our blog

Few days ago I’ve read a post about Mozilla-clone “web 2.0 browser” Flock to include cross-social networks interface - allowing you to view all your friends from various social network systems like facebook or twitter, in one place -> flock user interface.

This neat feature can be seen from two perspectives - both equally interesting and gaining more and more “tracking” across various blogs:

first is the issue of some kind of cross-social network “OpenID”-like mechanism, that would allow users to see all their friends from various social network sites in one place (and import those contacts to  various soc. networks as well) - instead of having to login to facebook.. to myspace.. to linked in.. to beboo… and all other sites one of which your friends happen to use. Of course from technological point of view such “open network” is more than possible,  and few companies (like Microsoft of Google) already started to work on prototype versions of thereof. However, the main issue I’d see here, is… what good can come to facebook or myspace or any other social network site, from such open system? Nothing. The strength of any website comes from its users’ visits - and by eliminating the need to go to one website, login, see the ads (SEE THE ADS!), interact, click on something - by eliminating all that through some easy to use open network ID / API - all participating sites will loose. (Of course all their users will win big time - at least until that open ID network API starts to distribute text ads like… Facebook Ads Distribution system )

So as you can see, the basic idea behind using such open ID, is that whoever became the dominant design for usage of thereof, is going to be ultimate winner of the whole social networks market. Simply because by having all friends from all networks in one place, users wont have any incentives to go back to those networks anymore.

Which leads us to the conclusion: those who controls the dominant “user interface” of one system, are automatically on the best position of getting most $$$ / benefits. What flock is trying to do by adding “transparent facebook & twitter integration” is (very  clever, indeed) stealing users from those sites - and eventually, monetizing on them…

What’s the second issue?

I’m waiting for Firefox to became a platform. Not just for web 2.0 apps like flock. And not just for “Firefox >>stupid little<< plug-ins”. I’m waiting for Firefox to became full grown web applications development platform, with its own SDK allowing to integrate as many features and as many websites as user (and developers) wants. Facebook platform was a huge success, for sure. But imagine how many users Firefox have, and how many sites (not just Facebook) it presents daily to all those users - being effectively their “user interface” to Internet. For millions of people “Internet” is their web  browser. Why not monetize of this?

In one of my previous posts I wrote about office 2.0 and how it will have to face problem of privacy and owner’s control over sensitive business informations. Today I want to add last short bit to what I said then.

First of all it seems like the idea of “office 2.0 - PC no more” is getting more and more popular as top “big boys” as I call them, are all announcing their own version of effectively the same thing - online version of an office suite.

• Google announcing the launch of Presently, their Web-based Powerpoint clone. Interestingly enough, one would have expected presentation software to be the most obvious application to move to the Web first instead of the last.
• Yahoo! announcing the purchase of Zimbra, a developer of a Web-based office productivity and collaboration suite.
• Microsoft announcing the it would integrate Web-based storage and collaboration into it’s desktop office productivity suite.
• IBM announcing that it would ship it’s own branded version of an Open Source clone of Microsoft’s desktop productivity suite.

And thats all good news of course!

But the problem still exists, if I’m a business user, and I want to use those office suites then I need to feel I still have control over the data I’m editing. In other words I don’t want to use Google storage of Microsoft storage - I want to use “my harddrive” - my own storage.

But what is “my harddrive” in the age of Internet? I guess its not longer the real harddrive on my computer (although it could be of course - if I’d be really paranoid). Instead I bet that the “new harddrive” of the future will be grid-based storage systems like Amazon S3, Google File System or Parascale

What we need to see in macro scale is those systems to get adapted for the needs of end-users, normal folks like you and me. Not just developers and web 2.0 startups. I want to have my own “space” (storage) in Internet, one that I know I control in 100% - but one that is there online, and which I can access from anywhere I like. And that storage is already our there in form of storage grid systems - all I need now, is somebody to make it available for “private users” like me.

Then step 2, would be providing some kind of API, a connection between those online office suits and online “private” storage systems. This way, using my “online text editor” I could choice WHERE I want to save my file - and I wouldn’t be forced to use Google File System - I could use anything I like incl. my good old “off-line” harddrive.

Of course such “storage solution for the masses” could be an excellent solution also for other online apps - as I believe the more stuff people will do online, and more and more they will need they own “private” storage out there - one that is not limited to any “corporate” system, but which is fundamentally their own.

Sounds like a business idea? Sure it is. I bet that one day “MyHardDrive.com” or however it will be called, will be one of only couple of online storage standards, and it will make a really good money. A REALLY good money.