Why you should let Web 2.0 into your hearts

by Dan Zambonini

There has been a predictable backlash against "Web 2.0" as a meaningful movement (above and beyond a set of technologies). In response, I present here a short case in favour of Web 2.0 -- what (I think) it means, what (I think) it's made of, and the very real difference it can make when fully embraced.

8 Comments

M. David Peterson
2006-08-25 04:01:53
Wow! This is REALLY cool, Dan. Still absorbing, but its definitely got me thinking.


Thanks!

Taylor
2006-08-25 06:49:13
Dan,


There's backlash where business models are challenged but I can assure you people are taking note in even the most conservative of organizations.


I would like to hear your opinion on portals. I believe web 2.0 makes them more irrelevant. (by portal I mean a webified desktop where company "x" provides all the aggregation in a very brand centric controlled env).



Taylor

Erich
2006-08-25 17:48:31
What good is "web 2.0" if the term is constantly being abused?
I guess many people have issues with the term, not with what it "really" stands for.
After all, many people call myspace a "web 2.0" app. Dudes, it's just homepages, these have been around for years.


It's nice that in your opinion, "web 2.0" means "business models come second to user models".
Unfortunately, to other it means "business comes first, doing something really different than before comes second". And to others it's all about ajax.


I strongly discourage the use of the term "web 2.0" except for referring to marketing buzz. If you're talking about the "real web 2.0", use other terms such as Open APIs, syndiction, user content, semantics.
We need to find a more describing term such as "open web".


Oh, and you're missing a key ingredient: "beta". Is there any web 2.0 page not bearing the beta logo? Check out http://www.drweb.de/weblog/weblog/?p=518
and they all employ a very similar design...

M. David Peterson
2006-08-25 21:26:28
@Erich,


You're arguing preference of terms? What is your plan if we were all to adopt "open web", and then everyone starts calling their MySpace home page "open web compatible"? You realize thats exactly what would happen, right?


No matter what the term happens to be, its going to be abused... That's just the way it works.


>> Oh, and you're missing a key ingredient: "beta".


??? What does the content of Dan's post and beta software have to do with each other?


You seem annoyed by the term, and that's fine... We all are to some extent > http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2005/08/web_10_20_30_ea.html < but the term is here to stay, because there is money behind the term.


If you can find people who are willing to fund product development using the term "open web" then you might have a chance at getting it to stick. Just don't be pissed off when the first MySpace user references his home page using "open web."

Javier CaƱada
2006-08-26 06:34:00
It's funny that we, in Spain, are using the "web2.love" badge to express such thing: www.webdospuntoamor.com


:-)

len
2006-08-26 09:01:42
Never stand in front of a speeding truck load of money.


Going from a decentralized system back to a centralized system via server-side aggregation didn't take long did it? The evolution of such things is exactly the opposite of what the technology suggests. Once a winner in any content market emerges, a basin is formed that cancels out the emergence of small attractors. It is not permanent but it has a life cycle and that lifecycle is agnostic to the qualities you list and easily gamed just as the tensor indexing algorithms applied by Google are easily gamed.


How long did it take iTunes to close the doors to the independants?


It doesn't mean one shouldn't compete. It means one shouldn't be seduced into forgetting to do exactly that.

Sun Yu
2006-08-27 20:37:42
Hi,Dan,


Without doubt, the noun of "web 2.0" has led so many innovations on the web, it really deserves everyone's attention. But I'm rather upset about the foundation or presumption on which you have to rely to run a social system, i.e. the Critical Mass. Of course, not every web site could manage to get enough users and information posts to get things up.
One more presumption web 2.0 systems rely upon is Trust. Keep it open to everybody, and trust them for building nice social content. It's OK, it's interesting, but it's not reliable for any serious business. Spams, trolling, gaming, several gurus to control the entire community. All these make you gradually lose the confidence to just trust everyone, especially after your system grew up. How about Not Trust? Even worse, you would never reach the Critical Mass to grow up.


I'm simply lost in Web 2.0


Sun Yu

steve
2007-12-09 21:11:59
Is Web 3.0 real? would be coined by O'reilly Media like web 2.0?


Mark
www.freephptemplate.com