Thursday at the Next Web review of talks

An article, posted more than 12 years ago filed in web, design, technology, next, web2.0, the, google & trends.

My ticket was sponsored by The Bean Machine.

In this post summaries of different talks at The Next Web. Read more about the future of search, what Google would do, what Andrew Keen is thinking about the read/write web, what Matt Mullenberg, of Worpress, thinks about how the web should work and finally how well Andrew Keen and Chris Sacca get along.

Future of search

Cool presentation. Moving towards the semantic web, but acknowledging that most of the data is still not as well structured as one would hope. Search however is just a way to get a problem solved, it should not be a goal in itself. Presenter is proposing that search engines should move into task completion assistants (interpretated, e.d.). Neat idea. Lack of real time search is ridiculized by Hermione, but real time isn't important for everything in this world of course. Want to check it out:

What would google do?

Decomposing Google to its essence, their business ethic/way of working. It's been said about todays economy that we're in a state of compression. Perceived value meets actual value. But nah, we're at the brink of a change in how we want to deal with companies. But I'm afraid I have to forward you to his own slideshow... because he said just too many things... that I'm now able to summarize in just one line. Well... best summarized is maybe by example. Google Eat: not a regular menu, but an adaptive one. If people eat typical deserts with a certain main course, offer it as a suggestion automatically. If people don't eat certain things, remove it, reduce crap. Allow visitors to rate the product they just ate, and also use it to optimize your menu. That's what Google would do, at least.

Andrew Keen

I was looking forward to his talk, and thought, based on probably amateur reviews, that he was kind of sticking too much in the old days, not accepting the new possibilities. Today he declared to be a great fan of Twitter. Came to me as somewhat of a surprise. Still, he has issues with the current Web 2.0. Which will die soon. His concern is that Web 2.0 is only about expression. It can't be compared to how e.g. newspapers work, it doesn't have the same quality. "none of them (newspapers, e.d.) are viable, they're fucked" (we could quote that ;) ) We want reliable information as well, but now with intimacy. Media's quality = intimicy + trustworthiness (/transparancy). His talk continues more optimistic. Everyone that publishes something should turn into a brand. My interpretation: Authority should matter again. When it comes to political parties, they are the result of the old, industrial age. But he fears that it may turn into something that is too much about brand... or charisma. And he expresses his fear that this might be misused, referring to the charisma of e.g. Hitler.

Blogs and social media

By the cofounder of Wordpress, Matt Mullenweg. Was kind of hard to follow, lots of interesting ideas, but not really going towards a single point. Maybe it was: don't get your data stuck into some closed system (e.g. myspace). Still not really sure what he ment while referring to those anesthetic people, seeing e.g. numbers as colours. Maybe linking everything with everything? Seeing connections, where there don't seem to be connections?

-porn talk was stupid, and repeating same message again, that porn made everything popular... yeah-

Chris Sacca interviewing Andrew Keen (or the other way around)

Originally it was planned as a presentation by Chris (ex Google, VC, Angel investor, notably twitter), but he asked Andrew to come on stage as well, to have a chat. Some topics. At Google Chris learned that one should first try to solve some users problem, then about making money of it. Not just add a feature, like Microsoft does with Word, and trie to monitize that (new version). Then Andrew brings up the kind of leftish political opinion of many web persons. No steady answer here from Chris, but it might have to do with awareness, and experience of failure maybe, he somehow suggest. But on the other hand there is also the libertarian thinking. Edit: I never think that those collide: that's progressive left.
Is Google Evil? Na, they don't want to. They just want people to have access to new technologies, e.g. the internet, and other new services, so maybe Google can make money from that (but it doesn't matter if others make profit too). Btw. never release a product that you're not passionate about.
Some random notes:

Op de hoogte blijven?

Maandelijks maak ik een selectie artikelen en zorg ik voor wat extra context bij de meer technische stukken. Schrijf je hieronder in:

Mailfrequentie = 1x per maand. Je privacy wordt serieus genomen: de mailinglijst bestaat alleen op onze servers.