Web 2.0伺服器及Push軟體市場中各企業的市佔率、策略及預測。2008年至2014年

Advertising budgets have not been directly connected to the computer and technology before the Web 2.0 companies started attracting advertising dollars. The massive reach of Google has attracted to advertising dollars into the computer industry. Even thought the proportion of total advertising spending on Internet advertising is relatively low, the impact on the computer industry is large.

It promises to get larger. The Internet advertising can be highly targeted and get to consumers when they are about to make a purchase decision. The advertiser has very granular control over the advertising spend. If the aim is to fill up hotel rooms, the advertiser can pull the ad as soon as the rooms are full. The advertising budgets are large and as automated process and the Internet begin to attract advertising, this represents significant opportunity for the computer industry.

Some Web 2.0 vendors including Google built their own machines and this other market activity is accounted for in the other category for revenue and noted directly in the unit analysis.

Web 2.0 implements push technology. The push technology is used to continuously update software online instead of having a continuously evolving release and license business model. Push technology is useful for getting teams to work together from remote locations to accomplish a task. Part of what makes Web 2.0 interesting is push technology.

Push technology is the essence of services oriented architecture. SOA decouples functionality and permits enterprises to implement code in flexible ways. Technology is useful for both consumer social networking applications and enterprise applications because it provides an efficient way to implement services.

Web 2.0 is a technology that is used to collect revenue from the Internet. But it goes beyond that. Web 2.0 companies have been able to add value to existing data by indexing data according to demand and packing data in new ways adding value to the data that goes beyond what the original creators intended. Services are a significant aspect of SOA and of Web 2.0.

SOA benefits relate to achieving reuse of code and flexible response to changing market conditions. Extending the benefits of SOA beyond the enterprise relates to providing the ability to exchange data between partners, suppliers, distributors, and customers. SOA facilitates integration beyond the enterprise - between a company and its partners and customers. A business-to-business (B2B) infrastructure based on a SOA approach lowers development costs. It delivers value chain economies and reduces project risks.

The markets for Web 2.0 servers show stead growth due to the increased need for social networking, intelligent presentation of data, and video sharing. Web 2.0 promises to support collaboration on a personal and enterprise level. This provides an advantage to IBM with its new product cycle and its highly evolved collaborative software initiatives.

Web 2.0 server markets forecasts relate to the development of advertising on-line and collaboration tools. Markets at $2.4 billion in 2007 are expected to be at $6.1 billion2014.

WinterGreen Research authors use a structured, consistent, and detailed research approach. The methodology supports an analytical approach to market research. In depth comparisons are made of many aspects of the market. Data relating to Industry segments is developed to permit presentation of forecasts and market share positioned to have substantive value.

Research has been automated using automation of interactive surveys that implement delta trend analysis and instant messaging in combination with e-mail. Automation is made possible because of a proprietary engine that implements multilayered cell based analysis. Modular systems support dynamic computing that use a graphical configuration engine to reach more people in a research modality.

Full spectrum research and information services, including market reports, customized research, and customer interviewing are available, reports and research are positioned to provide strategic value to industry participants, strategic planners, and product managers.

New systems combine sales tools and independent industry analysis, seeking to leverage the expertise of the sales force and combine it with the skepticism of the analysts to provide accurate return on investment analysis.

• Web 2.0 Servers Executive Summary
• Web 2.0 Implements Push Technology
• Web 2.0 Networking Heuristics Value
  • Web 2.0 Server Market Driving Forces
• Web 2.0 Server Market Shares
• Web 2.0 Server Forecasts

1. Web 2.0 Servers Market Description and Market Dynamics

• 1.1 Web 2.0 Internet Scale Mainstream Applications
  • 1.1.1 Web 2.0 Design Patterns
  • 1.1.2 Data is t Next for Web 2.0
  • 1.1.3 Network Effects
  • 1.1.4 Collaboration
  • 1.1.5 Social Networking Heuristics
  • 1.1.6 Wiki-Style Collaborative Editing
• 1.2 Core Competencies of Web 2.0
• 1.3 Web 2.0 Next Generation Applications
• 1.4 Web 2.0 Impact On Business Environment
  • 1.4.1 Web 2.0 Corporate and Marketing Communications
• 1.5 Blogging
  • 1.5.1 Architecture of Participation
  • 1.5.2 Permalink Functionality
• 1.6 Web 2.0 Driven By Data
  • 1.6.1 Control Over The Database
• 1.7 Web 2.0 Advertising Business
  • 1.7.1 Google' s Lightweight Programming Model Has Led To The Creation Of Numerous Value-Added Services
• 1.8 Scientific Collaboration Using Web 2.0
  • 1.8.1 OpenWetWare Project At MIT

2. Web 2.0 Servers Market Shares and Forecasts

• 2.1 Advertising Revenue Drives Web 2.0
  • 2.1.1 Web 2.0 Changing How The Enterprise And Society Functions
  • 2.1.2 Web 2.0 Server Market Driving Forces
  • 2.1.3 Google Technologies Leverage AJAX To Implement Web Design
• 2.2 Web 2.0 Server Market Shares
  • 2.2.1 HP Web 2.0
  • 2.2.2 Dell Selling PCs in Second Life!
  • 2.2.3 Google
  • 2.2.4 IBM iDataPlex Web 2.0 Form Factor
  • 2.2.5 Sun Web 2.0 Internet
  • 2.2.6 Google
  • 2.2.7 Robotic Manufacturing
• 2.3 x86 Market Shares 2007
• 2.4 Web 2.0 Server Forecasts
  • 2.4.1 Server Electricity Usage
  • 2.4.2 Google Investing In Renewable Energy

3. Web 2.0 Servers Description

• 3.1 Sun Web 2.0 Internet
  • 3.1.1 Sun Web 2.0 Positioning
  • 3.1.2 Sun Microsystems Web 2.0 Innovation
  • 3.1.3 Sun / Fujitsu
  • 3.1.4 Sun, Fujitsu, and Fujitsu Siemens Web 2.0 Energy Efficient Servers
  • 3.1.5 Fujitsu / Sun
  • 3.1.6 Sparc Enterprise T5140 And T5240 Servers Scale
  • 3.1.7 SPARC Enterprise T5140 and T5240 Servers
• 3.2 IBM Web 2.0
  • 3.2.1 IBM Web 2.0 Technologies
  • 3.2.2 IBM Web 2.0 iDataPlex
  • 3.2.3 IBM iDataPlex Web 2.0 Form Factor
  • 3.2.4 IBM Web 2.0 Mashups
  • 3.2.5 IBM Internally Developing And Evangelizing Web 2.0 Tools
• 3.3 HP Web 2.0
  • 3.3.1 Hewlett-Packard HP Proliant
• 3.4 Dell
  • 3.4.1 Dell 2-Socket 1U High Availability Rack Server
  • 3.4.2 Dell Selling PCs in Second Life!
• 3.5 Intel® Web 2.0 Technology Development
• 3.6 AMD
• 3.7 Google
  • 3.7.1 Google Infrastructure
• 3.8 Microsoft Platform Approach Instead of Application
  • 3.8.1 Akamai vs. BitTorrent
  • 3.8.2 Harnessing Collective Intelligence

4. Web 2.0 Implementations and Technology

• 4.1 Google Scale Mainstream Applications Gmail and Google Maps
  • 4.1.1 Google.com - Search and Personalization
  • 4.1.2 Google Scholar.
  • 4.1.3 Google Server Implementation for Web 2.0
  • 4.1.4 Google Replicates The Web pages
  • 4.1.5 Google Map / Reduce Framework Runs In Parallel On 1,000 Machines
  • 4.1.6 Google Global Work Queue
  • 4.1.7 Communication, Collaboration and Communities
  • 4.1.8 Google Spent $250 Million On Hardware Equipment In 2004, $1.4 Billion in 2007
  • 4.1.9 Google Uses 1.8 Million Servers, Search Results, Images, Videos, Emails And Ads
  • 4.1.10 Google Dynamic Architecture Implementation
  • 4.1.11 Short Description of Google Search Engine Dynamic Architecture
  • 4.1.12 Google BigFiles
  • 4.1.13 Google Repository
• 4.2 eBay Infrastructure
  • 4.2.1 Sun Storage Helps Keep The Store Open
  • 4.2.2 eBay' s Infrastructure Evolution
• 4.3 Microsoft .Net Defines Reusable Modules Dynamically
  • 4.3.1 Microsoft Data Center Size
  • 4.3.2 Microsoft Combines Managed Modules into Assemblies
  • 4.3.3 Microsoft Architecture Dynamic Modular Processing
• 4.4 IBM® WebSphere® Application Server Feature Pack for Web 2.0
  • 4.4.1 IBM Web 2.0 Steps To Deploy Websphere Application Server Using Virtual Image Templates
  • 4.4.2 IBM WebSphere Application Server Feature Pack
• 4.5 Facebook
• 4.6 MySpace
• 4.7 Reunion
• 4.8 Software Release Cycle
• 4.9 iTunes and TiVo

5. Web 2.0 Servers Company Profiles

• 5.1 DoubleClick vs. Overture and AdSense
• 5.2 Facebook
• 5.3 FortiusOne
• 5.4 Fujitsu
  • 5.4.1 Fujitsu Network Communications
  • 5.4.2 Fujitsu Considers WiMAX vs. 3G vs. Wi-Fi
  • 5.4.3 Fujitsu FLASHWAVE® 7500 Small System
  • 5.4.4 Fujitsu FASST Transition Solutions
• 5.5 Google
  • 5.5.1 Google Revenues
  • 5.5.2 Wayne Rosing Former CTO Comments On Push Technology
• 5.6 Hewlett Packard
  • 5.6.1 HP Products and Services: Segment Information
  • 5.6.2 Hewlett Packard Technology Solutions Group
  • 5.6.3 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Storage and Servers
  • Hewlett Packard Service-Oriented Architecture
  • HP SOA Center Components
  • HP Financial Information 2008
  • HP Personal Systems Group
  • HP Imaging and Printing Group
  • HP Enterprise Storage and Servers
  • HP Services
  • HP Software
  • HP Financial Services
  • HP Technology Positioning
• 5.7 IBM
  • 5.7.1 IBM' s Capabilities
  • IBM SOA Infrastructure
  • IBM WebSphere SOA Business Integration Foundation
  • 5.7.2 IBM 2008 Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year Revenue
• 5.8 MySpace
• 5.9 Postful
• 5.10 Reunion
• 5.11 SearchForce
• 5.12 Sun Microsystems
  • 5.12.1 Sun Microsystems Network Computing Infrastructure
  • 5.12.2 Sun Business Strategy
  • 5.12.3 Sun Startup Essentials Program
  • 5.12.4 Sun Web 2.0 Customer Base
• 5.13 Yahoo
  • 5.13.1 Yahoo has 30,000 servers.
  • 5.13.2 Yahoo Revenues
  • 5.13.3 Yahoo Business Segment Results
  • 5.13.4 Yahoo Server Capital Expenditures2

• Table ES-1
• Web 2.0 Market Driving Forces
• Table ES-1 (Continued)
• Web 2.0 Market Driving Forces
• Figure ES-2
• Worldwide Web 2.0 Low End x86 Server Shipments Market Shares, Dollars, 2007
• Figure ES-3
• Worldwide Web 2.0 Small Server Shipments Market Forecasts, Dollars, 2008-2014
• Table 1-1
• Harnessing Collective Intelligence
• Table 1-2
• Web 2.0 Next Generation Applications Providers
• Table 1-3
• Web 2.0 Web Space Characteristics
• Table 1-4
• Web 2.0 Next Generation Applications
• Table 1-5
• Web 2.0 Next Generation Functions
• Table 1-6
• Mashup Market Opportunity
• Table 1-7
• Web 2.0 Internet Examples
• Table 1-7 (Continued)
• Web 2.0 Internet Examples
• Table 2-1
• Web 2.0 Market Driving Forces
• Table 2-1 (Continued)
• Web 2.0 Market Driving Forces
• Table 2-2
• Web 2.0 Ajax Technology Functions
• Figure 2-3
• Worldwide Web 2.0 x86 Server With Onboard Storage Shipments Vendor and Internal Purchase Market Shares, Dollars, 2007
• Table 2-4
• Worldwide Web 2.0 x86 Server With On Board Storage Vendor and Internal Purchase Shipments, Market Shares,Dollars, 2007
• Table 2-5
• Worldwide Web 2.0 x86 Server With On Board Storage Vendor and Internal Purchase Shipments, Market Shares, Units, 2007
• Table 2-6
• Worldwide Web 2.0 x86 Server With On Board Storage Vendor and Internal Purchase Shipments, Market Shares, Units, 2007
• Table 2-7
• Worldwide Low End x86 Server Shipments, Market Shares, Dollars, 2007
• Table 2-8
• Worldwide Low End x86 Server Shipments, Market Shares, Units, 2007
• Table 2-9
• Worldwide Low End x86 Server Shipments, Market Shares, Units, 2007
• Table 2-10
• Worldwide Web 2.0 Low End x86 Integrated Storage Server Shipments, Market Shares, Units, 2007
• Figure 2-11
• Worldwide Web 2.0 Server and Low End x86 Server With On Board Storage Market Forecasts, Dollars, 2008-2014
• Table 2-12
• Worldwide Web 2.0 Server and Low End x86 Server With On Board Storage Market Forecasts, Dollars, 2008-2014
• Table 2-13
• Worldwide x86 Server and On Board Dual Processor and Quad Processor Market Forecasts, Dollars, 2008-2014
• Figure 2-14
• WinterGreen Research ROI Google Server Electricity Analysis
• Figure 2-15
• WinterGreen Research Google Server Air Conditioning and Total Electricity Analysis
• Table 3-1
• Sun Web 2.0 Internet Positioning
• Figure 3-2
• IBM2.0 iDataPlex
• Table 3-3
• HP Web 2.0 SDP 2.0' s Portfolio Of Solutions
• Table 3-3 (Continued)
• HP Web 2.0 SDP 2.0' s Portfolio Of Solutions
• Table 3-4
• Hewlett Packard Web 2.0 Server Positioning
• Table 3-5
• Hewlett Packard Web 2.0 Server Applications
• Table 3-6
• HP SIP Solution Benefits
• Figure 3-7
• Dell f5 Web 2.0 Server
• Table 3-8
• Dell PowerEdge 1950 III Server
• Table 3-9
• Intel Web 2.0 applications Design Support
• Table 3-10
• Intel Web 2.0 TDK Developer Functions
• Table 3-11
• Intel Web 2.0 Software Key Features
• Table 4-1
• Google Use of Ajax Technology
• Table 4-2
• WinterGreen Research Server Energy Costs�@for 14 Servers with 3 Processors
• Figure 4-2
• Google Dynamic Architecture
• Figure 4-4
• Repository Data Structure
• Figure 4-5
• EBay Architecture
• Table 4-6
• Microsoft .Net Defines Reusable Modules
• Figure 4-7
• MegaData Center Capital Expenditures
• Figure 4-8
• Microsoft .NET assemblies:
• Figure 4-9
• Microsoft Architecture Dynamic Modular Processing
• Figure 4-10
• Steps To Deploy IBM WebSphere Application Server Using A Virtual Image Template
• Figure 4-11
• WebSphere Application Server Network Deployment Installation And Configuration Steps
• Figure 4-12
• IBM Web Architecture
• Table 4-13
• Facebook Description. 2007 to April 2008
• Table 4-13 (Continued)
• Facebook Description. 2007 to April 2008
• Table 4-13 (Continued)
• Facebook Description. 2007 to April 2008
• Table 4-14
• MySpace Metrics
• Table 4-14 (Continued)
• MySpace Metrics
• Table 4-15
• Reunion Metrics
• Figure 5-1
• Fujitsu Server Innovation
• Table 5-2
• Fujitsu Server Positioning
• Table 5-3
• Fujitsu Servers
• Table 5-4
• Google Advertising Positioning
• Table 5-5
• HP Systinet SOA Center Components Key Capabilities
• Table 5-6
• Yahoo Search Offerings