Safe than Sorry

Recently did some research for a group presentation on implementing Web 2.0 technologies. The idea was to get varying degrees of opinion regarding the matter, report back, and present in a kind of round table discussion. These decisions depended on the fictitious company we were given.

The most surprising thing I realized during these meetings, and in the final discussion, was my group's (5 others) readiness to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. I remained skeptical of its competitive advantage, its ability to jump start discussion and collaboration; I don't know. I wasn't simply going to write it off as the means to an end.

Web 2.0 is just a sliver in the body of recent trends of so-called communicative devices attempting to be exploited for a competitive edge; that's a given. However, we need to realize that these devices have been around for ages--they're influence is subtle , so is their innovative progress.

In a sense, there is no such thing as a new invention. Something completely different, a stand alone product. The social context of the innovation is normally kept in mind. In another sense, innovation is a fancy word for scalability. These add ons, revisions we do in terms of--oh, I don't know--records managing, hybrid vehicles, dishwashers, Web 2.0 are simply riffs on a past version. Even the automobile was originally called the horseless carriage.

Though I think they're are great things happening under the rubric of Web 2.0, it just seems false in my opinion, to consider their abilities the big thing in company success and collaboration. Yes, indeed, they're defining ways of communicating, but most still fall back on the usual face-to-face interactions of the golden years. Some of the best means of collaborating is gossip, the ticklish whisper in the ear. Watch it fester, watch it grow at the speed of wifi.

A bit like dancing

That's merging and acquiring for you. Acquire a partner, and merge with them. It doesn't matter their size--we're just dancing, you know. But in the case of Google, it appears size in fact does matter. Those snobs.

Reuters reported today that:

Google Inc. has become more comfortable doing big acquisitions but still sees small technology deals as its primary thrust for buying businesses, its chief executive said on Thursday.


Of course, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt quickly retorted that the big companies they acquire (YouTube, DoubleClick) are to "plug holes in businesses." And this comes to no surprise with rumors of Yahoo! and Microsoft merging through Microsoft's hefty acquistion (the share price of Yahoo! went up leaps and bounds after the rumor broke, according to the NY Times).

All this interesting in the sense of trends.

We look at the sort of big 3 or 4 in terms of internet dominance: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Time Warner, etc. etc. And all are acting like politicians vying for the acceptance and vote/support of the undetermined, unsatisfied voter. Of course, as consumers, we have much to choose from in terms of options for what we want out of our internet providers (for loss of a better word). But like politics, Oscar races, etc., an underdog is always there; stealing the show in the 4th quarter. So it would not surprise me if there is another service that enters the arena in the next 6 months and threatens the aforementioned 4.

Whether or not merging and acquiring allows for successful entrances into emerging markets--especially in e-markets--this is left to be determined. Yet, watching Google, one can surmise that collecting various forms of Web 2.0ing merely only walks on the trends, rather than actually getting under the soil, cultivating solidity.

But we'll see.

R.