BrightCove

It seems to me that BrightCove is doing something really exciting. Yes, thanks, I know I'm brilliant.

But really, the web is converging with TV quickly, and they seem to have their ducks in a row.

Watching CEO Jeremy on Charlie Rose (sans Charlie) tonight, I'm struck by the vision he seems to have about this convergence. First of all, he highlighted the shortcomings of standard television, made obvious only recently by the web, that programs are linked so tightly to time: shows are on when they're on, not necessarily when you want to watch them. He then talked about the ability of the web to provide niche programming on a level unheard of on television, even in the sattelite/cable era. He balked slightly at a comparison to Comcast, as it suggests that TV on the Web is merely a move of content to one medium to another - and suggested BrightCove might be seen as a combination of Comcast, Ebay, and Google, illuminating the point that a large part of their business model is the idea of creating markets for video content, as well as connecting viewers to targeted content through search and information management.

Fascinating!

Web 2.0 Defined (by me)

People talk a lot about "Web 2.0", usually either making huge pronouncements about its potential to transform the world or niggling about what the term "Web 2.0" actually means.

I'll try to do both, in 200 words or less, here.

First, the reason why the two common themes (its potential and its definition) are usually found together is because it can only be defined in terms of its potential. That is to say, the definition is meaningless outside of the context of its effects. If the definition of Web 2.0 is for example, a set of technologies, it doesn't quite explain why it matters-- Web 2.0 is significant because those technologies enable large changes in communication patterns.

Web 2.0 is *easy-to-use* web publishing, including graphics, multimedia, combined with tagging, search, links, and messaging. Easy-to-use is key here: ONLY if the software is intuitive for the typical user can a Web 2.0 application have its intended effect. And since, in my opinion, the effect is integral to the definition, only totally intuitive web applications can be considered Web 2.0.

So, when people say that Web 2.0 (or Enterprise 2.0) is nothing new because SharePoint 2003 does this already they're not quite getting it, to be blunt. It's not just the collection of technologies or functionality that matters, it's ultimately how people use them. I've used SharePoint, and while it does many of the things a Web 2.0 app is supposed to do, it doesn't do them well enough. In my organization, we have SharePoint training sessions: enough said.

Ever hear of a FlickR training session?