He said he and his friend John Battelle of Federated Media had been playing around with an alternative which was Web 2.0 + World = Web Squared.

When I asked Mr O’Reilly if he loved or hated the name Web 2.0 that he popularised, he let out a big sigh and said “Awww does it have to be one or the other?”

Eventually he admitted “I love it and I hate it. It’s a term that has been very effective and very successful in getting across an idea. I spent a long time talking about that idea around the turn of the Millenium, talking about building the internet operating system. It didn’t catch on and all of a sudden we had this new term Web 2.0 and everyone got it so how could you not love that?”

In the end he said “I have mixed feelings about it. I am delighted with its effectiveness, it did what I wanted it to do. To catalyse the industry after the dotcom bust that things weren’t over and that something mattered about the companies that had survived. They knew something that the others didn’t. And I think that continues to be true.

“The companies that are succeeding today understand better than others what it means to be building software in the age of the internet.”

As to really getting behind Web Squared, Mr O’Reilly said “It was just one of these idle thoughts where you go dub dub dub and then you go one more w and that gets you to web squared, right?”

My unscientific research on the expo floor found more people hating than loving the Web 2.0 title.

Paul Thompson said “Keep it. It hasn’t been around for very long and you need a few years to build an identity. If you replace it with Web Squared, people will go what happened to Web 2.0?”

Mark Kirthcart thought “it’s sounding a little dated and overused.”

Sindee Thomson’s view was “Web 3.0 will be here soon.” For her, Web Squared was a total no no. “I hate it. It reminds me of mathematics and I was never good at my sums. I think it should be Web Cubed.”

Brooklynn Morris was a big fan. “I think Web 2.0 is a great title but I think people don’t like titles in general especially when it gets in the way of free concepts.”

Kevin Marshall said he thought people were “tired of Web 2.0 because of all the hype around it. Web Squared however, I don’t think is any better.”

Alistair Mitchell suggested that instead of Web Squared it should be “Web Shared because the web today is all about sharing – sharing the content of your life through things like Flickr, Facebook, where you live, where you are and how you work.”

Taomas Rio said “Web 2.0 is too techy. Sure the core of people who come here know what it means but the internet is always evolving so why do you need versions or numbers to categorise it?”

As for Web Squared, Taomas was aghast. “Oh no that’s web weird!”

Any better suggestions?

Original URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/04/renaming_web_20.html

And if they decide to open it up even just a little, this could be a major breakthrough in tearing down the virtual wall between the desktop and the web, a trend we’ve been noticing for years.

The service would essentially be capable of providing you with a secure unique ID for all the files and folders on your desktop, enabling users to share, comment on, tag and search files like photos and videos via a dedicated web page powered by .NET. Think of this as social URLs that link to files which could easily be pushed to third-party services like Twitter or Digg but also Microsoft’s own Windows Live Messenger without the need for you to copy, move or upload anything. Furthermore, social interaction around the files would be visible from inside the Windows desktop OS, blurring the line between the desktop and the web even more.

You can have a URL drill into a subportion of a document or a PowerPoint deck, or data can come from a Web service or a database. Social Desktop is a local service that maps the user’s local data into a .NET service bus service, enabling local data to be accessible through firewalls. Social Desktop also provides a Web-service view over the same data, with inherent RSS event streams for any container. New data sources can be mapped into the URL hierarchy, enabling a distributed view to be built. There are simple sharing paradigms that enable URLs to be shared temporarily or permanently.

Social Desktop runs on Silverlight and leverages both the Windows OS and Windows Azure, the software giant’s very own cloud services platform which Microsoft announced in October 2008. TechFlash reviewed the service as well last week, and asked the project leads how Social Desktop differs from Live Mesh. The response came from Lili Cheng, who manages Microsoft Research’s Creative Systems Group: “In the Mesh model, you can almost imagine your PC being pushed to the cloud,” she explained. “In this, you can almost imagine the Web being embedded inside your desktop.”

I don’t know about you, but to me this all sounds very promising and I’m curious if using Social Desktop would change my file sharing habits. Even with the plethora of free, simple and fast online backup and sharing services around, there’s still a trust barrier not easily overcome by startups who need to market their services extensively on an inherently low budget to reach any kind of scale. Besides, Social Desktop even relieves you from the not-so-cumbersome task of moving a file to the cloud in order to store or share it, so that makes for one hell of a substantial benefit compared to other services where you’d be required to register and do a series of actions before that happens.

Unfortunately, a Microsoft spokesperson told NetworkWorld that Social Desktop at this point is merely a research prototype which will not be a feature in Windows 7, nor will it be available for public use.

But I still want to get my hands on Windows 7 Beta (it makes use of the new operating system’s file-preview functions) right now even if just to test this application once (and if) they release it.

Original URL: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/23/microsoft-research-a-look-at-the-intriguing-social-desktop-prototype/

The site can be seen at http://twiggit.org/

At one tech company, innovation can mean bringing a dazzling new product to store shelves. At another, it can translate to a tiny new button on a Web site. That’s why, executives say, the word itself has been overused and devalued.

Still, new cutting-edge products mean everything to a successful tech company.

Executives from eBay, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and others were here at SDForum’s first Corporate Innovation and Research Fair on Friday to talk about their techniques for staying creative. Each company has its own style, with some strategies that overlap. But they all acknowledged it’s not easy to innovate, especially considering that large corporate cultures can be a curse to fresh ideas.

Max Mancini, eBay’s senior director of Platform and Disruptive Innovation, went so far as to say that Silicon Valley venture capitalists wouldn’t make so much money on start-up investments if tech companies were better at developing new products.

“Venture capital firms thrive on inefficiencies in large organizations,” said Mancini, who spoke at the gathering held at the Computer History Museum.

His counterpart at HP added to the idea by saying that demands from Wall Street and senior management can stifle innovation. “If you’re a larger company, there’s high probability you have creative people (in your organization). But creative people get impatient,” said Rich Friedrich, director of HP’s Enterprise Systems and Software Lab.

That means that these companies either must invest billions in research and development units, or bake in policies to ensure that people dream up new products. Google, of course, asks engineers to spend 20 percent of their time on pet projects. Microsoft, in contrast, employs more than 800 researchers in labs around the world.

A bottom-up style
Roy Levin, Microsoft’s director of research in Silicon Valley, said that one reason the labs have proven helpful to Microsoft, including bringing products like Windows Media to consumers, is their bottom-up style. The labs’ researchers pick projects themselves and collaborate with each other. They’re also not beholden to profit-and-loss goals or managers, he said.

“Every time you introduce (managerial) hierarchy, you introduce barriers to collaboration; and collaboration is key,” Levin said.

But once a technology is ready, transferring it to a product group or bringing it to market can be highly difficult, he said. That’s why so-called technology transfers are “a contact sport,” he said. Researchers must travel a lot to get new ideas and prototypes in front of the right people, Levin said.

eBay’s Mancini said that the auction company does two big things to promote creativity. The first is operating a technology platform that mirrors the eBay framework so that its engineers can experiment with new tools. That way, developers can test products outside of the company’s rigid software development process, he said.

The other method is to invite third-party developers into the fold through application programming interfaces. He said that in the last year developers have created an estimated 12,000 applications for eBay, producing as many as 60 percent of the listings on the site. “That’s innovation we probably couldn’t afford,” he said.

“Innovation is about the ecosystem, either removing barriers internally or allowing third parties to help meet the needs of your customers in ways you can’t afford to do (or have the time to do),” Mancini said.

Similarly, HP’s Friedrich said that one of his company’s strategies is to partner with outsiders on projects. “All of the innovative people don’t work for your company,” he said.

HP, for example, teamed up with DreamWorks years ago to work on technology for life-like animation and “cloud” services that were used to produce the movie Shrek. Last week, HP also teamed up with Intel and Yahoo to create six large-scale computing centers that would allow outsiders to test technology.

Cloud services are one of several areas of research for HP, which invests about $3.6 billion annually in R&D, Friedrich said. It’s also looking at projects in sustainability and managing data. On a broader level, HP is trying to shift the company from a hardware maker to a software company; and it’s doing that largely through acquisitions.

Oracle’s Marie-Anne Neimat, vice president of development for embedded databases, also pointed to acquisitions as a way to evolve, beyond Oracle’s multibillion dollar annual investment in R&D.

“It’s new blood,” she said.

Finally, some technology companies have turned into venture capitalists, too.

Ike Nassi, SAP’s executive vice president of research for the Americas and China, said it recently started a venture capital incubator. It solicits ideas from internal employees and external start-ups; and if it’s a good idea, SAP will help form a new business unit, fold the start-up into an existing product line, or spin it out as a new company, he said.

“If you have an interesting idea and don’t want to go the VC route, we provide seed funding,” Nassi said.

That’s similar to other technology companies. Intel, Google, Motorola, Amazon, and Comcast run venture capital units either formally or informally.

What about the word innovation?

“It’s completely devalued,” Nassi said. “The thing we need to look at is managing risk–whether placing an investment on this versus that, and what’s the payoff of that investment.”

Original URL: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10018320-92.html

Download Day – as Mozilla dubs it – will begin the minute Firefox 3 is generally available and continue for 24 hours. Ahead of this release, expected in mid-to-late June, Mozilla has set up a website (spreadfirefox.com/worldrecord). This encourages people to organise Download Day parties, to run around collecting sign-up pledges at their university or place of work, and to place Download Day buttons on their websites.

Firefox 3 is based on Gecko 1.9, an updated layout engine. The browser features a cleaner layout, better bookmark handling and more stability. And it’s faster.

RC2
Mozilla decided to release a second release candidate for Firefox 3.0 at a meeting on Tuesday, in response to the discovery of 10 performance and stability bugs. The alternative would have been to patch these potential “showstoppers” after the browser shipped. But another round of testing is the safer option – not least from the standpoint of public relations. This will probably set back the official launch by five days or so.

Last November Mozilla hit back at claims that multiple bugs in its forthcoming Firefox 3 browser would be ignored in order to meet release schedules. At that point Mozilla was grappling with 700 bugs marked as “blockers” (i.e. a flaw serious enough to justify delaying a release, or at least merit a closer inspection).

Skip forward six months and we’re at the point where the browser is in fine-tuning to eliminate the last few high-priority bugs.

In a development list posting on Tuesday, Mozilla’s lead developer Mike Beltzner explained the strict patch acceptance policy for Firefox 3 RC2. “Just because we’ve decided to product another release candidate does not mean that we are accepting new patches – only those which fix issues that have been identified as required fixes for RC2 will be accepted, and even then your patch must come with a risk assessment and tests,” he writes. “Many of the issues to be fixed in RC2 have already been patched, reviewed, approved and landed.”

* Mozilla is trying for a record in a new category, according to a representative of the firm. That means it doesn’t have an existing mark to better. The open source browser outfit aims to secure over 1.6m downloads over 24 hours.

Firefox will be available from multiple locations. We must assume the bandwidth and server capacity will be in place to service the rush.

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/moz_download_day/

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer reminded Wall Street analysts earlier this week that the cloud infrastructure is key to how Microsoft goes forward with Software+Services (S+S). During his February 4 Strategic Update in New York, Ballmer told analysts:

“And a lot of the things that we have been investing in, in terms of cloud platform, which themselves have no direct business model but come to market as servers, as desktops, et cetera, it will require reasonably significant investments to start commercializing that cloud platform….
“What’s the future of Windows, what’s the future of corporate desktop value? Each and every one of these businesses, on top of a consistent cloud platform, transitions to have additional revenue and profit opportunities, based upon this transformation to the cloud.”

There are lots of components beyond just the racks of Windows Server boxes that are keeping Microsoft’s online properties up and running. Some of the other pieces that have come across my radar screen (thanks to tips from various sources who requested anonymity):

* AutoPilot: The management system for Microsoft’s Windows Live Messenger and Live Search services. Word is Microsoft is extending AutoPilot to handle every Windows Live service, as well as some other members of its Live and Online families. AutoPilot performs tasks like network monitoring, power monitoring, performance monitoring, analysis, etc. It also will enable Microsoft to use commodity hardware in deploying its datacenter infrastructure.

* Bedrock: The core shared publishing platform for Live

* Shuttle: The feed-management system for Live. I’m not sure how this fits (or doesn’t) with Microsoft’s FeedSync, which is one of Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie’s pet projects.

* Fuse: A SQL Server diagnostics/monitoring system

* Cloud DB: The project via which Microsoft is scaling out its back-end structured data store. Cloud DB will be the storage platform for many of the Windows Live services and applications. The team is working to make SQL Server more fault tolerant, scalable and highly available.

Microsoft officials have been playing up their desire to combine their datacenter assets with those from Yahoo in order to maximize network effects as one of the primary rationales for Microsoft’s proposed Yahoo takeover. As others have pointed out, Yahoo’s back-end infrastructure — which is as involved and complex as Microsoft’s, no doubt — is powered heavily by Linux and other open-source software.

Sounds like a daunting task to combine the two. Maybe Microsoft should just let Yahoo’s datacenters run Linux and use that as another way to study its competition…

Original URL: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1160

Google has named the scheme the “knol project”, a knol being a “unit of knowledge”, according to a blog post by Google engineering vice president Udi Manber. The company aims to tie strong identities to contributing authors and those seeking to edit knols.

“Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it,” wrote Manber. “The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions.”

Google will host and provide tools to produce and edit knol web pages, but will not edit or advocate any of the content. However, entries that Google judges to be of higher quality will be given a higher page ranking in Google search.

Entries will be rated by the community and will be able to be reviewed after the unspecified testing period. The project is currently in beta and has been sent to a small group of testers. Once the knol tool goes live, contributors will be able to monetise their pages by including Google ads.

Original URL: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39291515,00.htm

The features are listed in no particular order, but they break down into various categories depending on what part of Windows the feature request falls under. Many requests for improvements in Internet Explorer, such as a session restore function, are fairly obvious wishes for features that already exist in competitive products such as Firefox and Opera. Other suggestions, such as a tabbed Windows Explorer, look for features from web browsers to migrate into the general user interface.

Some of the feature requests are clearly unrealistic, such as the desire to “back up” Xbox 360 games to the PC (yeah, I don’t think Microsoft will be doing that one). Others are minor user interface enhancements that would be nice additions but wouldn’t really change the Windows experience, such as a progress bar when hibernating the system. However, there are a few that make good sense and would be welcome additions to the operating system, such as a built-in video and audio codec manager.

A Windows 7 insider who wishes to remain anonymous told Ars that the leaked feature list was gathered before any real development on Windows 7 was started, and readers should not expect to see requests from the list necessarily implemented in Microsoft’s next major Windows release.

The Windows 7 team was directed to look at all major desktop operating systems, including the latest Linux distributions and Apple’s OS X Leopard, but this was more for general impressions than to look for specific features to implement. Development of Windows 7, which is being built off the Windows Vista code base, is apparently proceeding at a fairly brisk pace, with about half of the desired features already implemented. Unlike the tortuous development process for Windows Vista, the Windows 7 team is actually ahead of schedule at this point, although as with all major software projects, this may not last.

One thing that Windows 7 is likely to contain is a new look for the user interface. The same Microsoft insider told Ars that several options are currently being considered, with the general goal being a cleaner look rather than adding on more gloss and shine. Of course, this too could change before Windows 7 hits the shelves. Microsoft has not committed to a firm release date for Windows 7, but a target date of somewhere between late 2009 and early 2010 is the current goal.

Original URL: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071112/…/public.html

“By late this year, we anticipate having a beta version,” said John Loiacono, senior vice president for Adobe Creative Solutions, speaking at the 6sight digital imaging conference here. And next year, the online service will be “available to anyone,” he said [video].

Loiacono showed Photoshop Express running on an Adobe server connected over the Internet, he said. But when the average person experiences the software, it likely will be through partners such as Shutterfly or Photobucket, he said.

Unsurprisingly, Loiacono left unmentioned Flickr, which said in October it will use Picnik’s online photo-editing tools.

Photoshop Express is a profoundly important project, and Adobe’s schedule indicates that its repercussions are near-term and not academic.

For Adobe, the project is the spearhead of a transformation from a seller of boxed software to a provider of services in an increasingly rich Internet experience. And for the industry overall, it signals that Internet technology is maturing enough that companies are willing risk extending the brand of respected PC software to the network.

Photoshop Express, as its name suggests, isn’t a full-fledged version of Photoshop proper or even of its hobbyist-oriented sibling, Photoshop Elements. The intent is to reach a much larger audience than the company currently reaches with its higher-end boxed software products.

A look at Photoshop Express
Loiacono demonstrated several features of Photoshop Express, hampered only fleetingly by a couple Flash error messages. He selected photos to edit from a group, removed red-eye, cropped, adjusted color tones, used a healing brush to erase a skin blemish, and replaced the color of a red sports car with various other hues.

The demonstration showed the relatively limited set of features available in Photoshop Express. There were three top-level menu options: quick fix, tuning, and fun.

“Fun” options include replace color, which Loiacono showed to change a red sports car into blue, purple and green. Other options are huge, black-and-white, distort, sketch, and tint.

“Quick fix” options were crop and rotate, blemish removal, red-eye removal, auto correct, and sharpen. Tuning options were white balance, exposure, highlight, fill light, saturation, and soft focus.

Computational photography
Loiacono also offered a glimpse into what Adobe and others call computational photography–the achieving through the combination of photography and computers what can’t be achieved with either alone.

With digital cameras, some computation already happens in cameras themselves, but Loiacono predicted more.

For example, today people can combine two photos that are exposed differently–one for a subject in the foreground illuminated by a flash and another with natural light in the background. Merging those two photos could happen earlier in the process so people don’t have to futz with processing the photos afterward, he said.

“What we’re moving to is an environment when your camera will be able to take two shots, process them in the camera, and give you the desirable output,” Loiacono said.

He also demonstrated a video variation of stitching still images together into a single panorama. A video taken panning across a view of an African waterfall was converted into a wide panoramic pan of the same waterfall, with the water flowing across the full scene even though it was taken from different frames of the video.

He also showed a view of Adobe’s light-field camera work, which processes multiple images taken simultaneously so the computer can effectively construct a three-dimensional model of the scene.

Original URL: http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9813680-39.html

Google’s plans for the mobile phone market have caused quite the stir Monday, even though the company’s press conference Monday morning didn’t add much to what we already knew about Android, a collection of software that could be a catalyst for Linux on mobile phones over the next few years. Still, when any company the size of Google makes noise about steering its ship in a certain direction, people take notice.

One nice development is that we can stop calling the damn thing the Gphone, which stopped being cute awhile ago in the fine tradition of J-Lo, A-Rod, and K-Fed. But while both Apple and Google will be selling mobile phone software in late 2008, the companies seem determined to walk a fine line in their new dual relationship as trusted partner and wary competitor.

Android is a nice idea; take the promise of Linux as a mobile operating system and finally give it a backer with some legs. This could set Google up nicely for the future if mobile phones continue to turn into little computers, since companies like Symbian and Microsoft are far from entrenched in this market.

Apple is also eying that future. Much of what Google said about Android during its press conference–such as the desire for a better Internet experience on mobile phones–was uttered by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in January during the presentation of the iPhone. And it’s already sold 1.4 million iPhones in three months.

So this time next year, are we going to be talking about the looming showdown between Google and Apple in mobile computing, or the surprising resignation of Google’s Eric Schmidt from Apple’s board of directors?

Today’s discussion was about Android the concept. We won’t really know what Google has developed as far as Android the product until at least next week, when the company releases a software developer’s kit.

Much of the iPhone’s initial success can be traced to the user interface and we have no idea what Google has cooked up in that sense, although Andy Rubin (the brains behind the project) said it would be cool. “We hope Android will be the foundation for many new phones and will create an entirely new mobile experience for users, with new applications and new capabilities we can’t imagine today,” he wrote on the Official Google Blog Monday morning. Fair enough, for now.

Apple is extremely unlikely to directly compete with Google in one sense: OS X is probably not going to be sold on a licensing basis anytime soon. In that sense, Google is really butting heads with Symbian and Microsoft, fighting for design wins at companies beyond Motorola and HTC, who pledged support for Android on Monday. Apple will continue to compete against hardware makers like Nokia, Motorola, and Research in Motion, although software is certainly a selling point for the iPhone.

It also sounds like Google and its partners are focused more on mainstream phones than the high end of the smartphone market where the iPhone plays. Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs said his company hopes to develop chipsets for Android phones that bring the cost below $200, although that might take some time. And Rubin said Android can run on 200MHz processors based on the ARM9 core, which ARM’s Rob Coombs, director of mobile solutions said was very much a mainstream processor by today’s standards. The iPhone uses a 620MHz ARM chip made Samsung that’s based on the current leading-edge ARM11 core.

But I can’t ignore the obvious: If you’re shopping for a smartphone late next year, and you search pages for information on what you should buy, you’ll probably see Android phones from HTC or Motorola compared to phones running Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm (maybe), and, of course, the iPhone.

In a way, Android could be good for Apple. One of Intel’s public relations representatives, besieged with requests to comment on AMD’s advantage over Intel’s lackluster server processors in 2004 and 2005, used to always declare that “competition is good for the soul.” Right now, the smartphone industry is trying to come up with an answer to the iPhone, and we’ll all benefit if the bar is continually raised by Apple, Google, Symbian, or any other number of companies.

Also, the more people that embrace the notion of smartphones and sophisticated mobile computers, the better life will be for companies in that industry. A rising tide does lift all boats to a certain extent, and Apple could attempt to position itself as the thought leader in mobile computing and let other companies have the less-profitable segments of the market.

The interesting thing here, however, is that no one from Microsoft, Symbian, Palm, Nokia, Motorola, or Verizon sits on Apple’s board of directors. Google’s Schmidt does. As director, Schmidt is privy to Apple’s future strategic priorities, if not actual details of its product plans. Might Apple now wonder if that’s a good idea?

Apple declined to comment on the notion, other than to note that Google remains an important partner to the company. During the conference call, Schmidt sort of addressed the question of competition with Apple, noting for the record that he’s “a very happy iPhone user, but it’s also important to state that there are going to be very different mobile device experiences.”

It’s not like this is the first time in history that companies have been both partners and competitors; just look back to when IBM was making chips for Apple, but selling Windows PCs. And it’s very common in the software industry, where companies like Oracle and SAP compete fiercely but also have to make sure that their products can work together.

But Larry Ellison isn’t attending board meetings in Germany. There will be many compelling stories that come out of Android and the iPhone during the next year, and the makeup of Apple’s board of directors could be one.

Original URL: http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9811421-37.html