what Tim is doing is building a paradigm that explains the many ways you can describe "Web 2.0".

I agree the fuzzy is probably unavoidable, which is why I conclude businesses need to be careful when spreading the "Web 2.0" as a source of *specification* within its corporate culture. Everyone in the organization needs to think the same thing about "Web 2.0" when it's spoken or there will be communication issues that result in faults in the product. Perpetual beta or not, fixing the faults created by miscommunication costs money.

[Francis Hamit]

The push for low barriers on the the reuse of intellectual property is a great idea from the consumer point of view, but very hostile to creators. It becomes harder and harder to simply make a living from your art. This is not a new problem, but goes back to when books started being a mass production product. The first copyright law, The Statute of Anne, which was enacted in 1710, was very specific on this point.

What is needed is a system similar to the UK's "Public Lending Right" where small payments are aggregated and sent to writers every year for the access to their creations. The technology to apply this principle to the Internet would be no more complex than the credit card payemnt systems already in place and it would play very well into the Long Tail model at all levels.

The Art Institute of Chicago has a sign in the lobby. "You may pay what you like to enter, but your must pay something". It's free on Thursdays. Otherwise those wishing access have to contribute. Donations motivated by conscience are a proven model for compensating cultural institutions, so why not use this method to pay the artists themselves? Or alternativly, charge for access on a per page basis that is negigible for every instance but totals to adequate compensation over the long term. Fractions of a cent become thousands of dollars. Without caps or limitations, such a system would also accomodate best sellers.

[бесплатно]

Good points. You may be interested to see that since my post

[Rickle]

This Book is no doubt great. However, it seems like just comply with the online business. If we have to think about the physical business, we should level down the effect of Long Tail

[Rickle]

This Book is no doubt great. However, it seems like just comply with the online business. If we have to think about the physical business, we should level down the effect of Long Tail