What’s in a Name?

September 18th, 2007 10 Comments

socialapps.pngAs many know already, I’m not a fan of the term Enterprise 2.0. I think it’s derivative and boring, all at once. And yet, now people are building on it and advancing the version to 3.0.

I’m also not a fan of Web 2.0, but that one is livable. An email thread with Paul coined a new term or at least introduced me to one, social apps.

I’m not sure if he came up with that on his own, or if he heard it at the Gartner Web Innovation Summit in Vegas this week. The event’s description is “Harnessing the New Web”. I like to think I coined that term as an alternative to Web 2.0, but anyway, I like the cut of their jib.

Andrew McAfee is also there, so maybe he came up with it, redeeming himself for Entersnore 2.0. I’ll give Paul the credit because he drives the bus.

I love the term. For me, it’s a next step for software that Enterprise 2.0 never came close to describing. Social apps are what we at AppsLab want to build and evangelize throughout the Applications division, Oracle, and eventually the world.

People do work, not transactions or business objects. So shouldn’t enterprise applications be social in nature?

Here’s the progression as I see it:

Watch this space for more social apps coverage. Yeah, we’ll talk about the other two when we get bored, but social apps are what we live and breathe.


Possibly Related Posts

10 Responses to “What’s in a Name?”

  1. Fusion ECM: Enterprise Content Management From The Product Pit Says:

    Social Apps

  2. Marius Says:

    The game will be played at the platform level. The one that controls the platform controls the apps. I believe that social apps will show the way, but we need to stay focused and learn to build a successful platform.

  3. Marius Says:

    The game will be played at the platform level. The one that controls the platform controls the apps. I believe that social apps will show the way, but we need to stay focused and learn to build a successful platform.

  4. Jake Says:

    The apps include the platform b/c without the apps, what utility does the platform have? You can’t divorce the two yet. This is like the old hardware vs. software debate. Who won? All the platforms (think social networks) out there need to drive users to them. Beyond the vanilla experience, what do they have to attract people?

    IMHO, the relationship is symbiotic, for now. As platforms become commodities, the killer apps will reign supreme.

    Jake

  5. Jake Says:

    The apps include the platform b/c without the apps, what utility does the platform have? You can’t divorce the two yet. This is like the old hardware vs. software debate. Who won? All the platforms (think social networks) out there need to drive users to them. Beyond the vanilla experience, what do they have to attract people?

    IMHO, the relationship is symbiotic, for now. As platforms become commodities, the killer apps will reign supreme.

    Jake

  6. Phil Hunt Says:

    I think what we were talking about was something that evolves from Web 2.0. So far social systems extend only to person-to-person relationships. We were asking, what happens when you have enterprise-to-enterprise relationships?

    Is this a better way to express trust between organizations? Is it more powerful?

  7. Phil Hunt Says:

    I think what we were talking about was something that evolves from Web 2.0. So far social systems extend only to person-to-person relationships. We were asking, what happens when you have enterprise-to-enterprise relationships?

    Is this a better way to express trust between organizations? Is it more powerful?

  8. Jake Says:

    Enterprise-enterprise still involve people and are therefore social. That may not get you all the way there, but it’s a start.

    There is no Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 or 3.0, it’s all the same principles applied to different relationships.

    Jake

  9. Jake Says:

    Enterprise-enterprise still involve people and are therefore social. That may not get you all the way there, but it’s a start.

    There is no Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 or 3.0, it’s all the same principles applied to different relationships.

    Jake

  10. OraNA :: Oracle News Aggregator » What’s in a Name? Says:

    [...] RSS feed for comments on this post. [...]

Leave a Reply