Sven Haiges spoke to Ajit Jaokar, an advocate for innovation within the mobile data industry to better understand Mobile web 2.0, and the wider impact of web 2.0 on the mobile data industry. Ajit is also a recognised author and a champion in the industry for his views on OpenGardens i.e. opening up the walled gardens of the telecoms industry. To know more Ajit's latest book, Mobile web 2.0, head over to www.mobileweb20.futuretext.com.
Sven Haiges (SH): Ajit, you are a member of the Web 2.0 Workgroup, an influential group of people blogging about Web 2.0 in general. Your Blog, OpenGardens.futuretext.com, is specifically about mobile Web 2.0. How did you get to know this group and what are your main goals within this group?
Ajit Jaokar (AJ): I was invited to this group based on some my blog posts on mobile web 2.0 (www.opengardensblog.futuretext.com). I wear the 'mobile' hat in this group. It’s a great group and has some cutting edge thinkers like Dave Winer (founder of RSS).
SH: What makes "Mobile" Web 2.0 so specific, and what does it share with the "General" Web 2.0?
AJ: To understand this question, we have to first understand the concepts behind Web 2.0. It is a 'Soft concept' - it's not a standard, or a formula or a definition - which would have been a lot easier to explain. To me, it's explained by the collective application of the seven principles of Web 2.0, as outlined by Tim O' Reilly. I proposed an alternative definition of Web 2.0, which was featured on the O Reilly radar (the unified definition of Web 2.0). Essentially, it is based on the principle that Web 2.0 is all about ‘harnessing collective intelligence, i.e. the second principle’ and the other principles that feed into the second principle (as I shall explain below):
Web 2.0 can be described as the 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' (which is the second principle of Web 2.0). The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge is intelligence. Knowledge is the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
SH: What kind of intelligence can be attributed to the web? How is it different from web 1.0?
AJ: Web 1.0 was hijacked by the marketers, advertisers and the people who wanted to stuff canned content down our throat! Take away all that after the dot com bubble and what's left is the web as it was originally meant to be - a global means of communication. Thus, the intelligence attributed to the Web (Web 2.0) arises from us, as we begin to communicate. Thus, when we talk of the 'Intelligent web' or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' - we are talking of the familiar principle of wisdom of crowds.
Now, let’s look at the seven principles again:
1. The Web As Platform: The Web is the only true link that unites us all together whoever we are and wherever we are in the world. Hence, to harness collective intelligence and to create the intelligent Web, we need to include as many people as we can. The only way we can do this is to treat the Web as a platform and use open standards. You cannot harness collective intelligence using the ESA/390 (mainframe) - however powerful it is!
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence: Now becomes the 'main' principle or the first principle
3. Data is the Next Intel Inside: By definition, to harness collective intelligence, we must have the capacity to process massive amounts of data. Hence, data is the 'intelligence' (Intel)
4. End of the Software Release Cycle: This pertains to 'Software as a Service'. Software as a 'product' can never keep upto date with all the changing information. Of course in the Web 2.0 sense, we are dealing with code as well as data - so the service concept keeps the data relevant (and the harnessed decision accurate) by accessing as many sources as possible.
5. Lightweight Programming Models: The heavy weight programming models catered for the few. In contrast, using lightweight programming models, we can reach many more people (hence sources of information - to enable data collection and a more intelligent web). For example: from the seven principles, Amazon.com's web services are provided in two forms: one adhering to the formalisms of the SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) web services stack, the other simply providing XML data over HTTP, in a lightweight approach sometimes referred to as REST (Representational State Transfer). While high value B2B connections (like those between Amazon and retail partners like ToysRUs) use the SOAP stack, Amazon reports that 95% of the usage is of the lightweight REST service.
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device: More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence.
7. Rich User Experiences: A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the web - leading ofcourse to a more 'Intelligent' web.
To recap, here is a WEB 2.0 FAQ:
- What is web 2.0? : It’s the intelligent web.
- What makes it intelligent? We do.
- How does it happen? : By harnessing collective intelligence
- What do you need to harness collective intelligence? : The other six principles!
A diagram is as below:
Having understood this, let us now consider what is ‘mobile’ web 2.0. If we consider ‘web 2.0’ as ‘harnessing collective intelligence’, then mobile web 2.0 becomes: ‘harnessing collective intelligence’ using ‘harnessing collective intelligence using restricted devices’.
The seemingly simple idea of extending web 2.0 to mobile web 2.0 has many facets – for instance :
a) What is a restricted device?
b) What are the implications of extending the web to restricted devices?
c) As devices become creators and not mere consumers of information – what categories of intelligence can be captured/harnessed from restricted devices?
d) What is the impact for services as devices start using the web as a massive information repository and the PC as a local cache where services can be configured?
Let us break down this definition into it’s components:
Restricted device: A broad definition of a ‘restricted device’ is not easy. The only thing they all have in common is - ‘they are battery driven’. But then – watches have batteries? A better definition of restricted devices can be formulated by incorporating Barbara Ballard’s carry principle.
Thus, a restricted device could now be deemed as:
a) Carried by the user
b) battery driven
c) Small(by definition)
d) Probably multifunctional but with a primary focus
e) A device with limited input mechanisms(small keyboard)
f) Personal and personalised BUT
g) Not wearable (that rules out the watch!). But, there is a caveat, a mobile device in the future could be wearable and it's capacities may well be beyond what we imagine today. The input mechanism in the future will not be a key stroke on such devices, but a movement or sound. So, this is an evolving definition.
Finally, there is a difference between a ‘carried’ device and a ‘mobile device which is in a vehicle’. For example – in a car, a GPS navigator is a ‘mobile device’ and in a plane, the in-flight entertainment screen is also ‘mobile’. However, both these devices are not ‘carried by a person’ and do not have the same screen/power restrictions as devices that are carried by people.
However, whichever way you look at it, it's clear that the mobile phone is an example of a restricted device. From now on – we use the definition of mobile devices interchangeably with ‘restricted devices’ and the meaning will be clearer in the context.
Extending the web to restricted devices: It may seem obvious, but web 2.0 is all about the ‘web’ because web 2.0 could not have been possible without the web. Thus, in a ‘pure’ definition, web 2.0 is about ‘harnessing collective intelligence via the web’. When we extend this definition to ‘mobile web 2.0’ – there are two implications :
a) The web does not necessarily extend to mobile devices
b) Even though the web does not extend to mobile devices, intelligence can still be captured from mobile devices.
The seven principles of web 2.0 speak of this accurately when they discuss the example of the ipod/iTunes. The ipod uses the web as a back end and the PC as a local cache. In this sense, the service is ‘driven by the web and configured at the PC’ but it is not strictly a ‘web’ application because it is not driven by web protocols, end to end (ipod protocols are proprietary to Apple).
Thus, the characteristics (distinguishing principles) of Mobile web 2.0 are:
a) Harnessing collective intelligence through restricted devices; i.e., a two way flow where people carrying devices become reporters rather than mere consumers
b) Driven by the web backbone – but not necessarily based on the web protocols end to end
c) Use of the PC as a local cache/configuration mechanism where the service will be selected and configured
SH: Web 2.0 is also about intensified interaction and collaboration; how can mobile technologies contribute to that? (location, etc.)?
AJ: As we have seen before, Web 2.0 could be described as the intelligent web or harnessing collective intelligence. Web 2.0 (and by extension mobile web 2.0) is all about user generated content. The rise of "User Generated Content" online, where users are given control of the content creation process, is creating a second wave in the digital media field. Coupled with the growing technical capacity of mobile phones, this phenomenon is significant. Historically, the mobile device has always been the mechanism to capture content at the point of inspiration. Unlike a camera, a voice recorder or a PC, the mobile device is always with us. But with mobile Web 2.0, for the first time, we have the capacity to add intelligence to the content we capture at the point of inspiration (via mechanisms like tags). Of course, tags could also mean location (which is just another form of tagging).
SH: You recently posted an interesting view on the future of the mobile application space. Your main point was that mobile AJAX could potentially replace Java ME. What exactly are the benefits of Mobile AJAX, and what are its downsides?
AJ: The power of mobile Ajax lies in it’s capacity to create widgets, better user interface and data management capabilities. Widgets can be deployed on the browser (desktop) and also on mobile devices(as more devices start to support the full browser). Already, Opera and Nokia have announced support for Mobile Ajax and I expect more will follow. The downside for mobile Ajax is the downside for any browsing application i.e. the application must be connected to the web among other things.
SH: Is there still room for Java ME, if yes, in which application areas?
AJ: Yes, I believe all technologies will co-exist. Yes, there is room for Java ME especially in areas like gaming. However, my whole argument is: mobile applications need critical mass/network or viral effect (think ‘hotmail’). Java ME can’t provide that. To be fair, no downloaded application environment can provide that easily. You need the web to achieve this. In general, I am of the belief that mobile is all about communications and less about media. Any technology that facilitates communication will be better in my view. So far, Java ME has been useful for media type apps (games etc). We need more communication type applications. But Java ME will continue to be used for games.
SH: What role will flash play in the mobile Web 2.0 space?
AJ: Like other technologies, it will also coexist.
SH: Your book, OpenGardens, discusses how mobile operators will change to increase the amount of innovation in the mobile space. If you had to propose an action plan to a large operator, what would the key actions be?
AJ: Ahh .. that’s a book in itself! I believe that the business of being a mobile network operator is under threat. Today, we see every operator trying to adopt a converged strategy using fixed to mobile convergence. In a few years, I expect, operators as we know them now, will not exist. Hence, no advice can be given to them since its too late!. This may seem radical – but its not so much so since its already happening around us now.
My general view point thought would be to open up, concentrate on running an excellent network and leave the services to third parties. On a macro scale, this is happening with MVNOs. But MVNOs are still too structured. We need to encourage grassroots innovation. |
