idgetsWay

Patrick April 5th, 2007

Last night, I revisited Fred Wilson’s post entitled “How to Widget?” Something about the post has been bouncing around in my head since I first read it a couple of weeks ago. Not the bit about feed-based architectures, though I’d argue that Fred takes the “create once, publish anywhere” mantra a bit too far down the value chain. Fred seems to be arguing that creating a feed is the equivalent of writing, not of publishing, when in my view, it is clearly the latter. A feed is not the atomic content unit in an of itself, its a distribution method, just like a website, an email newsletter and a widget. The key is to store that content in a standard, open format so that it can be easily distributed via these methods and more, such as APIs to other sites, mobile devices and even traditional media.

But I’ll leave that debate for another time (or for Hooman). Before Fred concludes that widgets should be built on a feed-based architecture (and ultimately, there is something to the idea that feeds can be a key enabling technology for widgets), he references his earlier four rules on The Future of Media:

1. Microchunk it - Reduce the content to its simplest form.
2. Free it - Put it out there without walls around it or strings on it.
3. Syndicate it - Let anyone take it and run with it.
4. Monetize it - Put the monetization and tracking systems into the microchunk.

In many ways, 1, 2, and 3 are the essence of widgets: small bits of content based on open standards that anyone can access. Its the last bit that is tricky. VC Mike sees the rapid growth in widgets, and wonders if there is enough of a business model for venture capitalists. In other words, can VCs make enough of an ROI to justify the risk?

Its a great question. Clearspring, Widgetbox, Widsets, Zenzui, and their investors sure seem to think its possible. I do too. I could recite a few possibilities, like syndication, but my belief is based more on the idea of widgets as the future of software. Widgets and gadgets as terms are primarily associated with consumer content, like Flickr photos, Fortune Cookies, and news, sports, and entertainment headlines. But that’s a limiting view.

Widgets are small, discreet, distributed applications based on open standards. In this larger widget world view, VC-worthy business model possibilities seem far more likely. As Om opined in the most recent Business 2.0 (not yet online), widgets for the enterprise might offer several such opportunities. But we are witnessing the beginning of an entirely new software development ecosystem based on widgets (service-oriented architecture) with millions being invested in SOA registry and governance solutions. Might SOA actually displace more traditional means of software development? Its a longshot, but possible.

And why wouldn’t SOA apply to specific industries in a way that could completely transform them? Imagine if the architectural and engineering industries, CAD software providers, and materials vendors (for plumbing, electrical, doors/windows) embraced widgets? Architects–and sophiticated end users–could drag-and-drop all manner of widgets to create new building plans, significantly reducing the time, cost and complexity of turning ideas into actionable drawings. Such applications could easily exist for a wide variety of industries.

I think we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of the possibilities of widgets, and the opportunities to create bankable businesses based on widgets. Note to VC’s: thar’s gold in them thar hills. Just be patient. We’re prospecting in unchartered territory; once we locate the deposits, the mines will become very productive.

Technorati Tags: widgets, gadgets, publishing, content, syndication

• Uncategorized
• Comments(2)