Word processing accessible by everyone

Google Docs is an online productivity suite offering a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation application (Google, 2010). Despite being a web application, its functionality and user interface places it in direct competition with traditional desktop applications such as Microsoft Word and iWork.

Docs boasts many advantages over its desktop counterparts. Documents:

• are easily shared, instantly updated and can be accessed by multiple people simultaneously,
• offer added functionality through application programming interfaces such as Google Lookup and
• are backed up on many servers to ensure they are not lost.

To encourage collaboration and ease of access, all documents are searchable and uniquely addressable through a URL. Furthermore, Google Docs ensures files can be accessed from any location with an internet connection, without the need to install an application (Strickland, n.d.).

Web browsers are responsible for rendering Docs’ user interface (UI) and a majority of the heavy processing is done server-side. Most popular web browsers are supported (see below) and when cross-referenced with browser usage statistics we find that 88.3% of the world’s browsers can use Docs. HTML and Javascript is used to render the UI client-side. AJAX script creates regular links to the server instantly updating the document when it is edited (Strickland, n.d.).

Browsers Supported by Docs

	Windows XP / NT	Windows Vista	Linux (Ubuntu)	MAC OSX 10.4 +	Mac OSX 10.3.9 and below*
Google Chrome	X	X
Safari 3				X	X
Safari 4				X	X
Internet Explorer 7	X	X
Internet Explorer 8	X	X
Firefox 3.0	X	X	X	X

(Google, 2010)

Browser Usage

– These statistics are approximate. Statistics vary source to source.

2010	IE8	IE7	IE6	Firefox	Chrome	Safari	Opera
February	14.7%	11.0%	9.6%	46.5%	11.6%	3.8%	2.1%

(W3, 2010)

Docs is subject to limitations common amongst rich internet applications (RIAs). Browser, broadband speed and reliability limitations means Docs can be slower to access data and respond to user input when compared to desktop applications. File storage is limited by the allowance offered by Google (currently 1gb free). Furthermore, security concerns are often raised surrounding documents being stored online. Finally, Docs functionality is limited compared to the likes of MS Word (Strickland, n.d.).

ThinkFree is a word processer, similar to Docs. However, before using the RIA users download a java applet, this allows the application to offer greater functionality. This may be an avenue Google may need to take in the future to compete with the functionality of desktop applications (Gottipati, 2007).

Google docs and ThinkFree represent only a couple of RIAs currently on the market, with many more available or in development. Compliance with HTML5 standards will require browsers to perform tasks traditionally performed by operating systems and RIAs may replace a majority of desktop applications. This shift will see these services (applications) offer consistent interfaces and functionality, to everyone, anywhere, at anytime without the need for high powered processors or installation.

With the global movement towards RIAs is there any applications that won’t work as an RIA?

References:

Google. (2010). Welcome to Google Docs.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from https://www.docs.google.com/

Google. (2010). System Requirements.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=37560

Gottipati, H. (2007). Is Java more effiecient than AJAX for advanced web apps.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from

http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2007/01/is_java_more_efficient_than_aj.html

Strickland. (n.d.). How Google Docs Works.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://communication.howstuffworks.com/google-docs.htm

W3 Schools. (2010). Browser Statistics.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Wikipedia. (2010). Google Docs.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_docs

Digg as a Platform

Digg is a web application which promotes popular web content based on user ratings. Recently the CEO of Digg announced that the company was now EBITDA profitable which is a significant step in the organisations’s history (Sykes, 2010).

To be competitive on the real time web, Perez noted (2010) that Digg needs to increase traffic to their site. Currently, it may take a few days for a link to reach Digg’s homepage where Twitter could spread the link in a matter of hours. Large scale uptake of Digg’s API will encourage such traffic.

Digg's API
The Digg Application Programming Interface (API) has been created to let developers and partners interact with Digg's platform. Digg’s API allows developers to integrate its core functionality and data into their own application or a website. Functionality includes digging activity, rating and commenting on links (Digg, 2010).

Developers extend the functionality of Digg through creating mashups. These are often add ons or third party applications that interact with other APIs to offer new functions. Digg supplies a wizard to offer less experienced web developers, the script they require to incorporate Digg content and functionality into their own site, further increasing traffic (See picture below).





Developers can use the API to request very specific information about news stories, images and videos submitted to Digg (Digg, 2010). Applications request this information using REST and may use multiple response formats including XML and Javascript (full list).

Developer Support
Digg support their developers through offering Digglite (an open source platform to be modified or built on), extensive documentation about the API and an online community for discussion and support.

Terms of Service
Digg’s API is provided “as is” (Digg, 2010). Consequently, Digg isn’t legally required to support any failures however, if they didn’t offer support I suggest people would stop developing with the API. Furthermore, the TOS Implies developers can pay for Digg API support.

Conclusion
Digg provides developers with a strong platform and through assembly in innovation has seen massive scalable growth. The company makes money through offering advertising in a format that looks like Digg content (Gannes, 2010) and with increased traffic can continue to compete with social media sites and be profitable. Traffic can be secured through continued, stable management of the Digg API. Like all web 2.0 applications the more people who use it the better it gets.

Question for Thought
With so many mashups and third party applications being developed, will Digg still need a homepage in 10 years?

References
Digg. (2010). What is Digg?.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://about.digg.com/

Digg. (2010). Developers API.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://about.digg.com/developers

Digg. (2010). API Overview.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://digg.com/api/docs/overview

Digg. (2010). Digg, INC. API License Agreement.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://digg.com/api/docs/overview

Skyes, T. (2010). Exclusive Interview With Digg CEO Jay Adelson.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.timothysykes.com/2010/02/exclusive-interview-with-digg-ceo-jay-adelson-we-were-ebitda-profitable-in-2009/

Perez, S. (2009). Digg Opening Up? New Read/Write API Coming Soon.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/digg_opening_up_new_readwrite_api_coming_soon.php

Gannes, L. (2010). How Digg Found a Way to Make Money.
Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://gigaom.com/2010/02/26/how-digg-found-a-way-to-make-money/

The Value of IMDB.com's Data

'Data is the next intel inside' refers to data being more valuable than proprietary software licenses and the need for businesses to establish a data strategy. Many web applications offering low functionality, achieve great success through appropriately harvesting and managing data. Today I am going to analyze the role data management has played in the success of IMDB.com (Internet Movie Database).

IMDB hosts data about movies, actors, fictional characters, television episodes and video games. The company operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com after a deal was struck in 1998. This allowed Amazon to advertise on the site and ensured the data would remain available to the army of volunteers who contributed to the site’s content (Wikipedia, 2010).

Data is submitted by public contributors, verified by paid managers and published on the site (Wikipedia, 2010). This data is then enriched through user interactions such as ratings, reviews and comments. Interestingly, unlike Facebook’s business model IMDB do not take ownership of the data users upload (IMDB, 2010). This may help to manifest trust and loyalty amongst its users.

Data hosted by IMDB has been accumulated since 1990 (IMDB.com, 2010) and is fundamental to the company’s revenue. The quantity of data hosted would be very expensive and time consuming to recreate which has secured the organization as a dominant player in the industry.

IMDB content can be used to power movie, television or celebrity projects and is marketed as authoritative and accurate information (IMDB, 2010). This data is sold as a subscription at $15000 per year as of March 1, 2010. Clatworthy (2010) suggests this will lead to no free application programming interfaces(APIs) being publicly available. Lack of APIs may have a walled garden effect and mean data is not extended beyond the limitations of IMDB’s functionality and data harvesting capabilities. In this linked article O’Reilly has outlined some applications an IMDB API could enable (O’Reilly, 2006).

In summary, IMDB illustrates how valuable data is however, O’reilly (2005) states

“we expect the rise of proprietary databases to result in a Free Data movement”

and this is already on the horizon with omdb.org(Open Movie Database) gaining momentum. If IMDB wants to stay competitive they may need to freely share their databases otherwise an open data solution may reel in its dominance.

References

Clatworthy, D. (2010). IMDB API.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.deanclatworthy.com/IMDB/

IMDB. (2010). IMDB 15^th Anniversary.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.IMDB.com/features/15thanniversary/

IMDB. (2010) . IMDB Copyright and Conditions of Use.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.IMDB.com/help/show_article?conditions

IMDB. (2010) . Authoritative and Accurate Information about Movies & Television.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.IMDB.com/licensing/

MacDonald, D. (2008). Official IMDB API Where are you?.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://derekmd.com/2008/11/official-IMDB-api-where-are-you/

O’Reilly, T. (2006). IMDB API.

Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/05/IMDB-api.html

O’Reilly, T. (2005).. What is Web 2.0.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=3

Multiple Authors. (2010). IMDB.

Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imdb

How isoHunt.com Harvests Collective Intelligences

The web 2.0 application being discussed this week is Isohunt.com which is a torrent hosting website, allowing its users to download nearly any type of media through a peer to peer network. Isohunt fits the definition of web 2.0 because, as more people use the service, it gets better (O’reilly T, 2005). As more people use Isohunt, download speeds (of peer to peer content) increase, as does the amount of content available.

Users make explicit contributions to isohunt by contributing to the help forum, adding comments about specific torrents, tagging media and forums, rating torrents’ quality and uploading new torrents. Despite the large number of people who use isohunt (20.66 million), only a small percentage (1.20 million) of these users are registered members who explicitly contribute (isohunt.com, 2010).

Members are motivated to contribute through community recognition. Notably, of the twenty-one comments written about a random torrent, five were thanking the person who uploaded it, this is a trend seen throughout the site. Isohunt also welcomes and recognizes its newest members on the homepage.

Isohunt implicitly collects data about the popularity of torrents through user interactions (user searches). This information is fed back into the system to display “Top Searches” on the homepage.

Other factors which may have contributed to Isohunt’s success include a transparent purpose for the service (which can be achieved through only three clicks), trusting its users which has lead to a self-regulating community (through the torrent rating system), developer APIs to offer further flexibility and folksonomy tagging which allows for more precise user navigation (Watson J, 2010).

When Isohunt was placed on the web, users decided the application’s purpose, currently it is sharing movies, tv shows and music, and how the application would be used. As the community’s values and needs change so will Isohunt assuming the freedoms which allowed its creation remain intact. The biggest threat to Isohunts flexibility in coming years may be media distributors who have filed law suits against the company and other Bitorrent services.

In summary, fundamentally, Isohunt is a site which allows users to share content and information. Without users it is worthless. Through harvesting collective intelligences, it has become an online community with valuable, meaningful content.

References:

isoHunt Inc. (2010) the BitTorrent & P2P search engine.

Retrieved March 4, 2010, from https://isohunt.com/

O'Reilly, Tim (2005) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O'Reilly Media.

Watson, J. (2010). INN347 Web 2.0 Applications [Lecture 2 Notes].

Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_61779_1%26url%3D

Is technology changing peoples values or just their game plan?

Over the past few days I have been reading an article called Being Human. It discuss what technology will look like in 2020. Amongst other things (what technology will look like: changing interfaces and new applications) it talks about how technologies will affect peoples values, goals and aspirations.

"By 2020, it may not be possible to realise all of our goals, ambitions and aspirations without using a computer or computing in one way or another."

This of course would not be true for everyone in the world and I suggest this because, if you don't use a computer, it is unlikely you would be aware of goals which required a computer. However, I am prepared to suggest that this statement generally will be the case as a larger population has access to modern technologies.

My reasoning is made up of two points:

• As people continue to use computers more, we are entering a stage of techno-dependancy which means without computers we would not be able to continue our current lifestyles (of which our goals are framed). Furthermore, as time passes, it is safe to assume this trend will continue and people will become more dependent on computers.
• A goal cannot be something a person is already able to do. As computers become more able to assist us, our goals become harder or more complex. To clarify, I am saying that a goal that can be easily achieved today wouldn't have even be considered 50 years ago (even outside of computers people now aim to travel the world. Planes enabled this, however, without planes such a goal is unlikely to have been set and without planes such a goal is far less achievable.). The same applies to computers and they are changing our goals and aspirations.

As our goals continue to change it is important to remember that they are still linked to fundamental human values such as; to be a part of families, stay connected with friends (make friends), educate our children, care for each other and grow old safely and in comfort.

To link back to the original question: Are our goals, values and aspirations really changing or do they just look different in the context of a world with technology?

In my opinion people still want exactly the same thing they did 50 years ago (referring to the fundamental values) but to get these things they need to keep up with the times hence, changing their game plan. Making new friends is now harder without Facebook (but friends are still a fundamental value), keeping in good health(the definition has probably changed) requires very new technology and preparing our children for the world they will live in certainly requires them to engage with digital media.