The missing feature at the heart of Web 3.0

The missing feature at the heart of Web 3.0

Summary: Most Web 2.0 applications are free because nobody knows for sure how to measure and price on-demand functionality, or how to bill, collect and distribute the proceeds.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
5

Yesterday I wrote about the transition from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0, which, in the time-honored tradition of packaged software versioning, will finally add the missing features to bring the Web to maturity.

Probably the most crucial feature missing from Web 2.0 can be summed up in one word: revenue.No one has figured out how anyone pays for this stuff Ever wondered why virtually every Web 2.0 wannabee is offering their service for free? The reason is no one has figured out how anyone pays for this stuff. The only thing keeping it going at present is the sheer enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs themselves, with the lucky ones getting funded by VCs who hope to cash in when they flip the concept to a well-heeled trade buyer like Google, Microsoft or eBay. Even the big guys are funding their beta services out of their own pockets, hoping the money will eventually start coming in but with no certainty yet of exactly how.

That's why I made such a fuss about Amazon introducing the charging model for its Alexa Web Information Service last month. Someone needs to get this sorted, and fast, because as I wrote then:

"The per-user, per-month model used today by most on-demand application vendors works well enough for discrete applications, but the more mash-ups of individual services there are, the more essential it will be to devise a successful model for billing services based on actual usage."

Regular readers of this blog will know that advertising isn't the answer. Applications that happen to produce or run alongside a lot of traffic-generating content — such as blogging tools, search engines and website traffic analysis — can perhaps be funded by monetizing the content with ads. But they're the exception rather than the rule. Everyone else is going to have to use one or more of the other revenue models I outlined in my post on How to fund on-demand applications.

But what I neglected to say in that post is that the techniques for doing this are still at a primitive and elementary level because so little experience and best practice has been built up. Nobody knows for sure how to measure and price on-demand functionality, and even when that has been resolved, there still needs to be an infrastructure for presenting the bills, collecting payment, and distributing the proceeds. This is the biggest headache facing the pioneers of Web 3.0 and it's not going to get resolved overnight. I suspect it's a topic I'll have to carry on asking awkward questions about throughout 2006. 

Topic: Tech Industry

Phil Wainewright

About Phil Wainewright

Since 1998, Phil Wainewright has been a thought leader in cloud computing as a blogger, analyst and consultant.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

5 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • grrr

    ANOTHER marketing ploy - as if "web 2.0" wasn't enough.

    Just like 2.0, there's no such thing. This is simply a way to market new technologies.
    CobraA1
  • But you said the the tracking, billing, and payment problem was solved...

    Re: "... there still needs to be an infrastructure for presenting the bills, collecting payment, and distributing the proceeds. This is the biggest headache facing the pioneers of Web 3.0 and it's not going to get resolved overnight."

    In a previous post you implied that this problem is already being solved by StrikeIron: "Last week, I panned salesforce.com's AppExchange and wrote of my yearning for a platform that "actually takes care of metering and billing on-demand application usage from a variety of vendors." Unbeknownst to me, a company called StrikeIron launched that very platform on the very day I wrote those words ? except that the StrikeIron Web Services Marketplace, as its name suggests, is a marketplace for web services rather than complete applications."
    henley
    • It's a start

      You're right, StrikeIron is doing some great work in this field, as I mentioned previously. But it's one of a few pioneers. There's still no broad agreement on how these things should be done, and thus no established best practice.
      phil wainewright
  • Missing the point with missing revenue

    Intering point of view about "revenue" missing from Web 2.0 ... if anything the lack of a focus on revenue is the perfect way to describe the mindset shift that has led to all the Web 2.0 applications or services. Time to let it all go.
    being_sk
  • RE: The missing feature at the heart of Web 3.0

    I'm a former ISP owner who, after 7 years in the trenches, sold my business and wrote a book. I've long felt that this "Lotto Mentality" (something for nothing) is at the heart of why so few Internet based businesses charge for their services.

    My solutions, for the membership site I launched only yesterday ( http://3ccc.3circles.net ) are to:
    1) Target a very narrow niche market;
    2) Create enough value (tangible and intangible benefits) that people will recognize it and pay.
    3) Make it member-owned and then added collaborative projects that nudge people towards working together.
    3) Pay people to remain active and loyal.

    We joined a 2 decade old international movement called TimeBanking. Now we can pay people this alternative "currency" of 1 Time Dollar for every hour of work. We've created projects and require every member to contribute to at least one project every 6 months. Time Dollars can be converted to shares in our member-owned community. We'll be paying affiliates in cash.

    There is always a way for people who are creative and committed.

    Leroy Grey
    3circles_z