Web 2.x Blog

A thought recently came to me: Is Web 2.0 turning into a red ocean ?

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, red ocean is a term used in W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne’s hit book “Blue Ocean Strategy” to depict a highly contested market space. It is published and used in Harvard Business School as a reference textbook. Below is a quote description of a red ocean.

In the red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known. Here companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of product or service demand. As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced. Products become commodities or niche, and cutthroat competition turns the red ocean bloody. Hence, the term red oceans.

The above term pretty much sums up what we see in the industry today, with all the competing products in the marketplace. The link is here.

A Blue Ocean is in contrast to Red Ocean. It represents a uncontested market space. It is untainted by competition, and hence demand is being created rather than fought over. There’s basically no competition as the rules of the games are to be set by the players.

When Web 2.0 was coined, no one really know what it is. Then you started hearing about Facebook, NING, Google Orkut, MySpace. Then you started seeing the social elements being brought out to consumer tools such as social bookmarking, social website discovery/sharing (StumbledUpon). Today, you can see major vendors started “Web-2.0-ing” their applications (Oracle CRM, IBM’s Web 2.0 Domino Suite, etc etc). There are tons of Web 2.0 startups that flow from Silicon Valley in the US and parts of the world, offering often very similar product sets with very little differentiation.

With the spike in the surge of Web 2.0 applications, it’s getting harder and harder to differentiate between products. Most importantly, where is the $$$$$ in a Web 2.0 startup? Will an over-investment/stimulation in mediocre startup create another bubble in the industry? Too much supply with no real demand can be problematic.

What are your thoughts?

Tags: Web 2.0
2 Comments »

I have been involved with an resource management development project (together with 2 of my other colleagues,we spawned the project collectively) in my company lately. Perhaps the most distinct part is that the development team is not made up of hardcore programmers. While coming from a technical education background (computer science, information systems), the majority of them have been in job descriptions that are not very technical in nature (think of your ordinary business analysts or functional specialists).

The project started off with a discussion of using Java/J2EE, and having experienced the richness of RoR, I have set the direction for the team to use Ruby on Rails instead, with the promise of the following:-

1. Easy to learn (only need to learn one framework)
2. Faster delivery of product
3. Agile programming
4. FUN !

*This is not another J2EE Vs RoR debate.

At the initial development planning, everyone is worried sick that how on earth we are going to be delivering something in a short period of time that we promised to the company. The requirements itself almost sounded like you need to have a few years of development experience (well, in a typicall J2EE world). Here’s the result thus far:-

1. In week 1 and 2, the team took the time to learn Ruby on Rails from scratch (myself included, having the opportunity to develop a blog and social bookmarking engine before). Some of us doesn’t even have any industry programming experience.
2. In week 3, things are slowly taking shape. Basic interface with functionality is built in.
3. In week 4, we have managed to pump out more code and the application is seamingly usable.
4. In week 5, we demo-ed the prototype, and exceeded the original expectation made with the stakeholders.

Tags: IT strategy, Ruby
2 Comments »

A thought recently came to me: Is Web 2.0 turning into a Red Ocean ??? 

Tags: Uncategorized
Add Comment »

Tags: RIA, technology
Add Comment »

I recently read an article in BRW interviewing a number of “technopreneurs” in the Web 2.0 scene. The interview explored a number of things that I have always thought about when tinkling around the edges of exploring the option of a young web startup. Below are some of the points I find interesting (and reinforcing) :-

1) Web 2.0 startup is low cost (reinforced)
Web 2.0 start ups are low cost. All you need are good brains, good idea, preservation and dedication.

The guys at RTM (Remember the Milk) spent a 18 - 20 hour day dedicated to their eventual success.

In short, you don’t need a lot of seed capital to do a Web 2.0 startup. The cost = time.

2) Web 2.0 startups are global (reinforced)
Web 2.0 startups are not geographically-constrained. Everyone subscribing to a ISP will have access to the NET. The only differentiator is the bandwidth for access. Web 2.0 startups penetrate the globe, and reach into the hands of those within reach of the internet.

37 Signals for example, with their awesome product Basecamp, offers their product and market it internationally (although priced with USD). With the advancement in electronic international currency trading, this means a startup in Malaysia can price their product in Malaysian Ringgits, or Indian Rupees for an Indian startup while maintaining that global audience reach.

3) Don’t worry about the business model (INTERESTING)
I have been thinking a lot about business model whenever a Web 2.0 startup idea sprung to my mind. Unfortunately, they have all not been too satisfactory!!! $ do not flow into a business with a “bad” business model, or the lack of one for traditional businesses.

Well, according to the RTM guys, the lack of one shouldn’t convince you not to do the startup!

With the minimal costs involved in a Web 2.0 startup, if it fails, the worst case would just be a “Good Lessons Learnt”. What’s important is to figure and build a user base, and the $$$ idea will flow!!! Not a bad thought, eh ?

Talk about emergent, rather than prescribed structure for evolvement of a business model (the basis for Web 2.0). In short, focus on customer, and then the money.

4) Keep your day job (reinforced)
Most of the technopreneurs all kept their day job while doing a startup on the side. Once their startup kicks off and is becoming successful, they will leave their job in order to fully focus on it. That having said, it is still not impossible to keep the day job while building on the startup (unless your platform is reaching the likes of Facebook…).

5) Try to solve a vertical problem, rather than horizontal
A lot of startup are focused around a vertical problem, rather than horizontal. Apologies for abusing the terms, vertical means a specialized industry, or domain-specific problems if applied within this context. Horizontal means a wider audience.

For example, RTM acts as a personal online diary for users, while Basecamp solves the need for project management and collaboration for projects with disparate resources.

In summary, the article reinforced a lot of my thoughts and suspicious about running a successful web startup. It was definitely worth the reading.

Tags: startup, Web 2.0
Add Comment »

The word ’social graph’ is probably one of the most overrated or underrated word in the Web 2.0 world. Different people see the value of social graphs differently. Personally, I think it is a great concept in the enterprise. In fact, in a recent Resource Management project discussion, I have briefly discussed the benefits of a social graph in resource management with a mate of mine. Let me explain.

1) Social Graph is useful in an enterprise, because it reveals and connects people. Social Graph exposes the “weak tie” of a person. This is the basis for a person to extend/expand his/her relationship circle in a social network. Facebook works on this basis.

2) Social Graph can be used in relationship analysis to predict employee movements, or software market movements. The relationship analysis can be used to analyze questions such as

“Who is the next employee likely to churn from the company, given that employee A and B’s two bosses and the majority of the people he/she is connected to has left the company?”

Another example: The image below depicts the social graph of the various platforms out there.

The information above could help a software monolith in planning its M&A (Mergers & Acquisitions) activities, or their strategies to strive on competitive advantages. It also gives a holistic view of the different component makeup of the social network platforms (just like how a general get map of where all the troops are).

3) A Social Graph can open up new ways for accessing/assessing information. For example, when person A clicks on the node of person B (who is connected to person A via a vertical), the meta-data/personal information on person B may be accessed. This is particularly useful in the context of resource management, as it allows “quick scans” of a person to access the person’s suitability for a role.

4) many more…which I can’t contain all in this blog.

So what does all the above means?

Efficiency in establishing contact -> closing down of relationship barriers -> employees are more connected -> efficient and effective enterprise in day to day operations -> Happy Enterprise.

If your enterprise currently uses a Social Graph in one way or another, do share your stories here!!!!

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Social Graph, Web 2.0
Add Comment »