re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0The problem is that carriers cannot participate in Web 2.0. They just do not know what to do other than provide bandwidth. They should add storage and security perhaps, but that is all they can do. They are not software people, are not Web people, and no change in software development style is going to change this. Web 2.0 can and must go on without them. And no, IMS is not the answer.
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0IMS supports Web services. Most likely IMS entity for such services is the Application Server. What is unclear to the telco-mentality oriented folks is how to make money, using Web 2.0 services such as mashups, using conventional model of the service subscriber pays for the service. One could go with Google, etc. model of "advertisers pay for the services, and service users just lend eyeballs for those ads to use the service". However, recall that that Ed Whitcare et. al. have been complaining about the likes of Google, Yahoo, etc, acting as freeloaders using "telco pipes" for free.
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0What are the key differences between the IMS/SIP clusters and the Web 2.0 platforms?
The main difference for me is that Web 2.0 allows the consumer to be the creator and this where the main gain for the Telco is. Typically Telco's are too far removed from the customer and not generally very creative. When was the last time you saw something truly innovative from a Telco opposed to a slight variation of something that's been tried before. If the Telco was smart they would allow the users to drive the creative process and facilitate from their core competency, Network Operation.
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0Materialgirl, I think I agree... bandwidth, storage, security, QoS, caching... none of it web 2.0. So where does that leave Cisco with all its 2.0 talk and web software investments? Who do they sell to? They are convinced the telcos and MSO can play the web 2.0 game. I can't imagine buying my SaaS from AT&T, Comcast or BT.
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0Comrades, DavidGÇÖs blog stands as an example of one of the great dangers of GÇ£Web 2.0GÇ¥ and the associated hype around the Interweb.
I know that message boards and blogs are hardly likely to be paragons of the use of the English language (the number of times I see the word GǣlooseGǥ used when the writer clearly intended to say GǣloseGǥ), but after the SIXTH punctuation error in a single blog entry I snappedGǪ
Telco's are renowned
OK, so Telco isn't a real word anyway, but it's used here in the sense of a noun. In this sentence there's no possessive sense for Telco. The Telco doesn't "own" or "have" anything. YouGÇÖre simply using a plural form, and that use doesnGÇÖt need an apostrophe.
the Telco's have a real challenge
Ditto. But at least youGÇÖre consistent!
The wish of IMS and it's any content any screen with it's foundation
AAAARGH! Twice in a single sentence! This is one of the best known incorrect uses of the apostrophe. And, yes, itGÇÖs a quirk of English, but if youGÇÖre going to use the language at least make an effort to use it properly.
GÇ£ItGÇÖsGÇ¥ is a contraction of the form GÇ£it isGÇ¥, while the possessive form of GÇ£itGÇ¥ is simply GÇ£itsGÇ¥. So your sentence actually meantGǪ
The wish of IMS and it is any content any screen with it is foundation
MVNO's GǪitGÇÖs that plural thingy again.
Today's Telco's needGǪ AAARGH! One right, one wrong. If youGÇÖre really not sure how to use the apostrophe, just re-write the flipping sentenceGǪGÇ¥The Telcos of todayGǪGÇ¥, for example.
Even Word has a better chance of getting the punctuation correct! And if thatGÇÖs not a damning indictmentGǪ
The voices are telling me it's time to take my medication now, but could I suggest your next purchase GÇô BEFORE you write any more blogs or GÇ£insightsGÇ¥ GÇô should be this?
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0tomcoseven says: "Materialgirl, I think I agree... bandwidth, storage, security, QoS, caching... none of it web 2.0. So where does that leave Cisco with all its 2.0 talk and web software investments? Who do they sell to? They are convinced the telcos and MSO can play the web 2.0 game. I can't imagine buying my SaaS from AT&T, Comcast or BT."
Good point. I think the whole thing is a multi-billion dollar sham. For the cost of this sham we could build a "real" (open, high-bandwidth, FTTH). But instead we are chasing this fiction that with enough complexity, telcos can run away from the demise of voice by repositioning themselves. The only question not being asked is "how" and "to what end".
How do telcos make money in a video world when they not only do not understand the business, but have no strategy for success other than copying the dying cable model.
Right now they are running, but not to anywhere in particular. No wonder why Ed Whitacre split with the dough.
http://www.lightreading.com/do...
She's not saying IMS should be thrown out, but that it should be augmented with tools from the IT sector, and with Web 2.0 techniques.
Whether carriers can get comfortable with that, I don't know.