Even though it’s coming late, this is the final installment of my, “Life in the Cloud” series. In this last, but certainly not least, post, I will provide a criticism of Web 2.0 and cloud computing and raise some questions and implications about the future of the Internet. Before I begin, I just want to thank you all for your comments and suggestions. You really helped make this series what it was.

A Disruptive Innovation

Just as the Ford Model-T changed the world of transportation and provided a new solution and opportunity for getting around, the Internet has changed the way humans interact with information. More specifically, Web 2.0 has created new ways of communicating and sharing information and ideas among individuals, groups, and the public. The Internet has created a new landscape, a “cloud” landscape in which people can innovate in. The Internet disrupts our lives; it has virtually no hierarchy and unlike the modern world of professionals and specialty, it has become easy for every-day people to create, communicate, and develop ideas on the web. The Internet is an incredibly open and decentralized system. One of the main functions and purposes of the Internet is to be transparent – governments, corporations, and individuals use it to show themselves and expose what was once hidden. Today, people live-blog their lives on Twitter and publicly share family moments on YouTube.

Questions

I will briefly present three major issues I have with Web 2.0 and cloud computing.

Trust/Privacy – Every day, I essentially set free hundreds of thoughts and small personal innovations; I send emails to family, tweet my happenings to strangers, and comment on photos of my friends. I live an Internet life parallel to my, well, “real” life. Who owns all of this information? Is it still mine? Since I don’t own and control each website, server, and connection I use each day, I have lost control of my digital life. Ever since Wired published a series about Radical Transparency and the “See Through CEO,” I have tried my best to embrace similar ideals. But it is not easy – I struggle with this exposure every day. As primarily private, autonomous, and self-directed beings, should we really feel comfortable letting vital parts of our own existence out of our own hands?

Quality of Information – Critics of Web 2.0 cite the increasing amount of “unproductively” and bad and inaccurate content that plagues the web (just look at YouTube). Using modernist ideas of truth and quality and relying on ancient ideas about the difference between high (scholarly) and low (popular) culture does not work on the Internet. In order to wholly and truly embrace the Internet, we must abandon our previous opinions about truth, accuracy, and hierarchy. The web should be a new space, not an old one. We must redefine public and private. In order to believe in the future of the Internet and human interaction, we must redetermine the meaning of ownership and copyright.

Access – A big part of Web 2.0, if you’ve been keeping up, is being able to reliably store data on the Internet only and not rely on local copies. This is, sadly, still an unrealistic idea. Not enough people are able to access with freedom the entire Internet wherever they are and not enough places (businesses, schools, governments, etc) are equipped to “handle” the Internet. Open wireless standards are not yet global, and wired and wireless Internet is still not as wide spread as it should be. Smart Phones are attempts to close this gap, but again, the price is too high and the freedom doesn’t exist (not in the United States, at least). Again, to truly embrace the Internet,access should not be an accessory – it should be mandatory. As we move forward, we must be careful about how we use this access, but it is an important part of the future of computing. The Internet must be considered critically and seriously as a life-impacting technology. The true potential of the Internet is not yet being embraced.

In Conclusion

Thank you for bearing with me. This post has turned into more of a manifesto, but I hope it inspires more questions than it answers. This does not signify the end – I will continue to write, think, and invent. Please be in touch.

K.

A few weeks ago I announced and introduced a series I’m starting on the blog called “Life in the Cloud.” This series talks about how one uses Web 2.0 and cloud computing in his or her daily life, whether at home, work, or school. This weeks installment will (hopefully) answer the question “Why Web 2.0?” and inspire a philosophical discussion about Web 2.0.

Honestly, I do not know why Web 2.0 is happening – these days, technology (particularly the Internet) moves very quickly and people are not able to think about the changes that are occuring. Web 2.0 and cloud computing is about making the Internet and the Web more social. Ideally, Web 2.0 enhances relationships, discussions, and communities, but does not replace them. Web 2.0 is “happening” because the Internet is capable of it – most of the programming languages people design Web 2.0 services in were around twenty years ago. This is only the beginning – there is still a long way to go, but users and developers are finally taking advantage of the full potential of the Internet.

Global Network

Fifteen years ago, the Net was not being fully exploited. Because the Internet is so decentralized, it is a perfect mode of communication; if one user, section, or part goes offline, the entire network is not affected. Web 2.0 and cloud computing is the “true destiny” of the Internet – it was meant for this type of community building. In the past, technological revelations in the fields of communication have enriched only one-to-one communication or mass one-way communication. The Internet enables people to create global communities but still remain attached to themselves, their families, and hometowns.

Desktop Computer

Web 2.0 decereases dependence on desktop computers. Cloud computing makes technology more mobile, portable, and ultimately, more human. In its essence, Web 2.0 is the experession, using the Internet, of a basic human need to talk and to create. One could say cloud computing is happening because up until now, technology, including the Internet, has been very mechanic, systematic, and uncreative – humans have had to adapt to technology instead of technology adapting to us. The Internet makes mobile computing on devices like the iPhone and Google’s Android more useful and successful – there is no longer a need to sync a device with a desktop or laptop computer. Because of the Internet, mobile devices are actually mobile devices.

Democracy

Web 2.0 also represents a shift of power on the Internet and has enabled, or reenabled, I should say, old and new ways of personal expression that have been lost in todays world. Cloud computing is democracy on the Internet – no one is really in control, but the Internet doesn’t just run on its own, either. The Internet is a managed decentralized network, if that makes sense.

Web 2.0 Services. Image Source.

Though this barely breaks the ice on the question “Why Web 2.0?,” I hope this post provides a good philosophical basis for some of the questions surrounding Web 2.0, cloud computing, and the Internet in general. I will answer more of these questions in Part 4, where I will address what is missing from Web 2.0. Check out the Introduction for more info about the series.

As always, please email me, Twitter me, or otherwise-me your feedback.

Now that I am in college, I have a decently-fast Internet connection around the clock. I have noticed myself moving more of my activities online – I’m not using the desktop (or laptop, in this case) as much. I’m hoping to start a four or five part series about cloud life and what it’s like to compute only in the cloud. The four sections are as follows:

1. Philosophy of cloud computing, Why Web 2.0?
2. Web 2.0 tools I use
3. Moving into the cloud, how to use all these tools
4. Criticism for life in the cloud

The series will start in the next week or so, and will last over the next month or two. I’m going to start today by offering an introduction to the cloud – I will offer a succinct definition of Web 2.0 and the Internet in general.

The Internet

A section of a map of the Internet. Original Image.

The Internet is a series of tubes. Well, not exactly, but Ted Steven’s definition isn’t that far off. The Internet is a huge network of computer. Think about your network at home; you have two, three, or maybe four computers, that all share the same connection. In your house, you are actually running a mini-Internet – all the connected computers can share resources and send information between each other. There is no “center” or main-server of the Internet; it is a highly decentralized network designed for sharing information. Email, VoIP, and the World Wide Web are parts of the Internet. Email is a way to send messages between computers connected to the Internet, VoIP is a voice-message protocol, and the Web is a file-sharing network, designed for exchanging documents.

Web 2.0

Examples of Web 2.0 Services. Image Credit: Ross Mayfield.

I do not particularly like the term Web 2.0, because it creates a certain type of hierarchy in a system that is supposedly order-less. But, that’s what people are using these days. Web 2.0 is not actually a second version of the World Wide Web or the Internet – there is no major software or hardware difference between Web 2.0 and 1.0, or whatever was before these terms emerged. Instead, Web 2.0 is a shift in the way people use the Internet and the services offered by it. According to Tim O’Reilly, the supposed father of Web 2.0, “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” For more on the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, the metamorphosis from the expert-driven Internet to a user-generated Internet, read a paper I wrote during high school called “Tubes.” Download it as a PDF, but please don’t steal my writing. Also, check Wikipedia, it does have lots of good information.

In short, Web 2.0 aims at connection more people and encourages collaboration. Examples of Web 2.0 websites or services are Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Blogger (or any blog or podcast), and Wikipedia – basically, any social networking site falls into the genre of Web 2.0. It is a shift in the way programmers write soft ware and how we, the general public, Interact with those programs.

Cloud Computing

Clouds. Image Credit: kevindooley.

The cloud is a way of talking about the Internet – when viewing at a map of the Internet or considering how the Internet works, it looks and to some extent, acts, like a cloud. Cloud computing is the development and use of Internet based technologies. It is a genre of computing that allows people to access services on the Internet, or the cloud, “without knowledge of, expertise with, or control over the technology infrastructure that supports them” (Wikipedia). Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! all are driving forces in the development of cloud computing. Cloud computing includes many, if not all, Web 2.0 services and is an example of the idea of “software as a service.”

Up Next…

I hope this gives you a better idea and greater understanding of the Internet, Web 2.0, and cloud computing. I hope these definitions will lay a groundwork for the rest of the series. Be sure to check out my paper about the Internet, “Tubes,” which I wrote during my junior year of high school. It is about the fundamental shift in the way people use the Internet. I’ve had fun writing this post, and I hope you’ve enjoyed it! In the coming weeks, I will publish “Part 1: Why Web 2.0?” detailing some of the philosophy behind Web 2.0 and cloud computing. I also made a video, watch it below. Be sure to comment and email me your feedback!

Video

Life in the Cloud: Introduction from Kabren Levinson on Vimeo.

Email Me!

I will be streaming my capstone presentation tomorrow, Wednesday May 21st at 12:00 PM EST. My capstone was all the Academic/Educational Technology work I’ve been doing over the past many months. Check it out. Join in in the discussion remotely! I hope the stream will work, school Internet is slow.

Click here to watch the stream, or look below. Here’s the Facebook event.

Stream:
Broadcast powered by Ustream.TV

Chat:

Since Apple came out with the Safari 3 Beta in August 2007, I was sure I would never need to use Firefox again. Previous versions of Safari had many features missing (dragging tabs, for example), and was slow in general. So was Firefox. All previous versions of Firefox have also had problems on the mac – it too was slow, and it just didn’t look as smooth as Safari. A few weeks ago I downloaded Firefox 3 Beta 3, and I am now using Beta 4. I am impressed. Mozilla really got their team together to create an amazing browser.

Design

The browser looks a lot better – it actually looks good in OS X. In previous versions, as soon as the browser was opened, it just didn’t feel right.

The Mozilla team also made the “back” button significantly larger than the “forward” button. This doesn’t affect me so much since I either use a button on my mouse or keyboard, but for the average user, it’s easier use and understand – the back button is used much more than the forward button in my experience.

Bookmarks

Mozilla has also changed the way we use bookmarks. Firefox 3 now supports SQLite for offline storage. To my knowledge, bookmarks are no longer stored in an .html file – they now have their own little directory system, called “Places.” This will make bookmarks a lot faster, and hopefully allow us to do more with our bookmarks, I mean places. Also, you can now add tags to

Conclusion

Overall, I’m impressed with Firefox 3 Beta. I’ve always supported Firefox, but especially on the mac, Firefox has historically been clunky, ugly, and not as good as Safari 3. FF 3 Beta still has some minor bugs, but for me, it has been stable. You can download the beta here.

Earlier this morning, Microsoft proposed a bid of $44 Million to Yahoo. In otherwords, Microsoft may buy Yahoo. This brings up a number of concerns for myself and others. What will happen to those Yahoo! services we love, like Flickr and del.icio.us? What kinds of “cultural” changes would Microsoft push (for more about culture, head over to Whitney Hoffman’s blog)?

Microsoft has historically had success based on engineering innovation, not usability for the user or the design of the product. I don’t enjoy the way engineers think – they only seem to care about the machine, not the person. Their products are clunky (for evidence, just look at the 1st Gen Zune). For years now, Microsoft has been trying to create a vibrant online community, dubbed “Live.” They’ve failed – it’s costing them more money than they’re getting from it. Their “Live” service can’t compete with Google. I’m happy to report I don’t use any Microsoft products!

Yahoo! has been in a touch place, also competing with Google. They too seem to be based on engineering. Their designs are also cumbersome, search pages blast the viewer with information and too many options. Yahoo! has had success with their Mail and their search, but they’ve yet to develop a suite of original web services. The only two Yahoo! services I use are Flickr and del.icio.us, neither of which are designed by Yahoo!. I love both of these services.

The Two United

Together, I don’t think Microsoft and Yahoo will be able to “hit it big” – their philosophies are fundamentally flawed.

Microsoft and Yahoo may do things differently, but the cultural DNA, as seen from the outside, leads me to suspect everything will be more of the same, middle of the road, “good enough” products, but nothing that will surprise and delight. And that’s really too bad for both companies in the end. (Whitney Hoffman)

All I care about right now, what I’ll be watching closely, is the development/demise of Flickr and del.icio.us.

Tell me what you think.

I created a Facebook page for myself.

Head on over and add me as a fan, or whatever. Click here.

At my high school, The Cambridge School of Weston, I am creating a technology program for my senior project. Quite a project, eh? At school, I see this initiative more than necessary. The school has been left behind technologically; for example, the main line for Internet is a T1 (1MB up, 1MB down), servicing over 300 people, including 80 boarding students.

Late last month, Dan Coleman, the assistant head of the school, approached me asking if we wanted to talk about technology in the school. Before Dan and I spoke, a teacher had said “Hey, has Dan talked to you yet?,” and a good friend said that Dan would be talking to me to create a technology committee. Well, we started talking. I spoke about how the school is falling behind – it’s so progressive in its academics and the arts, but what happened to technology? I came to the idea that there should be a student-led/created curriculum and a student technology committee. And that’s where it started.

So, this mod, I started working with him in “School Service” on these courses and the committee. But I realized, this should be a whole program, not just a few courses, but an entire program. Since I started working with him, I’ve turned this venture into my Capstone senior project. I am now creating a technology program at my school.

The program is called “tech@csw” . This program will have four components; a Student Information Technology Strategy Team (the ITST), a student-led and created curriculum on technology, partnerships, and special student technology initiatives. Right now I am writing a main proposal (vision, mission, and description) for the project, and several “mini proposals” for the components. The ITST has already met twice and has a Facebook group. Right now I’m designing a website for the program and the team.

Since I began writing this post about a week ago, new things have happened. Instead of overplanning the program, I want to jump into action and get things moving. One of the teachers at the last ITST meeting (yesterday), gave me the idea of leading a faculty seminar on something about technology (probably recording a podcast or setting up a blog, or both). That will (hopefully) happen within the next few weeks. After that, starting sometime in February, I will (hopefully) be teaching my first course, giving the program more credibility and momentum.

I want to hear what you all think. I want your input. This is huge for me. I never thought I’d be doing something like this… Here’s my email address: kabren@kabrenlevinson.com. Please don’t hesitate.

Here are some of the people I met at PodCamp Boston 2. Fairly incomplete, I didn’t collect cards as actively as I should have, but, nonetheless, here are some of the people I met. I got this idea from Dave LaMorte, thank him for the format.

Here are the highlights:

Chris Brogan – http://chrisbrogan.com/ – Cofounder of PodCamp(s) in general. He worked really hard to make sure I had a session, and make sure I was actually enjoying myself at PodCamp Boston.

Mitch Joel – http://twistimage.com/ – I attended his session on Saturday about Tools of the Trade, and the next day, Hugh McGuire must have mentioned my name, and he began following me on Twitter. Amazing. Really amazing ideas about marketing and PR.

David LaMorte – http://davidlamorte.com/ – Runs the podcast “Teaching for the Future”. He sacrificed his session slot so that I could lead my teen podcasting session. He was a major participant in the discussion that took place in my session at PodCamp. Hopefully he and I will work together in the future.

Ann Bernard – http://whygosolo.com/ – She’s the CEO and Founder of startup Why Go Solo. She and I met on Pownce in July, and have been “powncing” back and forth for many months now. It was great to finally meet her.

Derrick Kwa - http://derrickkwa.blogspot.com/ – He was the only other teenager (I think) I met at PodCamp. He flew into Boston from Singapore all by himself, just to be at PodCamp. He came to my session on teen podcasting. It was really great to hear his ideas and opinions on teens, podcasting, blogging, and new media.

Bre Pettis – http://brepettis.com/ – Wow. I don’t even know what to say. Nice guy. It was amazing to see, and meet, Bre at podcamp. I’ve been a huge fan of his work with MAKE on the Weekend Projects podcast. Actually, at PodCamp, he and a bunch of friends created a website, http://lolsaur.com, got it dugg, and it was amazing to see all this evolve at PodCamp.

Hugh McGuire – http://hughmcguire.net/ – We met on Saturday at the High School Journalism Project session, and he attended my session on Teen Podcasting. Writer and founder of Librivox, he had amazing ideas about new media, podcasting, and education. He led a great session on how podcasting will save the world.

Whitney Hoffman – http://www.ldpodcast.com/ – As an organizer, Whitney was also vocal in finding me a session at PodCamp. She and I spoke a lot through email and right here on this blog, and it was great to meet her in person.

Steve Garfield – http://stevegarfield.com/ – We met in the food court at PodCamp. He knows so much about videoblogging and video in general. It was pure coincidence that we ran into each other, I’m a huge fan of his work.

Clarence Smith Jr. – http://doyouknowclarence.com/ – I met him in the food court at the event. Since then, he and I have been in touch via Twitter and AIM. He was amazed that I began podcasting at age 15. “Do you know Clarence?”

Anita Roy Dobbs – http://www.studioae.com/ – I met her at Hugh McGuire’s session on Sunday. She wanted to hear all about my experience with podcasting, and we, along with a few others, ate lunch together. She’s currently getting into video production, and working on Hugh’s website, Librivox.

David Tames – http://kino-eye.com/ – He paid for my lunch on Sunday! He was also impressed with my podcast. He, Anita, Andrew and I ate lunch together, and we had great discussions on politics, podcasting, and audio and video production.

Fred Munao – http://selectrecordsonline.com/ – He and I also met at Hugh’s session. He’s the president of Select Records, and had some thoughtful comments about new media and the record industry.

Adam Weiss – http://podcastconsultant.com/ – He introduced himself at the final closing “keynote” on Sunday. And, I really thank him for doing so.

Leslie Seifert – He led the session on High School Journalism. He’s working with the MIT Media Lab on teens and journalism. He also attended my session with a journalists point of view.

Maynard S. Clark – http://maynard.clark.googlepages.com/ – Another attendee to my session. He’s the director of the Vegetarian Resource Center. I don’t know really why he came to my session, but I’m glad he showed up! I guess he was just interested in teen podcasting.

Jesse Baer – http://digitalnative.org – From what I can tell, he’s doing amazing work with the Harvard Law School Berkman Center for Internet and Society. We now follow each other on Twitter.

I think that’s it…Of course, I ran into and briefly spoke to many others, but these were the ones I actually had insightful conversation with. If I left you out, I’m sorry!

I guess it’s time I establish my “definition” of Web 3.0. I’d like to thank Jason Calacanis for starting this discussion, but, in all honesty, I think he’s full of shit. So, lets start with Jason’s “official” definition of Web 3.0 (you can see the rest here):

Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

Well, for starters, it seems he’s just trying to justify his failing business, Mahalo, the “Human-powered search”, but I’ll get to that later.
He’s a journalist. He’s used to checking the facts, making sure stories are “correct”. It seems like he’s taking a step back in time. He even says, “Web 3.0 is a return to what was great about media and technology before Web 2.0″. What was great about Web 2.0, is that people had the power to express their own voices. In traditional media, highly trained journalists with editors are in control. In Web 2.0, the people are speaking. Take Digg, for example: people, not machines, submit stories they find compelling, and let other people “digg” them. But in Jason’s view, Digg would have a team of editors “fact checking” (who’s creating the facts here?) and editing the stories that are submitted. He would be making social news “better” by taking out the true social aspect. Jason wants “gifted individuals” to have the power.

Jason keeps bringing up “individual excellence”, “experts”, and “accuracy”. Who’s defining what’s accurate? Don’t editors have their own bias? Aren’t editors a layer of censorship? Who trains these experts? What stops these specialists, who are no doubt being paid, from acting on money, not personal beliefs? Nothing. Once you are paid by someone, you are no longer an independent agent. You work for them.

What do I think Web 3.0 is about?

It’s about making “the cloud”, or the Internet, more accessible. It gets people out of their chairs, off their desktop computers and places the Internet in their hands. It makes the cloud more tangible, and ultimately, more human. I’ve been doing some reading on Wikipedia, and I’ve stumbled upon some fascinating things. Nova Spivack believes that Web 3.0 will bring together various technological trends. Here are a few I like:

In short, Web 3.0 makes Internet more available to everyone. In addition, Web 3.0 will make the Internet more tangible, so we can get out of our desk chairs and experience the world. This is already happening. Take the Chumby, or the XO Laptop for example.

Now, here’s what I think about Mahalo. As William Smith says, “Mahalo is something like, Web 1.1. Web indexes maintained by hand is hardly innovative or deserving of being the poster child for what’s next with the web.” I agree. Does Jason Calacanis even know what the Semantic Web is?

I know, it’s long, but it needed to be said.

Kabren