I have come to avoid talking about this stuff with people. The first question anyone asks me is “what is Web 2.0?” Unfortunately for the ensuing conversation, it’s a little tricky to provide a straight answer. Every time you find a neat expression for summing the whole Web 2.0 thing up, I immediately think of an exception, or three, or ways that the definition doesn’t really get us anywhere.
In the list that follows, I’ve taken a lot of these characteristics or definitions from Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0?, and also Paul Graham’s Web 2.0 and Jason Fried’s user survey about the term.
1. The wisdom of crowds: We’re thinking here of things like digg that harness collective judgements to decide the importance of news stories. People talk about the power of ‘network effects’ when they’re keen on this definition. Google Search works like this by using the number and quality of inbound links to decide a page’s importance. But the whole idea does not apply to Google Maps, or any of the other Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) crowd e.g. Basecamp, Writely, 30boxes, etc., which are nonetheless thought of as being Web 2.0. Nor does it apply to social networks that are just about developing and maintaining friendships, like MySpace, though they do benefit from network effects, of course.
2. Shared Web Applications. One of the definitions from Jason Fried’s list and quite promising. Almost the opposite of our first definition, since it quite clearly applies to things like Basecamp, Writely and 30Boxes. However, there are some Web 2.0 applications that have no social element whatsoever, e.g. Pandora, Google Maps, Orchestrate, goowy. I’m also struggling with the idea of web applications. I can see why digg and Google Search are applications, but to have this as a defining feature of Web 2.0 would mean classifying MySpace as an application. And if I allow that, then almost any web site becomes an application.
3. Web as platform: It’s hard to know where this one starts and ends. In some sense, every web page is using the web as a platform. For Tim O’Reilly, who came up with this explanation, it means services that could not exist without the web, and he’s thinking of things like eBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype and Dodgeball. For me, that means that every online community could fall into this category. Are message boards and usenet Web 2.0? Most people would say not. Too broad.
4. User Participation: This is about the pointing out the differences between old-fashioned newspaper and magazine sites and new services like YouTube, flickr, and OhMyNews where the consumers are also the creators. The expression ‘Read/Write web’ crops up among proponents of this definition. Again, it’s rather too broad, so it could equally apply to message boards, but also too narrow in a different way, since it misses the SaaS sites.
5. Rich User Experience: Web 2.0 sites use CSS, AJAX and other technologies to enhance usability and create dynamic pages able to display more information in the same space. But hang on, the default MySpace page is probably one of the least “rich” imaginable. Oh, apart from craigslist. And until they introduced search term prediction earlier this year, Google Search didn’t use any fancy presentation technologies at all. Also, the presence of an AJAX-enhanced shopping cart on an etailer site doesn’t really capture what people mean by Web 2.0. Dell.com, for example, has had a ‘live’ shopping cart for years. It’s a good cart, but Web 2.0?
6. Marketing Buzzword: This is what all the sceptics say. So Google Search and Amazon and eBay and craigslist, all of which are believed to be Web 2.0 applications, because they match some of the other characteristics I’ve described here, are just some sort of modern fad that’s going to fade away, are they? The same thing goes for anyone who wants to describe Web 2.0 as “the new stuff on the web”. I do agree, incidentally, that Web 2.0 has become a marketing buzzword, it’s just that I think that it’s also more than that.
7. Data is the next Intel Inside: Though it’s a bit of a mouthful, I actually quite like this one. Again, it’s from the O’Reilly paper. Data management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies. “SQL is the new HTML,” is another quotation from the paper along these lines. All the Web 2.0 crowd, and we can go from giants like Amazon and Google to startups like 30boxes and Orchestrate, operate mainly from databases to contain and present personalised views on that data. There’s two problems here: (a) data management isn’t quite such a sexy idea as people would want and (b) a lot of the Web 1.0 companies were also about finding clever ways to use databases e.g. Altavista, Lastminute.com.
8. Permanent Beta: Web 2.0 applications are re-released, re-written and revised on an ongoing basis, putting paid to the yearly release cycle that characterised earlier software development. Most Google applications, for example, are still in Beta. flickr is rumoured to sometimes be revised every 30 minutes. MySpace and the other social networks add extra features every couple of weeks. I think that this is a clear characteristic of Web 2.0 apps. But it’s also become a feature of mainstream applications. Windows and MacOS, for example, get new fixes and patches every month. Antivirus programs are updated every day, but they aren’t Web 2.0, are they? The same thing goes for ‘lightweight programming models’. Also, I think people mean more by the term than the way in which it’s programmed. Most users couldn’t care less, they just want it to work well.
9. Using the web as it was meant to be used: This one is from Paul Graham’s essay on the subject. He’s referring to the increases in usability that are achieved through very good design as well as things like AJAX, but also by allowing users to develop their own ways of organising the information they have, the way del.icio.us and flickr do. Again, I have a couple of problems here. Firstly, it’s a bit loose: I’m sure that there were always some very well-designed sites that worked exactly as you wanted them to. The old (and now defunct) UK train timetable site was a perfect web app in many senses: it got you train times quickly and easily. But no-one would call it Web 2.0. Second, it’s a little self-satisfied as a definition and implies we’re reaching an end-point. A lot of the sites described as Web 2.0 have quite clearly got it wrong.
10. Nothing: One of the more popular answers in Jason Fried’s user poll. It’s a hard one for me to evade given that I have just come up with counter-examples or objections to all the definitions I’ve been able to find. Still, I resist the idea that this is nothing. Here are two answers to the question I think are true. (a) A Web 2.0 application, site or service will have a combination of the features given above. Just as black and white aren’t satisfactory for describing the colour of everything, neither is Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0. It isn’t a binary division of the web, or a revolution. Instead, we have a spectrum. Those sites and services which satisfy a number of these criteria or characteristics are more Web 2.0 than those which don’t. That is not a value judgement, of course. Sites with no Web 2.0 features can still be wonderful. Sites with a lot of them can be awful. Also (b) Web 2.0 is still too young as an expression to have reached the point where we have consensus about what it means. It means different things to different people at the moment. It may only be with hindsight that we come to be able to narrow things down enough to be able to say what it was in one sentence.
31 Comments
Interesting Ian. Personally, I think Amazon is Web 1.
For me Web 2.0 is about communication channels. Web 2.0 sites open up many-to-many communications and use these as their primary raison d’etre. Web 1 was primarily one-to-many (i.e. webmaster to visitor).
This works for SaaS because the inherent network of the Internet makes them multi-user by nature (albeit, perhaps, within one account). It works for community sites (obviously) and it works for auction sites like eBay. It doesn’t work for etailers which usually form one-to-many.
WRT message boards. I think early forums and message boards were trailblazers for what is commonplace now. Where message boards were used as a secondary and supporting prop that rules them out - but early usenet groups were, IMHO, the seedlings of Web 2.0. After all, they are what spawned Omidyar’s baby (according to ‘The Perfect Store’ and eBay has to be the perfect many-to-many.
11. Many-to-many communications. Hmmm… That’s quite compelling. But not Google Search or Maps or Orchestrate or Pandora, then? Your own web application, businessITonline would thus be Web 1.0 if used by an individual, but Web 2.0 if used by a team, which is an interesting conundrum.
You’re definitely right about forums and message boards.
When I launched a magazine website a couple of years ago, we included full features from the mag, news items and what we thought was a really helpful shopping database. And a message board. Six weeks after launch 99% of the traffic on the site was to the message board. It remains so ever since.
The same thing happened with my first site, back when I used to be a teacher. I wrote a site about the play Hamlet, intended to help A-level students. I wrote tens of thousands of words covering every possible exam topic. It was quite highly praised and (for me) a major success that i never bothered to try to monetise - around 300K page impressions a month. But where did the traffic go? The message board, of course.
So Web 2.0 harnesses what has always driven traffic, many-to-many communications, in what developers hope are compelling ways.
More thoughts here http://internet-biz.blogspot.com/2006/08/20uch-defines-web-20.html
Yes, the true value of BIO is realised when it is multi-user. Sure, it’s accessible remotely from any computer which beats a spreadsheet but it’s the collaborative nature of the app that’s compelling.
Google Search - collaborative data communications (many-to-many linking) gets this in, but tradional text search doesn’t get in
Google Maps - correct, unless mashed up on a collaborative app
Orchestrate - don’t know it
Pandora - again, collaborative data communication
The compelling point for visitors is that something (alive) is happening with their data, i.e. things will have ‘happened’ since they last visited.
Will check back here soon…
Not sure you’ve quite covered off Google Search there, since the communication you describe is entirely non-verbal. A pingback is communication of a sort, sure, but that only applies to blogs. It’s about Google tracking the links that are created, which may or may not have a human-to-human communication element. Still, it doesn’t matter one jot to me, or anyone else if Google is Web 2.0 or not. If I pursue my ’some of the above’ method, then it is. If I follow your many-to-many method, then it isn’t.
I am also interested in this duality thing. If nobody views or comments on your photos shared on flickr, then it’s Web 1. If they do, then it’s Web 2. With the assistance of meta-comment applications like Alexa and Diigo, any site can potentially be Web 2 that way. But if a web page falls over in the forest and no-one is listening, does it make a sound?
PS. Orchestrate is an AJAX to-do list system which works really well IMHO.
It doesn’t really matter how Web 2.0 is defined. That is in the hands of the people. I went on one site with a directory of these things and it said Wordpress and Drupal were Web 2.0. I don’t really think that is true, but if that’s what people mean by Web 2.0, then I am wrong. The definition is very flexible at this point. Maybe that is why there’s so much commotion about it.
Ian says that Amazon is believed to be 2.0, but David thinks it’s 1.0. My own take is that if Amazon were a pure online store it would be 1.0 (I agree with Ian that being database-driven isn’t a new 2.0 thing), but its inclusion of user reviews makes it 2.0. And Amazon’s adding the ability for people to sell their own items, in a form of competition against Amazon’s, makes it even more 2.0.
Amazon’s been around for a while, which to many people is an automatic disqualification for 2.0 status. I don’t see it that way: I don’t believe that “newness” is a useful attribute. In fact, when I answer the question “What is Web 2.0?” I refer to eBay as my example and then explain what’s “different” about it. The people I talk to seem to understand.
I visit http://www.techcrunch.com and http://www.web2list.com to be updated what web 2.0 is.
Why try and find a definition? Isn’t it all about language games and family resemblances?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Lan
You might be right, Tom, and in some senses that’s where I ended the post (the 10b remark). Family resemblance doesn’t really help in understanding what the thing is, though, and doesn’t help settle an argument over whether something is or is not Web 2.0.
Hey Ian,
You know my thoughts on this - the common theme of Web 2.0 is user-centricity, which is a) a very good thing and b) not particularly new as a concept.
There isn’t a firm definition that means anything much, nor do we particularly need one. I guess Web 2.0 simply represents a bunch of tools / concepts / approaches that, by and large, are there to make things better for web users.
Chris. I’m concerned about this laissez-faire, willy-nilly attitude.
How can I write perfectly good articles like the forthcoming “Why 2.0 is Crucial to Human Civilization”, “Why Web 3.0 will Revolutionise the World” and “Web 2.0: Sliced Bread Admits Defeat” if I can’t even say what it is?
To be honest, I think web 2.0 is more a gimmick than anything. JavaScript or rather DHTML have been around forever, I mean this whole fetch the xml and display it, and don’t reload pages - instead just fetch the content and make the user waiting with one of those ajax loading animations, is annoying. On lower end machines, this causes severe lag in browsers like FireFox. I mean I tried using a 1ghz computer to load GMail (completely clean installation, no spyware/viruses) and it took like 1-2 minutes for it to load (connection is clocked at 1mb p/s) it’s not the connection or computer, its just that different browsers vary on time used to render javascript.
Let’s all get over Web 2.0, podcasts and all these stupid jargon terms and let’s call it for what it really is, gimmicks.
Clearly Web 2.0 is just a reference of time, or rather an era. Think of it like art classical, modern, post-modern. We all get a vague idea of when web 1.0 and clearly we are in the era of web 2.0 right now. I think the next era will be web 2.5 just to throw people off.
Forgot one: Web 2.0 is premature. Go back and read your Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, Douglas Engelbart, Tim Berners-Lee, et al, and you’ll quickly realize that we’ve barely reached web 1.0 yet.
Web 2.0 = XMLHttpRequest
That is all that is really needed to define web 2.0. It the capabilities that XMLHttpRequest has allowed in web development, which boils down to multiple threads of communication to the server without having to refresh the entire page. I’m so sick of IT hype!
Its about the end user. Everything from “Web1.0″ was in essence a copy/paste from preexisting frameworks for companies interacting with consumers. Amazon == online book store. (of course I would argue that they’ve begun blurring the line) Most of the Web1.0 companies websites were e-brouchures, maybe they’d even have their user manual for download (The same exact thing that you’d have in the box) maybe they’d even have an E-mail form (analagous to the “We’d love to hear your feedback” surveys). Dell had their e-shopping cart, coincidentally it functions exactly like a real shopping cart.
However after the first bubble something else began happening. The internet no longer was copying the cold corporate concepts that existed in the real world, but were bending more towards the users. essentially the difference between a fast food chain and a family owned resraunt on the corner.
Now we see Google search come about because users don’t want the e-yellowpages of the older search engines, they want results. we see google maps come about, not entirely innovative, but incredably usable. We see Pandora and last.fm customizing radio for the end user. We see the prevalence of ajax, because the internet is no longer about flipping through the pages of a junk mail advertisement or a book, its about delivering to the end users what they want when they want in a nice clean fashon. We see friends features on everything because the end user likes the social aspect of the internet.
Now as google started this movement, various others joined in. And when I say various others I mean specifically the end users. Enabled by wikipedia, wp/mt/lj/blogger, digg, and many other services/software people began contributing to the web. Web2.0 being about the End Users means that people will be pulled into a community and thus a site/service when they can contribute to it. Thus you see Discuss This links poping up everywhere, comments on blogs etc. etc.
In conclusion, my definition for web2.0 is indeed overly broad and general, however, it does I think sum it up very nicely. In this great Web2.0 we’re no longer a consumer, an IP adress, or a +1 on the hit counter. We’re people.
ajax = XMLHttpRequest
+
shiny things
+
Beta
–
= Web 2.0
I have a few questions,
If an application has all the characteristics of Web 2.0 you mentioned above:
Does the technology camp used to do Web 2.0 matters? Meaning open-source vs. traditional enterprise software like Microsoft technologies.
Does the community developing Web 2.0 application would kill the buzz of a Web 2.0 application just because it doesn’t use open-source? Or not take it seriously.
These questions are not about which side is better or less expensive… and I don’t want to get technical either. But Web 2.0 seems to be related a lot with open-source, but it seems that it would be possible to create Web 2.0 with Microsoft technologies too.
What do you think?
If we look back in the history of any mass media, the trend has always been to start out with a wide scope, self-adjust, and then narrow its focus.
Whether its newspaper, television, or radio, the media started with a nationwide or global audience catering to corporate sponsors. After a few years, a large chunk of this media trickles down to serve regional and then local advertisers. Usually there is some self-correction as the media-consumer-advertiser relationship matures.
The web is no exception. We had our dot-com bust. And now local businesses are figuring out how to advertise online and internet companies are figuring out how to serve them. (look at Google’s $900 million deal with Myspace - they wanted local targeted advertising).
None of the tech thought leaders like O’Reilly and Graham want to think of it this way, but I think we’ll look back at the Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 transition as the same evolution that TV and radio experienced.
More thoughts here: http://www.mychurch.org/blog/view/?ID=201
I’ve blogged about this topic as well, Ian. See Web2.0 to Web2.U
Chris, it’d be great if you’d give it a read and provide comment as well.
Also see: Web2.0 Must Go and Cooperative Computing
Rob - I agree that the term and its meaning are ultimately in the hands of the people. I sense from your writing an optimism that people will actually do something other then throw their hands up in frustration, or stretch their hands forth to gladly hand it over to the first person who asks for the power to do with it what they please.
I’d greatly appreciate constructive feedback and the opportunity to continue this conversation.
Summum Bonum
Check out the dkp search on http://www.sheeped.net. Its a command line entry point to an application that allows you to query a database. Web 2.0 or just the same simple application of functionality to solve a need. My point? The command line in a field is a fairly new concept and perhaps it is an application, so, new + application must mean web2.0? Or does it have to have social interaction?
Hi this is Bob, Bob likes this site so he gave it 4/5 melons and its appeared on delicious and so his peers say YES! Bob now uses an online application to log his activity. People read his online diary and discuss that. Is that whole process to be described as web 2.0 or is each individual application he has interacted with a web 2.0 application? I would argue it is the environment that we live in on the inet that is what is being discussed and web2.0 is the description of the direction. Because most shallow minded people require tangible entities to point at as evidence web2.0 is used at a singular level. Look beyond that and its obvious what web2.0 actually is.
OK. Wow. Bear with me here, because a lot of these posts deserve long, thoughtful replies, but time demands that I can only do short ones today (it’s 11.30pm). Hopefully, we can beat out some of these issues a bit more over coming weeks and posts.
@Sh Sometimes it’s the case that live updates are the only feature; gimmicks are always bad. What things in particular were you thinking of?
@Russell. Very sensible comment, and true. But doesn’t go far enough. Why are we talking about this trend *now* and not at other times?
@Synfin. Not all web 2.0 sites use the XMLHttpRequest call, e.g. MySpace. I believe it would be possible to write a site meeting a lot of these criteria in HTML, or Flash for that matter.
@gleapskate. Broad and general, maybe. But on the money, IMHO. Will be sure to come by your site soon.
@aldo: great questions. I do think MS could create a Web 2.0 application, indeed many parts of Windows Live would qualify ad Web 2.0, I think.
@Joe: I have some thoughts on that myself. Damn! Hope you didn’t just pre-empt my next topic idea. I really hate these blogs that just echo each other!
@freefall. Your URL didn’t work, I’m afraid. An environment rather than individual sites, or maybe an attitude? Worth further thought.
Seems like what Web 2.0 really is about it VC monies actually going back into the web in the form of these new sites. Web 2.0 could really be any site that can actually get VC funds, haha.
@Ian Delaney
that url doesnt work because for some reason putting a period after a url includes it in the link, so try this:
http://www.sheeped.net
freefall. Got it. Very interesting application. I guess it would fulfill a lot of the criteria discussed in the post. I’m coming round to the environment description you offer and also the analogy to an art movement offered by one of the other posters.
very interesting–the answer to me seems to be all of the above, some of the above, and none of the above. which is cheating really, but also points to exactly to what you are saying. as soon as we try and create even relatively airtight definitions of an entity, or ephochal movement, our attempts fall short. i think this is because web 2.0 is much more than an era, much more than a technological movement, but a cultural phenonemon that is both radically new and also indebted to all the technologies of communication/representation that preceded it (whether we’re talking about web 1.0–whatever that is–listservs, or the camera and the printing press). it is very difficult to draw lines based on technological instrumentality alone, I feel.
web 2.0 becomes a catchall phrase (like “modernity”) a net, to talk about all the nuances–social, cultural, technological, human–that seem to define our age, our technologies, and our relationships to them. which means it’s *relatively* and perhaps necessarily indefinable.
i expect as you are doing your research, you are finding that people use the term as it suits them, and this does not mean it has no “meaning”–but that its a term in flux, being negotiated for specific purposes–and that is fine. that’s language! (gawd love it) an interesting question would be to look at how people are using the term and for what purposes in specific contexts. and defer the broader question as unanswerable (for now).
thanks for the opportunity to think!
I’d say Web 2.0 is the single most interesting development of the new internet technology with no one really knows what it is.
Check it out at http://www.profy.com/2006/10/29/still-with-web-20-definition/
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)
Any feasible solution depends on its calculated compromises, Web2.0 brings these concepts together, but I would imagine architects will still need to evaluate the approach given the requirement in hand.
Ashok
I hear a lot of discussion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler definition is better such as “user based collaboration and content generation”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut definition on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encompassed by Web 2.0. This is analogous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being discovered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define.
The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not technology. Most of the technology used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the application of this technology which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a democratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and governments and democracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their application which is different.
Craig Tobias
Solutions Architect
Cisco Systems.
48 Trackbacks
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings [...]
Speaking a dirty word…
Ian Green at Green Gathering was asking recently just what was Web 2.0 exactly (he concluded it was made of recycled tech blurbs!). While Web 2.0 can be a dirty word in some circles I am keen on the underlying…
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media (tags: Web2.0) [...]
[...] Link here. Tags : By r00t 4orce August 18, 2006 8:48 am Comments : [...]
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings - TwoPointTouch [...]
[...] I’m afraid it fits the latter group - nobody really knows what Web 2.0 is. I’d say Wikipedia is Web 2.0 - but there are not too many sites I’d classify there. I wouldn’t say this blog is Web 2.0 - it’s just a static HTML page with a fancy CMS behind it.read more | digg story Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
[...] Read 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings this morning and it left me with that queesy feeling about the "2.0" labeling goind around these days (for those not following, office and bizdev are the latest two-point-oh to be coined). [...]
[...] I stumbled on this via digg. It quickly inspired the following off the cuff comment. In the spirit of web2.0 I’d like to reques tthat if you read this, you contribute something to it… or if you don’t every one will make fun of you. You Web1-ian. Its about the end user. Everything from “Web1.0″ was in essence a copy/paste from preexisting frameworks for companies interacting with consumers. Amazon == online book store. (of course I would argue that they’ve begun blurring the line) Most of the Web1.0 companies websites were e-brouchures, maybe they’d even have their user manual for download (The same exact thing that you’d have in the box) maybe they’d even have an E-mail form (analagous to the “We’d love to hear your feedback†surveys). Dell had their e-shopping cart, coincidentally it functions exactly like a real shopping cart. [...]
[...] 10 definiciones de Web 2.0. Vía Digg. [...]
[...] - Jose Sandoval (he references also to some more serious definitions- as serious as Web 2.0 might be) …to be continued [...]
10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings…
In the list that follows, I’ve taken a lot of these characteristics or definitions from Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0?, and also Paul Graham’s Web 2.0 and Jason Fried’s user survey about the term….
The Friday Linker (for 8-18-06)…
End your weekend with a list of our favorite news items from around the ‘Web, as well as websites that we find interesting. Welcome to “The Friday Linker”…….
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0. [...]
[...] 10 definitions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story [...]
10 ç§ Web2.0 的定义？…
人很喜欢归æ¡ç›®çš„，什么å二个最佳 XXXã€ä¸ƒä¸ªè®©ä½ XXX çš„ç†ç”±ã€äº”大 XXX 秘诀ç‰ç‰ç‰ç‰ï¼Œåç›®ç¹å¤šï¼Œä»Žå‰å¹´å¼€å§‹å°±å¼€å§‹äº‰è®®çš„ Web 2.0 的定义，直到今天还有人在炒冷é¥ï¼ˆä¸è¿‡ä¹Ÿç¡®å®žæ²¡æœ‰æ˜Žç¡®çš„…
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media (tags: web2.0 definitions reference web article culture web20) 归类于： ä¹¦ç¾ — æ•°ç å¹½çµ @ 11:19 pm [...]
[...] Tratto da twopointtouch.com [...]
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media - What is Web 2.0? I’ve been asked that a couple of time. The answer isn’t easy. Web 2.0 is not one thing but a combination of philosophy, technology, and aesthetics. [...]
[...] Good article on what Web 2.0 is all about. My first reaction months ago about the term Web 2.0 was that it was probably a bunch of hype and at best a buzz word. But no, Web 2.0 is real and changing the world as much as HTML and the worldwide web did in the 1990s. read more | digg story Related Posts: No related posts, [...]
[...] Enough of the this Web 2.0 shit already!! All it is is web programming languages that are now working together. I really liked this article here. [...]
[...] There’s a great discussion on twopointouch about defining exactly what is and isn’t Web2.0. Examples citied include: MySpace, eBay, Amazon, Google Maps, Pandora, Digg, WordPress, and Wikipedia. [...]
[...] Momentan teilt sich meine Aufmerksamkeit zwischen generellen Web 2.0 Themen und den Szenarien und daraus ableitbaren Nutzungen und Funktionalitäten des Portals. Einerseits hängt beides miteinander zusammen… andererseits ist ein Portal für Studenten als Dienstleistung der Universität eigentlich etwas, was zunächst nicht von Schlagwörtern erdrückt werden sollte. [...]
Web 2.0 …
…
[...] Estas perdido con tanto que nombran y dicen web 2.0. Esquizopedia te trae una buena ayuda para hacer tu tarea de informática (suponiendo que llegaste aquà por san Google). Las 10 definiciones de WEB 2.0 (en ingles, no pensarÃas que encontrarÃas la tarea completa, traducida al español) Sin comentarios + [...]
[...] Dave commented to me on an earlier post that a key defining feature of Web 2.0 applications is many-to-many communications. I’m still not sure it covers everything we mean by the term, but it’s a helpful tool for each of these first three examples. [...]
[...] 10 definitions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story [...]
[...] Maar alle definities zijn weerlegbaar, zoals het artikel 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings doet. Hij weerlegt hier dat er 1 bepaalde definitie is voor een Web 2.0 applicatie. Hij zegt dat een site met meerdere definities meer Web 2.0 dan eentje die niet aan deze definities voldoet. Ook zegt hij dat Web 2.0 nog te jong is een uit te leggen wat het werkelijk is. [...]
[...] For the last few weeks, after encountering a couple of blog-posts on the subject, I’ve been mulling over this concept of “web 2.0.”  I am wondering why and how the term carries so much (at least in the blogosphere) currency right now, and fascinated by the myriad of recent posts that attempt to define what is, and (even more interestingly) what is not, web 2.0. (Anne 2.0; Anshu Sharma; Ian Delaney; Stephen Downes to refer to just a few) [...]
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings at twopointouch … Annotating the next generation of the web. A blog about Web 2.0. … 25 Email is Broken at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media … [...]
[...] 10 definitions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story [...]
[...] 10 definitions of web 2.0 and why they don’t always fit.read more | digg story [...]
[...] http://twopointouch.com/2006/08/17/10-definitions-of-web-20-and-their-shortcomings/ [...]
Nowadays More And More Web 20 Applications Appear On The Internet Like MySpace A…
…
[...] Es gibt viele Definitionen von Web2.0. Diese Liste von 10 Charakteristikas, erstellt von twopointouch, fasst es gut zusammen, aber auch die Kommentare sind interessant: 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings Tags: Web2.0 « Web Crimes [...]
[...] Eine einheitliche Definition für den Begriff “Web2.0” zu finden ist schwer. Als Grundlage für eigene Erklärungen kann die Zusammenfassung von Ian Delaney dienen: 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings. In dem Artikel nennt Delaney Web2.0-Eigenschaften wie “Die Weisheit der Masse”, Nutzerbeteiligung und “Permanenter Beta-Status”. [...]
趣闻è¦é—»ï¼ˆ8月14日—8月20日）…
ä¸æ–‡æ’客ã€åšå®¢çš„介ç»ï¼š
ä¸å›½å¤§æ‰¹è§†é¢‘æ’客站点将走å‘ç亡
广电总急
广电总局是“æ¶æž”çš„å¥½æ¦œæ ·ï¼Ÿ
å…³äºŽç½‘ä¸Šè§†é¢‘ä¼ æ’管ç†çš„å‡ ä¸ªçŒœæƒ³
三言二æ‹ï¼šå¹¿ç”µæ€»å±€çš„手
ä¼ è¯´ä¸å°†è¦å‘布的….
[...] I’ve written about this at some length before. If no-one agrees about what Web 2.0 is - and believe me, they don’t - doesn’t that mean it’s the Emperor’s New Clothes? That there’s ‘nothing there’? Not really. Things that are quite big and complicated are very difficult to define and people disagree about them. Philosophers have spent at least 3000 years attempting to define ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘beauty’, and ‘knowledge’. They are things that most of us would agree exist yet we can’t seem to get a handle on their precise meaning. The typical philosopher is pretty bright, but can they agree? Can they heck. [...]
[...] Weblog Facilities Nowadays more and more web 2.0 applications appear on the internet, like MySpace, flickr and YouTube which share some similar characteristics: Web as platform, User Participation (the consumers are also the creators) and Rich User Experience (CSS, AJAX and other technologies to enhance usability). Here is a popular article in del.icio.us about the definition of web 2.0: 10 definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings. Today I will focus on the blogsphere. I. Blogging Platform Providers For good availability and reliability, you can choose a blogging service provider. Personally I would recommend the following providers. http://spaces.live.com/ (Good integration with Live Messenger and Microsoft products)http://www.blogger.com/ (Hosted by Google, should be the first blogging service provider in the history)http://wordpress.org/ (Provide Akismet, a good comment anti-spam service)http://www.typepad.com/ (This is a famous commercial service provider) If you are a technical guy and know .NET quite well, CommunityServer 2.1 and DasBlog 1.9 are definitely excellent candidates. II. RSS Readers First I would recommend two web-based RSS aggregator/reader. One is called Fwicki. I like its theme and styles very much. It also supports Google Adsense. But you’d better use Firefox to open it. The second one is NewsGator Online. Not only it is an excellent web reader, but also it supports sychronization between web reader and FeedDemon (a Windows client RSS reader, the one I would also strongly recommend to you for subscribing RSS feeds.) and NewsGator Inbox (an Outlook addin) and NewsGator Go! for Windows Mobile. It can help me keep a same list of RSS subscriptions in different locations!!! Another NewsGator tool, Desktop Sync, is a system tray application that keeps your feeds, folders and read states synchronized between NewsGator Online and the Windows RSS Platform. This means that any application that uses the Windows RSS Platform will be automatically synchronized with your NewsGator Online account! Of course, since IE7 uses the Windows RSS Platform, this is a great way to roam the feeds you read in IE from one machine to another. Check out Nick’s post for information on where to download and where to give feedback on the tool. III. Feed Publisher FeedBurner is the world’s largest feed management provider. Its web-based services help bloggers, podcasters and commercial publishers promote, deliver and profit from their content on the Web. FeedBurner can do Publicize your content and make it easy for people to subscribe. Optimize distribution so that your content is properly formatted for all of the major directories and can be consumed by subscribers whereever they are. Analyze your traffic to learn how many subscribers you have, where they’re coming from and what they like best. Make Moneyitize by participating in the FeedBurner Ad Network. Try it out here and subscribe my blog http://feeds.feedburner.com/rossconsulting :-) Hope this helps,Ross Posted: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:45 AM by Ross Shen Filed under: Web 2.0 [...]
[...] man ein Web 2.0 Startup gründet, sollte man diese 10 Definitionen von Web 2.0 und ihre Mängel checken, um sicher zu gehen, dass man ins Schema fällt. Und wer überhaupt erst auf der Suche nach [...]
[...] (tratto da twopointtouch.com) [...]
[...] we us? First of all check out this vodblog and see some ideas about Web 2.0 and then print and read through this post on the shortcomings of Web [...]
[...] (tratto da twopointtouch.com) [...]
[...] da twopointtouch.com) Questo articolo è stato pubblicato in data 13 Febbraio 2008 at 08:24, catalogato in [...]
[...] SOA (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa948857.aspx) e Web 2.0 (http://twopointouch.com/2006/08/17/10-definitions-of-web-20-and-their-shortcomings/). Foram referidos alguns exemplos de modelos de negócio usados com S+S: Subscription/License [...]
[...] SOA (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa948857.aspx) e Web 2.0 (http://twopointouch.com/2006/08/17/10-definitions-of-web-20-and-their-shortcomings/). Foram referidos alguns exemplos de modelos de negócio usados com S+S: Subscription/License [...]
[...] da twopointtouch.com) Tags: 2.0, web Posted on 24 Aprile 2008 by admin Comments: 0 Category: Web [...]
[...] article here. August 21, 2006 | In web20 [...]
[...] 10 definitions of Web 2.0 [...]