The Facade of Web 2.0 - Part 2 (The Scene)
Written by ED on October 7, 2007 – 2:26 pm - Tags: hypebeast, internet, social media, trend, web 2.0Posted in Blogosphere, Singapore, Society, World |
If PopOut was a good indication of the engaging the Web 2.0 fanatics in Singapore, many business owners and top executives must have been the biggest fools not to attend such a function. However, why are they not?
As I read in PopOut’s website where Web 2.0 is said to be aiming to be the most sought after platform in Singapore, my question is – how, what and why?
Given the many events that are held locally to promote the Web 2.0 infrastructure, we can’t help but take a step back questioning ourselves what good reasons do we have even to be a part of it. If the context of our Web 2.0 movement is not defined explicitly, then everything we know are nothing more than just clever placement of words in aid of marketing hype. Note; the hype falls only behind the words and not the usability of the Web 2.0 platform.
Singapore has not produced many IT solutions even worthy of mention. Off hand, we can only recall a handful, including the founding of Creative in 1981 and in recent times, BAK2u gadget anti-theft solutions. Creative’s soundcards have since become a standard part of any computer’s package. On the latter, BAK2u is fast gaining popularity all over the world. For that, BAK2u wasn’t about the buzz but the application of the solutions in the real world. To speak of achievement of the IT community in Singapore, these are the only two worthy enough to have cause an impact in the way we conduct our activities. Both are not direct grandchildren of the Web 2.0 platform as well.
A quick check online on the social arena revealed Whosgoing, e-Clubbing and Hotspots just to name a few, but nothing as established as MySpace, Friendster or Facebook. The direct participation through our online social communities combined, stands even lower than 10,000. (Direct participants and not merely signups.) I wished there’s something substantial enough in Singapore to compare to the social media big guns but nothing hinted anything close, so let’s not even talk about the possibility of a national Web 2.0 movement.
Hence, the usage of the Web 2.0 platform is still very dependent on infrastructures that originated elsewhere. This tells us that the Web 2.0 community here is still very much in hobbyist mode more than true-blooded professionals.
So, what is all the hype behind these events?
Now, noticed how many Web 2.0 events are focused around new startups, software developers and often venture capitalists? While little has been achieved realistically, that’s where the money is. These technopreneurs and developers need the capital flow and that’s what the venture capitalists are able to provide. Yet, the flow of these monetary exchanges doesn’t quite turn up any convincing evidence that adopting the Web 2.0 platform is beneficial for anyone other than spinning money out of each other. In this context, is the Web 2.0 phenomenon a functional evolution or nothing more than just another hype-beast trend? I’m afraid, the latter is very much more appropriate.
It doesn’t really takes a lot to understand the reality of what technology venture capitalist Todd Dagres told Wall Street Journal, that the Web 2.0 platform consisted of far too much money chasing deals that are made up of incomplete & under-experienced teams, with very few new ideas to offer.
Looking back on the various events based on this theory, the truth is not anywhere far from that. With various platforms promising monetary rewards in any imaginable ways, the truthful draw to the Web 2.0 platform is not about the technology, and not even about the innovation. Take the multiple reviews of PopOut attendees for instance, nothing much more was written to be impressive except – just another available option. Are these options irreplaceable by any other possible solutions in the real world? Not quite too, and in fact some real world dealings supercede the online interaction in many and every ways possible.
When someone in Singapore tells you he is proud of his achievement on the Web 2.0 platform, what is the immediate thought that would flash across your mind? He must have created something so significant on the platform, that is so widely accepted as a genuine solution realistic enough to be implemented in our real world without losing substantial profits. Or being an optimist, perhaps he has been able to leverage his business with Web 2.0 substantially and seen consistent growth. However, if the equation is made up of only substantial profits but without any of the initials, what achievement in the industry has he created for himself? Or does one associate his success in the Web 2.0 platform with only personal profits and not also, the impact that has been created across the world?
Creative & BAK2u have both done that in our IT industry, what about the rest? Or rather what about the countless Web 2.0 advocates?
With these measurements of the Web 2.0 platform here in Singapore, it places a big doubt about the “movement” one is trying hard to endorse and promote, let alone convince someone else. Are there any Web 2.0 based companies or services in Singapore which we truly cannot live without? The answer is no, most of them or rather easily 99% of these establishments are merely blind followers tapping on the platform. Just like what Walter commented in Part 1, “It isn’t about just launching community platform after community platform which are similar to each other except for minor tweaks, improvements and upgrades.”
Now, it’s just like a hypebeast purchasing a pair of Nike sneakers without any intention of using it, but just because everyone else has it.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I believe in order to be viable, the solution must be designed to benefit the a larger population, not just Singapore.
Creative & BAK2u didn’t design products just to serve the Singapore market, but the world at large.
How would a Singaporean web2.0 startup think beyond this small little island?
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Jym: You hit it right on the nail. If they can’t even produce anything that can impress Singapore, I don’t see how they can move on to the international platform.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 8:45 am
ED: But don’t you think that even if there was something that impressed Singapore, it wouldn’t be sustainable simply because our domestic market is way too small? ( considering that most web 2.0 startups make from razor thin margins and rely on having a large user base)
Even Creative and BAK2U hit the overseas markets before coming home…or maybe home just wasn’t friendly enough..lol
I guess my point is it’s not necessary to have a domestic to international progression. Sometimes it’s the reverse that’s a more viable option.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Ridz: In a way, you are right. It’s indeed not necessary to have such a progression. Like the music industry, many recording artistes made it big elsewhere before they manage to struck a chord with Singaporeans. Blame it on Singaporean’s mentality perhaps…? We can always find a lot of excuses for such a mentality.
Instead, what have these so-called technopreneurs produced that are attractive enough on the bigger international market? If they are embarking on a road copying ideas, nothing more than small tweaks and new web design without any real substance and content in their solutions - how viable will that be too?
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hi,
thank you for your kind mention of BAK2u together in line with Creative. We are really nothing compared to Creative on what they have done changing the industry.
We were lucky to be in the top 10 in Springwise.com (year 2006), that aided in us getting good international recognitions and thus picked up by the local media and Singaporeans later too.
I agreed very much with what you discussed on Web 2.0 and also some of the comments by other readers between Singapore and the international market.
Personally, while many are still trying to figure what is Web 2.0 and its direction, the sad truth is that the fundamental foundation on Web 1.0 is not even clear firm yet.
Some are just following blindly that Web 2.0 is coming, so lets jump on it and ride on it. ‘We have missed the first Web 1.0 wave, so now is the time to jump onto it’.
More than likely, they may end up drowning in the wave than to ride on it if the direction is not clear. Dont go 2.0 for the sake of going for it cos everyone is doing it.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Paddy: I feel ashamed for not having made a purchase when I lost three phones in a single year. Hahaha… but despite my lack of purchase, I can see that BAK2u is making very good progress and the momentum is really really there. To me, if a company’s momentum is lost, the business is stagnant. So there, you are doing a great job honestly.
I was actually shocked (okie maybe not really shocked)… to find out from Walter that Web 3.0 involving lots of wireless solutions and artificial intellegience is already undergoing R&D when Web 2.0 is still trying so hard to place a firm foot in our lives. Come to think of it, alot of Web 3.0 applications like automated robots and self-thinking gadgets have already been produced. Again, Singapore will eventually find itself in the cat chasing mouse category.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Why are people so engrossed in all these so-called web 2.0 hype? Till now, I had not seen a clear definition of what is “Web 2.0″ and what is not. What are the key technologies that exactly separate the web 1.0 (if there is one in the first place) and the almighty web 2.0 thingy?
The fact is, technologies are not and should not be constrained within all these web versioning hype. To all the technologists out there, I would advice to throw away all these hypes and create whatever you think is beneficial to the world, be it 1.0 or 2.0 or 3.0. Passion drives technology, not hype.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
TUW: I agree these platforms should not be constrained. However, it is still important to label carefully on the differences from one platform to another platform. Just like in archeology where dynasties and timelines are part of the record book. It aids in identifying and education in the years to come.
You have a very good statement there, passion drives technology and not hype. Hence, all the more it should lead me to take a very serious look at the contents within this Web 2.0 bubble.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
To move forward, I believe, would require greater advocacy at various institutional level.
Perhaps using web2.0 business/solution cases to link the technology and possible applications.
How many students in our polys and unis are well-verse with Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP stack?
How much do we (students, developers, investors, business owners) know about Web2.0? The Long-tail? The data-user-centric relationship? So on so forth.
The soil needs seeds… no single person can plough the entire land.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Q. Why is Nokia and Yahoo aggressive with GPS enabled fone?
A. Location Base (web mobile) Service
One can be ahead of trends, ride along or behind. If the concern is being ahead instead of catching up. We must shed our “wait & see” attitude…
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hello Endoh, thanks for inviting me to join in the discussion. I was actually thinking about what to write when I saw your comment. I realized to do justice to the questions you have asked, I would need to do a bit of research first but being in the office that is a bit hard. Will try to consolidate my thoughts and hopefully by the end of the week there is some thing to add to the discussion.
Anyway, thanks for asking these questions. I too am interested in doing something and that is the reason why I go to these events. It is indeed good to have someone to provide a reality check.
[Reply]
October 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ian: Great. It’s will be helpful if we are able to balance things slightly.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Hmmm… actually Singapore’s biggest software success came in Match.com and Interwoven. This is an admission by a senior officer from IDA. I believe there are a lot of other success stories too, especially in the enterprise software space. Match.com can be considered one of the pioneers in Web 2.0?
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Nic: Thanks for sharing.
I am not sure what specific software actually powered both Match.com and Interwoven but from what I understand and researched, both of these originated from Australia & United States respectively. Perhaps, Singapore has a part in the technical aspect but conceptually wise - I can’t. A detailed showcase of what specific role did Singapore played in the success of these applications would definitely help.
I would treat these admissions with a pinch of salt, knowing our various government sectors are always blowing their own trumpets. The eventual usefulness and success is still very much based on the user-ship and not what regulatory boards perceived it to be. Don’t you feel the same?
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Jym: Sorry dude, your comment was somehow junked in Spam folder until I realised and released it.
I think I have to agree with you, that many participants in the scene here hardly can even give a reasonable definition other than “they have enjoyed using it and having fun.”
It triggers me to think, what advocacy? To add on, the advocacy should be focused on how it can impact lives and the way we conduct our daily routines. Like what many of us are saying, being in the scene just because someone else is - isn’t really backing their promotions very much.
In fact, many of them are in that “monkey see monkey do” category.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
It’s alright. it shows WP’s anti-spam works! ED
I agree too, we cannot follow for the sake of following. But as you know lah, Singaporeans mah, bubble tea make money, all wanna make bubble tea. 
What advocacy is a very good question. I believe to start any business, we have to start with feasibility. Web2.0 has really become a marketing jargon.
It is “in” thing to call startups web2.0. “Wah Cool man, very hi-tech leh” but when we really sit down and think.. hmmm is the system fulfilling our needs/wants? or should put our energy elsewhere…
Look at Bittorrent for example, it is Web2.0 in a sense, or at least it was in O’reilly’s meme map. But what is it associated with? The recent Odex saga is a good local example of negative association with this so-call p2p Web2.0 technology. Likewise for the world at large.
But putting aside right and wrong thinking, P2P really benefits content delivery if we compared it against with typical client-server model which doesn’t scale up that cost-effectively.
Unfortunately, because the supply party has yet to be able to harness the technology profitably. It has been labeled as a tool for piracy. Again, to those folks, it is a right and wrong thing, nothing in between.
Likewise, social networks like Friendster, MySpace and alike are not really in my good books until Facebook came along with a powerful idea to make a site that has potentially unlimited features by allow other 3rd party developers to add applications into it. Again, I agree there are many crappy stuff but there are also cool stuff. Crappy for me could be fun for others.
So back to advocacy, I think, we, as a nation can learn from the Japanese during their early developments (I don’t mean to be offend any Japanese readers) but in a positive note: “monkey see, monkey do better”. Facebook in a way is monkey see, monkey do better. And perhaps one day monkey becomes hi-tech man.
Therefore there is a pattern, we need to identify those patterns. More importantly, it lies with the way we think, not really the skill-set or infrastructure that we might well already possess. We have to think abundance instead of scarcity. In an island where everything is scarce, I must admit it can be quite tough to think big.
We have to change our thinking if we want to add-value. We have to think and act for others in order to channel creativity into practical systems. We have to put in effort to try something new instead of waiting for others to succeed and then start catching up.
To end off, I believe when we are proficient at thinking beyond ourselves and creating practical systems to do good for others, we will truely become worldclass citizens.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Hi Ed, I was just mainly addressing your point of only 2 successful companies founded by Singaporeans so far. There’s quite a lot more and thus an event like PopOut showcasing Singaporean startups should be given more support. Bezurk who was featured in PopOut for example has been well-funded and made it to Red Herring 100. For Match.com and Interwoven, my points was not so much what software powered these successful apps/sites but that Match.com became one of the most successful dating sites and interwoven is still used by majority of Fortune 500s today. Both were founded by Singaporeans but found success in the Valley, just like Creative
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Jym: I hear ya views. But it’s also making me think again… “monkey do better” possibly means when Facebook is popular now. Perhaps, before Facebook appeared we would have said MySpace did better when it was still commanding the reigns. Sounds reasonable?
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Nic: I see. Anyway, I definitely didn’t wrote that was the only two companies that were successful but rather, the only two companies I feel are worth mentioning due to the scale of impact - both corporate and general consumers. Actually I have been looking a lot into the claims of Match.com and Interwoven.
First of all, according to alot of sources Match.com was founded in Australia and two names surfaced from time to time. Martin Haynes and Daniel Haigh which founded Soulmates Technology, before they were acquired. After gone through more than 20 sites that unofficially documents how Match.com evolves, not a single Singaporean was identified. Perhaps you would like to highlight who are the ones involved, so we will have a clearer picture. I am going along the line that if Singaporeans are indeed involved in the founding of Match.com, their names would surely be prominent given the high profile. Interwoven, is still used majorly but very little details as to who founded it. So again, another dead end until the founders are identified.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Yes
it depends on the monkeys too. Specially I won’t see it as who is doing better or reigning. Better for who? This becomes quite subjective.
I see them as the two different platforms. If we want to expand on the topic using Friendster and MySpace, perhaps we try to look at them let’s say from beginning till now.
Initially, my thoughts are, why on earth would there be a need for another “Friendster”? In fact, when they started off, the feature set were almost similar if not identical. Then gradually, different folks get hooked to the systems. Some faithfully using one, others use both.
Due to certain key features that MySpace has, ability to customize with HTML and such. A certain group of people, namely the musicians have used it to embed music. Of course the down side is, there are folks who embedded copy-righted materials too. Whereas Friendster somehow remained pretty much the same, to me, nothing interesting.
Of course, we cannot deny that like most systems, there are abuses. But that’s beside the point. The point I am trying to put forth is, since there aren’t so many creative people around who wanna hang around Singapore to do their stuff. One of the ways would be to modify and adapt to our use.
Again, someone may argue, thinking along that line would mean only Singaporeans can use, cannot sustain.. so on so forth. If this is the case, I think we are really going in circles.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Hey, maybe you wanna get one for your phone now? Hahah! Been getting quite a fair bit of sales from ping.sg members but of cos with discounts throw in too
We are still learning all over the place, asia market is quite different from other parts of the world, so it is a learning cycle for us.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Paddy: Now that’s what I call an opportunist! Hahaha… yes I do have the intention to get one soon. Yes, Asia and other parts of the world are different. When I handled a project in LA, I was quite overwhelmed by the different emphasis and culture of getting things done. I’m sure the buying mentality is very different too.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Paddy, great product. I am going to recommend BAK2U to my friends
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Wah advertising works in my blog… LOL! I need to charge commission now. Hahahaha…
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:32 am
ED, let me share with you the huge culture shock that I had when I first started in US market when I was a Biz Dev Engineer then. At there, everything is so straightforward, YES means YES and NO means NO.
Here in Asia, YES can means NO, can means YES and NO and can even means IF THERE’s MONEY THEN NO PROBLEM. Really big headache trying to catch all those hidden meanings.
Good thing that BAK2u managed to gain some exposure overseas, otherwise it be damn difficult to sell at all. When we started about in mid May 2005, no Singapore companies wanna talk to us cos we are ‘Singapore Products’. I mean what the hell is that? Aint you a Singapore company with Singapore products too? ‘Oh, we just import and sell. No confident in Singapore products’. Sad huh? I so wanna squeeze that CD up his rear.
Then when we start to focus back here in Singapore early in this year, it is all about prices and not about the products anymore. Hee.. hee .. really challenging, I tell you
But still it is really a great learning experience as we slowly learn to merge what we learnt from both ‘world’.
Coming back to Web 2.0, I think while it is always good to have something interesting it is also as important to see who is the target market. Like FaceBook, it didnt started as a global player but more to cater to a niche market. Only when it starts to explode, it manages to turn around quickly to cater to a bigger market. While Web 2.0 may be the rage now, it is also important to know where the direction is heading and how fast to make changes too.
For any Singapore companies looking to jump onto the Web 2.0, this is very important cos if it is just to cater to the local market the set of problems and those from the world customers are really going to be crazy and at times scary too.
So while chasing for that golden goose, dont kill it without the right food.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Paddy: I don’t have alot of dealings in US but the first one was absolutely overwhelming so I feel you there. My client came to me and simply said… get the event up no matter what the cost.
Huh? No matter what the cost!? Is he kidding me?
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Of coz work lah, eh Paddy got referral scheme or not?
ED gets first cut, I get second cut lah.. LOL
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
AHEM! Pyramid is against the law. Haha!
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Hi Ed, check out on Ong Peng Tsin, the Singaporean who founded Interwoven and co-founded Match.com. Quite surprised his name did not come up in your research. I did a quick search and found records of his involvement in these companies from Wired.com, Wikipedia, etc. I heard Jeffrey Han is Singaporean too, from a friend who keeps in touch with him. But not verified.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Nic: Thanks for sharing. Apparently different sources cited different information until I ran the search on name specifically. And it’s from these reports that Ong Peng Tsin wasn’t mentioned at all, for whatever reason. As far as I have found out until now, Match.com was initially started as a base to “matchmake” employers-employees. It was after the takeover that transform it into a dating website.
I shall try and read up more on that.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Hey Ed, I can see that you love online research
Yeah, I wouldn’t have known about Ong’s involvement in these companies until IDA told me about it.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Nic: Not that I love it, but since it’s available why not use it in a proper way other than just socially in terms of making friends? I believe if Web 2.0 really wants to advance anymore, it has to break away from just merely the majority of friend-making success among the likes of Match.com or MySpace.com
I would prefer to really look at it from a bigger zonal assessment, from social to business. I will try and pinpoint what specific role Ong played, whether it’s the very first conceptualization, or before buyover, or after buyover. Not much details available to document it.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Your this entry is really making waves, good discussion here!
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Wow… good amount of discussion generated here! 2.0, 3.0. 4.0….. at the end of the day, what matters most is:
1) Getting people to better connect and talk to each other
2) Reducing their pain or increasing their pleasure
3) Making it worth their sacrifice (time, money, energy, etc) doing so
What social media has done is to reduce the barriers to entry for ordinary folks to technology. However, the basic principles still apply according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
[Reply]
October 9th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Thanks to all the feedbacks and comments. It’s fantastic to hear different viewpoints especially in local context. I think that is very crucial in the way Web 2.0 is going to advance or bust in Singapore.
[Reply]