Got to see this article on Web 2.0 & thought of penning down some thoughts on my mind.

I personally think that Web 2.0 has tremendous potential in India. This statement is not a over-dose of boasting as i strongly believe that there a lot of potential in making our systems go web.

Be it anything from jobs to house search everything is easy when you have internet. In fact, i got across [visit link] which seems to be doing the job really well. I am pretty confident that WEb 2.0 will make its mark in India.

[visit link]

Hi Leonard
Many thanks for your kind insights and apologies for the slightly delayed response. I shall get Barbara Ballard to give some more insights here. I agree to your view that wearable devices are also 'mobile'. Shall update that definition to include it. Many thanks for your feedback. kind rgds Ajit

Hi Ajit,

I'm interested in your perspectives, but I'm unsure of the term "restricted device" (all the devices you provide as examples seem to highly enabled, rather than restricted). Could you please explain, or provide a link to, a definition or context for this term?

Also, I'm not so sure about your application of the Carry Principle... indeed, I'm a little uncertain about the validity of the Carry Principle at all in some respects, and perhaps you can help my understanding of it.

The Carry Principle appears to draw a distinction between "Information Appliances" and "Carried Devices", viz: "Devices which are always carried, such as mobile phones, can not be mass-market information appliances..." This relies on a narrow definition of an Information Appliance as a device that performs "a small set of tasks very well..."

However, the official Wikipedia entry for Jef Raskin's "Information Appliance" provides specific examples of devices which are always carried, including Smartphones and PDAs. It seems that either the Carry Principle is based on a flawed interpretation of the term "Information Appliances", or the Wikipedia entry itself is misleading or incorrect.

Given that carried devices tend to have an increasing amount of functionality incorporated into them, due to the trend of functional convergence, I believe that an inclusive, rather than exclusive definition of a carried device would be more appropriate... for example, "carried devices converge a widening variety of information functions and services into a form that can always be kept with the user".

Further: both your own application of the Carry Principle, and Barbara's, appear to dismiss wearable technologies as being included in the definition of carried devices. I see this as flawed, in that wearable technologies display the same trends of convergence of services and functions that carried devices now display.

The example of the watch, itself, tells the story best. History shows that the watch itself began as a miniaturised clock that was carried - the pocket watch. As technology enabled further miniaturisation, the size of this carried device eventually enabled it to be strapped to the wrist of the user. I believe we will see the same trend with information devices that we currently carry - eventually, we will wear them, perhaps even strapped to our wrists or around our necks.

While I have raised some issues in relation to your post, I do very much enjoy your exploration of the topic - thank you for your ideas and insights.

Kind regards,
Leonard.

I see Web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence.' Mobile Web 2.0 extends the principle of 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' to restricted devices. The seemingly simple idea of extending Web 2.0 to mobile Web 2.0 has many facets, for instance:

I see Web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence.' Mobile Web 2.0 extends the principle of 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' to restricted devices. The seemingly simple idea of extending Web 2.0 to mobile Web 2.0 has many facets, for instance:

I see Web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence.' Mobile Web 2.0 extends the principle of 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' to restricted devices. The seemingly simple idea of extending Web 2.0 to mobile Web 2.0 has many facets, for instance:

I see Web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence.' Mobile Web 2.0 extends the principle of 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' to restricted devices. The seemingly simple idea of extending Web 2.0 to mobile Web 2.0 has many facets, for instance:

I see Web 2.0 as the Intelligent web or 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence.' Mobile Web 2.0 extends the principle of 'Harnessing Collective Intelligence' to restricted devices. The seemingly simple idea of extending Web 2.0 to mobile Web 2.0 has many facets, for instance: