by Jenny Ambrozek
February 11, 2009 at 9:16 am
· Filed under Web 2.0, Web Apps
Appopedia, TheAppGaps’ searchable database of Web 2.0 product reviews points to literally hundreds of tools across an array of applications from analytics to business intelligence, content management, mindmapping, security, software testing, visualization, wikis and workflow and more.
Without a doubt there is no shortage of Web applications, but what I’m interested in is where to from here? My reason for asking is a workshop colleague Victoria Axelrod and I are convening at FOWA Miami February 23.
“How to build web apps for the emerging Enterprise market” is the title, however our focus is on the business and organizational dimensions essential for successful application development.
As preparation for our FOWA Miami Workshop I’d appreciate hearing from TheAppGap readers about the Future of Web Apps. Yesterday on CNBC venture capitalist Roger McNamee observed:
”Web 2.0 didn’t develop during strong times & isn’t positioned for a downturn at all.” “Literally hundreds were funded and the vast majority will cease to be economically viable companies.”
A slew of technology magazines cross my desk and I’m following the move to Cloud Computing, Software as a Service, Rich Internet Applications, growing Open Sourcing and Green Computing. (Can Information Week’s February 2 cover story “Why Windows Must Go Open Source” be believed?)
Are these the trends you see driving the Future of Web Apps or is there something else deserving attention? And what’s your take on VC Roger McNamee’s predictions for the fall out in Web 2.0 businesses?
Thanks for taking a moment to add your insights.
Jenny Ambrozek
PS If you are attending FOWA Miami, over at the FOWA Facebook Group I’ve posted a number of guiding questions to understand the applications participants are bringing to the conference.
Permalink
T Pawn wrote @ February 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
There appears to be a rising trend toward leaderless management and perhaps even leaderless government. See metagovernment for example. And also the other projects they list.
Jake wrote @ February 14th, 2009 at 12:47 am
While I am a web developer, I am not a big trend-watcher. So this is less a prediction than just an idea I often think about.
I use a lot of open-source libraries to build my applications. As a rule, these are infrastructure components which enable the developer to focus on implementation of the business use cases. Examples include libraries for security, object-relational mapping, web servers, etc.
What if open-source began to move up the stack into the business domains? What if libraries emerged that would address specific entities in real domains?
It would be nice if I could download objects and data models that addressed the requirements for things like books, CD’s, employment classifieds – anything where many systems are being implemented for the same domain entity.
These libraries could include common methods for manipulating collections of these objects, for sorting them and searching them relevant to the domain. They wouldn’t constrain how the libraries were used. For example, an open source tool set built for books could be used by a social networking site of book lovers, a used bookstore’s inventory system, an online book retailer or a publisher. The developers could take the libraries and quickly integrate them into the scenario desired. The entire stack could be provided – an instantly deployable database, view components which rendered the information in some commonly acceptable format, business objects which performed common industry functions on the data.
The benefits of such libraries, if done right, would be rapid development of a wide variety of applications which might never even be attempted. It could enable more system to system interaction because more developers would be working with common data models and API’s. Developers could save time learning a new domain. For example, in the case of a book API, the developer would not need to go research the details of the ISBN number.
I know there are some projects for the semantic web and XML ontologies addressing various domains. I don’t know if those projects have gained traction and adoption. The initiatives I have noticed seem focussed on how the data is defined. They don’t seem to address the need to manage, manipulate and interact with the data.
Jake,
Thank you for taking time to share your wish to:
“download objects and data models that addressed the requirements for things like books, CD’s, employment classifieds – anything where many systems are being implemented for the same domain entity. ”
I have to admit that I will have to consult with developer colleagues to better understand what you are proposing. Meantime perhaps you can share an example of how your libraries ambition would assist in developing a specific business application .
I’m intrigued and look forward to better understanding what you propose.
EDunigan wrote @ February 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I disagree with Roger McNamee’s statement that the vast majority of Web2.0 companies will cease to be economically viable due to the current economic downturn.
It is true that there will be casualties among the Web 2.0 companies, however there will also be casualties outside the Web 2.0 world. Companies with strong ideas and teams in place will weather the economic tsunami as long as they continue to meet a consumer need and provide a benefit to their customer base.
If anything, I feel some Web 2.0 companies could flourish more in an economic downturn as more and more companies look to solutions such as Software as a Service as more economical options due to the current economic environment. Even if I did not work for an online database company I would still hold this viewpoint.
A counter to McNamee’s point could be – Investors funded companies that did not have viable business models in good and bad times. Is this a problem with Web 2.0 or poor judgment by investors?
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
Thought...
