edutwist.com - teaching and technology

---

Update: (The original post following these remarks was written on Feb. 13, 2010. Today is April 17, 2010): It’s happening… Two months have passed since publishing the following post, and the giant social network-builder, ning, announced recently that it would no longer offer free accounts. For those who aren’t familiar with it, Ning provides users with dedicated online space and a template they can use to publish a social network of their own — sort of a mini-facebook or mini-myspace — personalized their way for their needs.

The educational community has been a huge investor of time and engagement in the ning site, creating hundreds of specialized ning networks for educators. Many teacher-created networks for students serve as classroom online communities in which students collaborate and publish their work and materials. The resulting connections and interactions quickly became a prolific and progressive repository of  current resources, peer-to-peer mentoring, educational best practices, and professional support and development. In a classic full-circle twist, nings were even created about using nings in education.

Understandably, many of the educators who set up a ning site felt blind-sided, like the author of the telecenter.org blog. They weren’t ready for the sudden hit, which left them with a painfully frustrating dilemma that allows only these disruptive solutions from which to choose: Either step up to premium level and pay for their sites, move the networks to other providers (requiring hours of digital transfers along with rebuilding from an unfamiliar template on a new site), apply for grants, seek out a generous sponsor, or shut down.

In a thoughtful challenge to the immediate storm of whining and complaining on twitter and other networks, Vicki Davis, the author of the Cool Cat Teacher Blog posted an intriguing response, raising questions about ning’s announcement, the reaction of the educational community, and the possibilities for the next step. It’s worth a read.
Wes Fryer has also posted an excellent list of alternatives to help ning administrators of ning sites think ahead to other opportunities.

With Ning’s announcement, I will be one of the network’s deserters because I can’t afford the time or money to switch my sites to another provider. I’m also at a loss, though, because I will no longer have access to an educational “marketplace” of ideas — so many of the ning sites I used will be out of touch after the transition or will totally close down.

I’m sorry to say I’m not surprised ning made this move. I actually wondered why it and other sites hadn’t begun charging for their services earlier. Before the ning event, I wrote the blog post that follows. I was whining, to be honest, because I wanted my free toys back! But in a way, I wrote it to warn myself and clarify my prediction, while thinking through the reality and the implausibility of Web 2.0 sites remaining free. I was resigning myself to be willing to pay if necessary, but to seek out alternatives. And if I were willing to pay, I needed to choose carefully what I pay for.

The comment from “Lois” following my post gave me logical perspectives to consider, as did Vicki ’s and Wes’s posts I referenced earlier.

---

Web2.0 tools aren’t free for long.

An expensive webonomic trend is growing more and more prevalent: Once a tool has made its debut, becomes increasingly reliable and grows more popular, it eventually upgrades to subscription status in order to recover its costs. Otherwise, how could it sustain itself?

Polleverywhere.com recently articulated this dilemma in a blog post defending its position on upgrading its services to subscription status. The post slapped me silly with its come-to-your-senses pronouncement:

---

“Be proactive, and start educating your district on the benefits of student response. Apply for a grant. Solicit parent or corporate sponsors … It’s time for a reality check, since we’re teetering on the brink of whether to provide any free service all.”

---

I hate to admit it, but this makes sense to me.  Is it realistic to believe developers spend weeks cranking out complex codes and then years maintaining interactive web 2.0 websites just for fun and for no other reason? Will advertising profit sustain their efforts? My guess is that only a tiny handful of developers win the occasional rare jackpot of profitable advertising ROI.  … So who’s buying their sandwiches and paying their cable bill?

Sigh. It’s inevitable and even understandable. Perhaps this is the natural course of evolution for survival in these early days of the web.

From where I’m sitting, as a front end user, the times — and costs — are changing. It looks as if I’m going to have to start paying for my toys, like it or not.

Pardon the cliché, but I remember the good old days when almost every new tool that launched online was free and wide open, and geekily irresistible. To gain access to these toys, I must have registered for hundreds of websites, dabbled in most of them, and still use some of them. That’s why my web identity expands into a widely scattered constellation of semi-related sites — like the stars, there are too many to remember, and although I follow advice to maintain a secret system of passwords, I’m probably way too easy to find on the internet.

I miss those good old days already — I think they’re as good as gone. My prediction is totally a gut feeling because I’m no expert, but I believe that what we experience today on the internet will be unrecognizable in a decade. The internet is slowly becoming a microcosm of capitalism, in spite of its original creativecommons philosophy. It’s shutting down accessible connections in spite of its initial and continuing claim of open access, leading me to believe that even the cloud has a cost.

To illustrate the change in my attitude since I first started exploring web 2.0 sites, I’ve learned now that if I like a new web 2.0 tool and the word “beta” is in its masthead, I’d better run through the tutorials and try it out it quickly if the tool interests me at all — that way I’ll be an informed consumer when I choose whether to pay for it later. I had to make this decision about Jott, which started out as a free site that I used regularly; it ended up as a subscription service.  And for every free tool I adopt, I’ve learned not to get too attached to it and to archive my creations and contents because oftentimes, sites suddenly close down completely, as countless many have.

---

“Web companies such as Blinksale, GoToMeeting, CrazyEgg, Jott, and many others have chosen to eliminate their free plans (or switch to free trials).” — PollEverywhere.com

---

To be honest, I’m a bit concerned that I’ve become so addicted that I’ll remain a steady customer for most of the sites I register for, even if I must begrudgingly send in my money. I also have started paying attention to a gnawing bud of fear that I’m tethered, not connected — bound up in the whole tangled network of sites like a tied-up hostage — and to top it all off, I’m publicly exposed with only a torn veil of privacy left.

I’m not ready to leave the marketplace yet — I’m having too much fun and benefiting in a multitude of ways — but I’m starting to see that I’ll be making some web 2.0 choices in the distant future. It’s time to watch the trends and change to a more flexible state of mind about web 2.0 sites. It’s reasonable, in my opinion, to pay for service that has earned my loyalty and provides worthwhile functionality. But if, in my opinion, a site charges more than it’s worth for a subscription or delivers buggy service, any capitalist consumer knows that I’m not forced to consume the services or goods the marketplace puts before me. I can vote with my keyboard.

---

I’ve collected a few sites about web failures here.

This blog expresses the personal opinions of the author and is not affiliated
with nor representative of any company, employer, or other entity.
Posted on February 13th, 2010 by Sharon Elin
Filed under: Uncategorized