The State of Web 2.0

posted Sunday, 2 April 2006

Now that Web 2.0 has had its mainstream media coming-out party in both Newsweek and Slate recently (here and here), I thought I'd take some time this afternoon and try to get a real sense of the prevailing winds. Before I go further, I would ask all of you with innate dislike of the term to please hold it in for the length of this piece and actually read it. And everyone, please share your thoughts in the comments below. Also note that this is my personal assessment of Web 2.0 and is not official in any way. Please take everything I say here with a grain of salt but know that the facts presented here are as accurate as I could make them.

Invariably, Web 2.0 is a term you love to hate or hate to love but either way, you'll know you'll get folk's attention by saying it. I've been lucky enough to talk to quite a fair number of people around the country about Web 2.0 in the last few months and hear what they think of it. An overall picture has begun to emerge out of these conversations. We'll get to what exactly Web 2.0 is again in a moment. But one important ingredient, perhaps the key ingredient, is that it describes the inversion of control of information, processes, and software wholesale over to the users of the Web. This is because users now generate the majority of content these days and they also provide the attention that drives almost everything online financially (particularly advertising). And all of us have a uniquely equal access to the global audience of the Web; each and every one of us now has our own world-class pulpit (in the forms of blogs, wikis, and other mechanisms) that is amazingly the equal of any other person on the Web. Web 2.0 has also been successful in spawning almost ten related sub-movements that range from Identity 2.0 to Democracy 2.0.

Torrents of online software for work, collaboration, and community

It turns out that the most popular posts I write by far are my Web 2.0 product summaries. My first one (The Best Web 2.0 Software of 2005) has had well in excess of 500,000 readers that I know of and has been translated into over a dozen languages. This not only shows the people power of the Web but also the widespread popular interest there is in good online software. Each Web 2.0 software list (the other two are here and here) was also a compelling example of a Web 2.0 meme known as harnessing collective intelligence; the user supplied comments on each post had far more good software listed in them than the main post did and were added purely by interested and enthusiastic readers who felt some site or another was missing.

Now, it does seem the social aspect of Web 2.0 is the the biggest roadblock for acceptance with technical people in the software industry. When I speak to people about Web 2.0, it's invariably the programmers and technicians, the on-the-ground folks that get their hands on the code and hardware that seem to think Web 2.0 is the most content free. Yet when I talk to the architects, CTOs, CIOs, and business people at the helm of things, they are already seriously considering the implications of Web 2.0 and are often deep in strategic thinking about it. Thus, I get little debate about Web 2.0 with the crowd most involved with strategic thinking in software and business, which makes some sense. Web 2.0 is not a technology, it's a way of architecting software and businesses. And some organizations are definitely seeing the value in the Web 2.0 way of doing working. Also, sites and software that embody many of the tenets of Web 2.0 continue to appear almost ad infinitum.

The disconnect between the technicians and the architects and CTOs seems to come particularly from the social aspect of Web 2.0. It's this piece that often flips the "bozo bit" of technical people, who often have engineering background that demand explanations in terms of technology and often don't appreciate the social dimension. Web 2.0 just doesn't have that technological bent other than liking Web services, Ajax, and radical decentralization, which bring the services, content, and rich experiences to mass audiences. Web 2.0 is really a set of related forces, design patterns, and business models that are increasingly emerging onto the world stage. And these elements frequently defy detailed technical quantification, despite Tim O'Reilly's consummately well written description of Web 2.0 last year. It also has not helped that numerous folks have tried to co-opt the term for their own marketing and investment reasons, often without properly understanding what Web 2.0 is.

OK, one more time, what is Web 2.0 again?

For those who don't follow it all the time, it might even be hard to remember what all the pieces of Web 2.0 are (and keep in mind, these elements are often reinforcing, so Web 2.0 is definitely not a random grab bag of concepts). Even compact definitions are sometimes a little hard to stomach or conceptualize But the one I like the best so far is Michael Platt's recent interpretation just before SPARK. Keep in mind, the shortest definition that works for me is that "Web 2.0 is made of people." However, it's so short that important details are missing and so here's a paraphrase of Platt's summary.

Key Aspects of Web 2.0

- The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data
- Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data
- Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly
- Rich and interactive user interfaces
- Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution

I also wrote a review of the year's best Web 2.0 explanations a while back and it goes into these elements in more detail if you want it. But there's a lot more to Web 2.0 than these high level elements would indicate. A key aspect not mentioned here, though I cover it in Sixteen Ways to Think in Web 2.0, is the importance of user ownership of data. The centrality of the user as both a source of mass attention (over a hundred million people, probably 2 or 3 times that many, are online right now) and an irreplaceable source of highly valuable data, generally encourages that the user be handed control of the data they generate. If control over their own attention data is denied them, they will just go to those who will give them that control. This gives some insight into the implications of Web 2.0 concepts, which were mostly gathered by examining prevailing trends on the Web. Forrester is calling the resulting fall out of these changes Social Computing and it'll be interesting to see what the effects of the widepsread democratization of content and control will ultimately be a generation from now.

Lest we forget, the online software world, best exemplified by the things we see released on Michael Arrington's terrific and popular TechCrunch and Emily Chang's informative and comprehensive eHub, is just in its infancy; we have decades to go. And that's becaue the Web will be the primary place where the most useful software will be. Part of this move to the web is because just about everything will ultimately be connected to the Web anyway. And note that the innovation and power in software is already coming these days from the online, connected world. Part of it is the unpleasant aspects of our existing software experiences. People are very tired of synchronizing their data between work, home, and family computers, upgrading and patching their software, and worrying about security and backups. Ajax has been a force here (covered here in my popular State of Ajax) by allowing the creation of online software that is as good as native software (yes, a few limitations still exist, but can increasingly be worked around). Ajax is much more powerful because its connected status: it can reach people and information around the world. Ajax Desktops, as described by Richard MacManus and others are just a small example of the potential. These desktops are attempting to leverage people's scarce attention by providing a single collapsed view of everything they care about from bookmarks and feeds, to e-mail, and weather.

So, what's happening with Web 2.0?

Tim Leberecht has done some of the best summarizing of the mainstream media's recent coverage of Web 2.0. Essentially that Web 2.0 is largely an attempt to make money off of people by riding on their bring-your-own-content (BYOC). In a certain limited sense, this is true and there are indeed people attempting exactly this. Peer production has been very successful for certain Web 2.0 companies, particularly ones like Digg, Flickr, and Del.icio.us. Unfortunately, there is a profound paucity in this way of thinking, like in any quick-buck thinking. In a way it's very similar to how open source software (OSS) democratized and decentralized control of software creation, commoditizing it with abandon along the way. And Web 2.0 sites are doing a very similar number on the control structures of society and business. Web 2.0 represents the unyielding shift towards putting the power to publish, communicate, socialize, and engage, using an almost-dizzying array of methods, in online two-way discourse and interchange. The Web is the medium, but it's powered by people.

A somewhat discouraging summary of Web 2.0 was recently written and posted recently at Basement.org. While I don't believe they sampled enough sites (and hey, I try to do the same thing below), their end point is correct. It's much less about Ajax and tag clouds and much more about being irresistably immersive. People have to want to stay in the community they find online, and if it's not there, they won't be there either. I think a lot of Web 2.0 software sites will wither and die on the vine because of this problem: namely not building the right social draws and retainers into their designs. But for every one that does fail, two more will take their place. The tools for creating online software are making it easy enough that TechCrunch could review online software between now and the end of time and miss most of them. But the majority of online software isn't really Web 2.0; they are missing the important pieces that really matter. David Linthicum recently worried about this in his Infoworld column, wondering if Web 2.0 the term could kill Web 2.0 itself. I don't believe it's a real concern. Why? Because the real Web 2.0 software floats to the top like a cork and the techniques are just too powerful and are easy enough to discover on your own, using the tools we have now.

As for other significant Web 2.0 trends, Web 2.0's techniques are starting to bleed into the enterprise, something I call Enterprise Web 2.0. The heavyweight and ponderous techniques for enterprise architecture and even SOA are just not anywhere near as vibrant as very similar approaches out in the wild. The mashup community on the Web is extremely active, even though still in its infancy. It won't be long before you see a lot of the lightweight Web 2.0 development techniques and tools, like Ruby on Rails, become mainstream in corporate software development. We are seeing surprisingly active interest in the conference circuit, with a almost surprising number of sessions on SOA, Ajax, and Web 2.0 in the enterprise in the next few months. Gartner has even coined the phrase for a SOA model that is compatible with the Web 2.0 world: Web-Oriented Architecture or WOA.

Some Apparent Web 2.0 Trends

- An Increasing Attention Scarcity: There isn't enough atttention, or users that supply it, to go around. Particuarly there's just too many channels vying for it or existing channels are still dominate the majority of attention. This will affect the viability of new online entries and force them to create innovative ways to acquire attention.
- Online Social Communities Are A Winning Model - It's unclear what the monetization is (other than advertising) or the cost of successfully starting one, but many of the fastest growing and most popular places heavily use social software techniques to draw and keep users. And some begunnung are to acquire valuations in the billions. (Some Examples: SecondLife, MySpace, FaceBook.).
- The RIA Model Works - The term Ajax was just coined in February of last year, but it looks like it's here to stay and then some. Using nothing more than what you find in the browser, Ajax can create great Web platform ready clients that are as good as native clients. To see the potential, check out the radically advanced Hive7 using nothing more than Javascript. Expect that XUL, WPF/E, and Flash will give Ajax a bit of a run for its money later this year though.
- The Mashup Phenomenon Will Mature or Wane - Part of the problem appears to be the tools but also the usefulness. Most mashups aren't more than a feature or two. More sophisticated ones are coming, but if compelling mashups don't materialize in bigger numbers, the technique could lose mindshare as a model for building composite online software made up from the services of multiple Web sites.
- Traditional Software Vendors Will Struggle in a Web 2.0 World - Microsoft and Google will likely figure it out, though it's not a sure thing either. Microsoft has serious product line baggage and Google has healthy challenges in managing its growth and maintaining a sharp focus on strategy. Google's latest products don't seem to have their famous edge, for example. The smaller, nimbler Web 2.0 startups might continue to be a great source of innovation but it might make sense for Google to acquire startups and immedatiely spin it off to avoid the "big company effect."

Finally, here is a quick traffic analysis of some of the Web 2.0 companies I've covered in my articles. Note that some are successful almost beyond description, at least in terms of user adoption. MySpace is probably the best example. It's actually going to run out of available users on the Web fairly quickly at its present growth rate (over a million new accounts every 4 days). Interestingly, some of the more well-known Web 2.0 companies are actually started to see a leveling off effect. Whether this is because of stiff online competition or boredom with the service, I can't say, though I would wager there have been effects from both.

In any case, there will be a Web 2.0 conference again this year and the Web 2.0 Journal was launched earlier this year (disclaimer: I am Editor-in-Chief). A new round of Web 2.0 software has also had tremendous successes (MySpace, Flickr, and many others) and a great many people all over the world are actively trying to figure out how to make use of the Web 2.0 concepts before they experience the disruption it could cause their organizations. Apparently, as frequently unloved as the label is, Web 2.0 is here to stay. Remaining predictions: 1-The hype is going to ramp down quite a bit this year. 2- People will focus much more on using the ideas and ignoring the Web 2.0 hypesters more often. And 3- A lot of folks will still hate the term Web 2.0.

What do you think is happening to Web 2.0?

links: del.icio.us

Web 2.0 is about participation! Please leave comments. Use wiki markup for links/images. (64)

1. Rydal Williams left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 7:53 am :: http://www.rydalwilliams.com

I agree that web 2.0 is not a "random grab bag of concepts" and it is made of people, however, I'm wondering where web 2.0 will be in a few years. I've seen new so called web 2.0 applications that make no sense at all or are completely useless, what happened to the business section of websites, it seems we are having new "web 2.0 websites" launched everyday just because of web 2.0 but with no business plan at all - I'm baffled!

2. Jake Kaldenbaugh left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 8:54 am

Thank you for providing some semi-structured analysis around this technological and sociological phenomenon. It would be interesting to see some more anthropology- or communications science-oriented perspectives about these new interpersonal communications channels. It seems to me that this phenomenon could promote a new kind of researcher; one who is adept in the technology world and in the qualitative human sciences. I hope there are some innovative doctoral programs that are supporting effective work along these lines...

3. Peter Cooper left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 11:09 am :: http://www.petercooper.co.uk/

Basecamp.com? That's not a Web 2.0 site. I think you mean BaseCampHQ.com if you're referring to the 37signals product?

4. Dion Hinchcliffe left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 11:12 am :: http://web2.wsj2.com

Peter,

You are correct about that sir. I'll reissue the chart this afternoon. Thanks for the catch. Jason and Co. would not be happy with me. :-)

5. James Kern left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:03 pm

I agree with the article and ajax in particular, we are seeing a mashup of a lot of technologies that can impact anyone with a browser. No client installs. Applications are almost as responsive as desktop. Never will be the same, but we are reaching a point with AJAX, that the performance is acceptable.

SSLBridge is a web-based VPN application that uses an SSL connection and an Ajax interface to remotely connect to work site computers from outside of the office firewall. It uses LDAP to communicate with Active Directory for user verification. SSLBRIDGE

6. Nathan Derksen left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:27 pm :: http://www.nathanderksen.com

In case this helps, the definition that I used in my Web 2.0 presentation is:

"Web 2.0 is comprised of applications that use sophisticated user interfaces, that use the Internet as an operating system, that connect people, and that encourage collaboration."

Much more succinct than the O'Reilly one, and I think it still gets the point across.

7. Max Tael left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:28 pm

You know, "made of people" is not a defining expression. Crowds, armies and cannibals' dinners can be "defined" exactly like that.

As one of those technicians you were talking about, I am actually not closely familiar with the term Web 2.0, which is not that strange, since it seems to be more of a vague concept than a real improvement over the current implementation of the Internet’s major services. I tried to get a better picture by reading this article and some of the links it offered, and the only definition I have in my head now is this:

Web 2.0 is a hype term, which refers to some of the new trends and revamps of the preexisting Web concepts and technologies, especially ones related to social communications.

Opening several new bars and clubs won't make up for "New York 2.0". While bringing the masses to the Internet (or vice versa) is certainly a good thing, I doubt we can version this change 2.0. If we’re going to go with version numbers, I think Web v1.34.6037b would define the phenomena much better, but that’s just some crazy talk of one of the on-the-ground folks who doesn't have much of an appreciation of the social dimension of the web and a zero tolerance towards buzz words.

8. tiago left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:38 pm :: http://www.mainada.net/comics/

Here is another "web2.0" site.

http://www.mainada.net/comics/

It's the first step to move drawing software to web space. In an easy and direct way. The theme is comic strips, but the ideia is to publish and edit your matirial directly online.

9. Real Web Designer left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:53 pm

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WEB 2.0!! Would you morons do the rest of us a favor and stop using this term? They are JUST WEB SITES people! The same damn technology we have been maturing all this time. There is nothing "2.0" about it! Stop trying to make your selves sound more talented and important than you are by making up terms that are redundant!

10. Matthew Dull left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 12:53 pm

In response to Jake K.'s hope for researchers in this new area, I would point him to Information Science schools such as Univ. of Michigan's School of Information (www.si.umich.edu) or Univ. of Texas' School of Information (www.ischool.utexas.edu). Both produce Masters and PhDs that focus on the technological and social/community aspects of information sharing, from libraries to the Web to museums to data mining. (Disclaimer: i graduated from UM's SI).

11. Tyler Morse left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 1:37 pm

I appreciated Nathan Derksen's definition of Web 2.0. - thanks for that.

I agree with Max Tael that Web 2.0 is a hype term, but I would disagree that there isn't a revolution, or evolution, of sorts going on. Whether it's a major or minor release we could argue until the end of time, but I think there is definitely a new stage of evolution happening on the web. Some of it is about information and who supplies it (enterprises vs. users), some of it is about how we connect services together via the web, and a lot of it (at least for me) is about how we design and develop interfaces for users. As a user interface engineer, I spent ten years developing desktop applications before spending the last two developing web applications. I used to avoid working on web applications because I thought of them as clunky and inelegant. Now I can see how to achieve my vision of a good user experience within a browser. Has the technology changed in the last few years? No. But our attitudes have changed, and that has opened huge vistas of possibilities for user experience in the browser. Maybe it's less "Web 2.0" and more "Web developers and users 2.0".

12. Son Nguyen left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 1:56 pm :: http://blog.trungson.com/

Great article. Remember the bubble? Everyone was in it, even the big guys. I'm not saying (and I don't think) there's another bubble coming, but it's too early to say which web2.0 site/service will survive/grow. Also the social characteristics is from both people and machines (service mashups, front-end UI or back-end data gathering) talking to each other.

13. Douglas Yu left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 2:04 pm :: http://www.adirondackbasecamp.com

Applications for the Web 2.0 complex of ideas is particularly interesting for an industry niche like tourism. I think this change in the way information is distributed and sought will be an inevitable thing. The internet leveled the playing field when it was first introduced, now Web 2.0 can do the same in the 'traditional' internet medium. Thanks for a good read.

14. concept10 left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 3:08 pm

How are you able to measure success of a 'so-called' web 2.0 application based upon Alexa traffic? Even if you correct the URL for basecamphq.com, you must realize that they use more than one path for access to Basecamp.

15. psmith left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 3:09 pm :: http://www.webmorizer.com

I am a teacher and use Webmorizer's software. Not only is it secure, it is targeted with teachers and students in mind. You can see each others highlights & annotations, and not just blogs and favorites (although they have this as well). Why hasnt anyone reviewed these guys?

16. Justin left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 3:14 pm

Great, Someone gets it

17. Search Engines Web left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 3:16 pm :: http://search-engines-web.com/

AJAX or XMLHTTP or ATLAS appears to be synonymous with Web 2.0

But "Comet" may be the dawn of Web 2.5

The next evolution of the Internet/Web will virtualize the other 3 senses - rather than just Visual and Aural - and REAL 3-D

via manipulation of AirWaves

This current era is only incompassing a seed of the advances in technology that future generations will enjoy!

18. Mick O'Dwyer left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 3:21 pm

Web v1.0 was mostly about people selling products, whether through brochureware sites, online stores, b2b, b2c...ie, a pretty much a business led environment. Web 2.0 is more a H2H (human to human) concept, social individualism and a retreat from the reliance on big brand software monopolies. Certainly Web2.0 has plenty of hype, and while opening several new bars won't make New York 2.0 allowing users to individually define what each bar looks like will certainly mash things up a bit. As for the tools and applications used, that's all irrelevant unless you're looking to invest money in the next new company. Users don't give a damn how things are built, never have. What they care about is usability and the experience...mess too with those two puppies and you won't get anywhere.

19. CSQRL left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 4:11 pm :: http://fuckweb2.com

Hello hype! Web2 is 100% marketing to somehow define a set time when the web incurred a revolution.. when instead, there was just an evolution, there is just an evolution, and there will be an evolution. For each new service that pops up, we're going to redefine the current state of the web with some arbitrary versioning system?

20. Jeff Beck left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 5:31 pm

I think that the best example for web 2.0 is metacafe. Video clips which are submitted by the people, reviewed and approved by the people, ranked by the people and commented by the people (comments are moderated by the people.. you get the point). I think that the result is simply "really great video entertainment". they also in the successful category with daily alexa rank of 238(!) http://www.metacafe.com

21. peter left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 6:47 pm

Why trap a renaissance in a box? The problem with Web 2.0 is not the term Web 2.0, it is the curious notion that something so broad can be so narrowly defined.

And why? Why the need to do that? It hasn't helped understanding one bit. If anything, it has muddied the waters.

Nothing but net.

22. anon left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 10:13 pm

Valleywag's post just about nails all of my thoughts on this post:

http://www.valleywag.com/tech/web-20/state-of-web-20-more-confused-than-sta te-of-the-union-164881.php

23. K Devi left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 10:50 pm :: http://www.ajaximpact.com

Certainly Web 2.0 will be going to domiante the future of Web.

24. Jonah left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 11:27 pm :: http://alchemicalmusings.blogspot.com

Nice summary.

Please don't forget about our freedoms:

Saints in the Church of Writely

And there are some academics studying these phenomena:

Social Computing Wiki

25. krkim1002 left...

Monday, 3 April 2006 11:35 pm

Web 2.0 is very interesting and it will make our life much easier. I know some good website regarding web 2.0. You should check it. www.digg.com, www.web2list.com, www.techcrunch.com, and www.web2.0awards.org.

26. Varun Mathur left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 12:01 am :: http://geek2.wordpress.com/

This is what I think about Web(site) 2.0

On April 1st, 2004, Google launched GMail, which went on to ignite the whole Web 2.0 / AJAX revolution which we are witnessing right now. There is no agreed definition of Web 2.0. I like to think of it as the re-birth or second-coming of the web. The Web 2.0 websites are more like web applications, and have a rich, highly interactive and generally well designed user interface. They could also be using web services offered by other sites (for eg, Google Maps, Flickr photo web service, etc). Syndication and community are also associated with a site being Web 2.0. AJAX is the technical term which is responsible for the increased interactiveness of Web 2.0 websites. But the fundamentals remain the same - what's under the hood of a Web 2.0 application is as important as it was a few years ago.

I would argue that all websites since April 1st, 2004, have been Web 2.0 websites (though many still look and feel like so-Web 1.0-ish).

27. Robert Lidberg left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 2:24 am :: http://www.lidberg.org

To Nathan Derksen

""Web 2.0 is comprised of applications that use sophisticated user interfaces, that use the Internet as an operating system, that connect people, and that encourage collaboration."

Much more succinct than the O'Reilly one, and I think it still gets the point across."

Agree. A true working definition without the need of complex analytic charts and diagrams. Web 2.0 is simple as that, yet a hype.

28. Lennart left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 6:53 am

Hi All,

How about this: I see a lot of nice new gui stuff on the web. Nice on one hand, confusing on the other hand. There are no real gui standards and everybody invents for themselves. In my opinion this will become more and more confusing especially for non-professional user. Website developers should probably ask themselves what can they best implement in order for the user to comprehend the gui well. Anyone any ideas on this? Is there a place where we can find "Standard components"

Nice to see some definitions on Web 2.0 tough because it is difficult to get an idea on what it exactly is.

In my opinion Web 2.0 is a name for an evoultion currently goinig on, not a revolution. I think it's great to see websites becoming more and more visualy attractive and interactive.

Regards,

29. daniel left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 7:14 am

Sorry, but after reading your article it still seems to me that "web 2.0" is just another buzzword that has very little reason to exist.

30. Brad in Cincy left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 9:19 am

The biggest problem with getting tech types on board with this term is the type of term being used. A "2.0" designation makes it sound like there has been some sudden change to one or more documented specifications, changes that could do things like render the old stuff useless, and that when unveiled will cause all the old stuff to stop working, so you better get your entire IT staff ready to ramp up for major changes ... you get the idea. It causes unneccessary panic that the tech types who strive for stability ultimately have to deal with.

Another reason for term-resistence from the tech types is because what we're hearing is equivalent to people saying "Hey, why don't we use this whole electricity thing to make light! House lamps are Electricity 2.0!".

Web development has been evolving at a pretty constant pace since the beginning, and the concepts touted as Web 2.0 do not make up some new collective turning point. These things have been goals from the very beginning, and goals that others have already hit to one degree or another over the last ~14 years. It's not some new trend - it's the same trend that we've been riding from the very start. It's not something that suddenly sprang up, it's people taking a snapshot of what others already know and saying, "hey, look what I discovered."

To give the "people at the helm" the benefit of the doubt, I won't call it hype, but perhaps just a way for them to understand it all themselves, and to then manufacture some new excitement and energy for their organizations and industry. Okay, I guess that actually _is_ hype. It's just unfortunate that the term couldn't be a little softer.

Earlier, somebody here said ... "It hasn't helped understanding one bit. If anything, it has muddied the waters."

BINGO. At its core, it really only serves to give some new life to tech press and middle managment. For everybody else, we now have to scramble to attend seminars about things we already knew.

Perhaps Microsoft leaked this term because they've already secretly patented it and will be changing the name of the .NET framework to Web 2.0! (kidding, kidding...)

31. Ron Theriault left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 1:26 pm :: http://home.austin.rr.com/rjtsite

I think the proponents of the "Web 2.0" term are the people who are just now catching on to the fact the the WWW is a new *medium*. This is how the WWW is properly understood.

When cinema first came out, films were very much like theatrical productions, including all the limits inherent in plays: a camera in front of a stage. When filmmakers finally caught on to the fact that film is less limiting than the stage, they took their cameras outdoors to real places, made instant scene changes, etc. But they *didn't* call it "Cinema 2.0"! They simply were beginning to take advantage of the freedoms inherent in the new medium.

There is lots to come via the internet and WWW, but it is all there now, inherent in the medium, and as yet unrealized. The numbers are bogus.

32. Chris of Shambles left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 10:25 pm :: http://www.shambles.net/web2/

Dion Great article and graphics ... have added a link from one of my pages. I've also made this page www.shambles.net/web2/ in order to try and put an "Education" and "Teaching and Learning" aspect to web 2.0 ... which I feel is real and happening and helping to realise the initial promises of the internet ... magic stuff.

ALSO thanks to those who have added comments ... especially those leading to other sites like "Comics"

33. ~C4Chaos left...

Tuesday, 4 April 2006 11:55 pm :: http://www.c4chaos.com

great stuff!!! AMEN! i hope you don't mind me ripping your image so i can spread this uber-gospel :)

check it.

http://pods.zaadz.com/kosmicblogging/discussions/view/5591

thanks for the efforts in writing this!

~C (for Cyberspace) http://www.c4chaos.com

34. P Cause left...

Thursday, 6 April 2006 2:50 am

The technology industry goes through bouts of over-enthusiasm and hype. We jump on something, declare it a megatrend and the salvation of us all. We are forever looking for the next big thing and hoping we've found it.

What will happen is that a few of the ideas of Web 2.0 will survive and be incorporated into all the follows. Some if the site will be around and maintain the following. Most will be hot for a period until users and pundits tire of the novelty and move on to THE NEXT BIG THING.

35. Steve Magruder left...

Wednesday, 12 April 2006 5:37 pm :: http://www.webcommons.biz

My concern isn't about the terminology, as I recognize that non-technologists are always striving to understand what's going on in the tech universe, and they naturally like to come up with encapsulating terms. That's who they are. :) {{transcluded_deity}} love 'em.

My concern is about overindulgence in Ajax and other "Web 2.0" technologies by web developers, especially those developers coerced by their corporate management clowns to overdesign sites to the point of unusability (don't anyone tell me this is not a common occurrence in the biz world).

Frankly, many sites are utilizing a lot of these whiz-bang approaches to the point of confusing users, not unlike what has happened with Flash sites from the very origins of that technology. I'll probably be drummed out of there, but IMHO, Google Maps are far less easy to work with than the Yahoo! equivalent. I think I prefer Yahoo's "old" approach with limited things to distract than Google's "new" approach with eye candy out the ying-yang.

What we need are standard approaches and the recognition that "more is not always more; sometimes more is a clusterf**k". On top of features, user-generated content and a compelling community, the site developer's undying commitment to simplicity (what I call "obviousness") is what ultimately makes most users comfortable enough to keep returning to a site. A UI that doesn't overwhelmingly surprise the average user is a good thing.

36. Greg Patnude left...

Thursday, 13 April 2006 4:50 pm :: http://www.idynatech.com/public/whitepap

I killed Web 2.0 back in November 2005 and have subsequently invented Web 3.0...

And I have decided to call it the 'n-Tiernet'....

Regards, Gregory P. Patnude Vice President – Applications & Innovations Group

iDynaTECH, Inc 665 North Riverpoint Blvd Spokane, WA 99202

(509) 343-3104 (208) 691-6198 http://www.idynatech.com

37. Sri Deekshitulu left...

Friday, 28 April 2006 7:54 pm

Dion, Excellent article! I'm researching on colloboration and community based application software. Do you guys know any software/startup which is working on Web2.0?

Yes, Google gmail and flicker is pioneers in the web2.0 but I've not heard any companies working towards 'communities building' using web2.0. Please provide me some details for my research project. Thanks!

38. Blah left...

Friday, 12 May 2006 9:02 pm

Will you people STOP using this stupid "web 2.0" marketing buzzword drivel? They are web sites! Dynamic web sites! Just new ways of using the same old technology!

If I ever cross paths with Dale Dougherty I am going to kick him in the nuts for inventing this annoying buzzword!

39. Mike left...

Thursday, 8 June 2006 6:29 am :: http://www.articledrop.com/

Web 2.0 is huge and moving forward quickly

40. Lorenzo left...

Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:23 pm

I really dont use the computer much but I just joined an accounting firm and we are doing reseach on industries and Web 2.0 came up and I learned plenty about the buzzword Web 2.0. I think its hard to say Web 2.0 will be successful if the industry is so broad.

41. Chris Beach left...

Saturday, 15 July 2006 8:24 am :: http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/

"Web 2.0" is a buzzword. A 'catch-all' term for the latest trends in web development. Despite the authors lengthy attempts to define it, the fact still remains that there is NO official definition that everyone accepts. There is NO reason why this term should exist, other than to fill the coffers of marketing companies, over-value new web start-ups, and to confuse management into parting with more money. Shame on you Dion.

42. Ganesh Kulkarni left...

Saturday, 2 September 2006 6:49 am :: http://ganeshkulkarni.wordpress.com

Web 2.0 is like calling 'Clicks', 'Clickz'. Nevertheless, there is certainly a version upgrade, may be not in terms of technology, but definitely in terms of its social spin offs.

43. Ganesh Kulkarni left...

Saturday, 2 September 2006 6:56 am :: http://ganeshkulkarni.wordpress.com

We have a saying in Hindi- 'Why to count trees, when you can eat mangoes?' Web 2.0 or blah blah blah... I am happy that today I am not only a reader on Web (it is meant to be more than a book, isn't it?). W 2.0 or blah blah succeeds in reaping potential of web not as a display screen but a strong communication and sharing tool.

Long Live Whatever It Is!

44. beni left...

Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:01 am

so, web 2.0 doesnt say anything about publishing unprintable text I take it?

45. 111 left...

Saturday, 21 October 2006 1:28 am :: http://www.baliclub.ru/

yes

46. susan left...

Saturday, 17 February 2007 5:21 pm :: http://www.vauxhall-car-insurance.co.uk

i think web 2.0 is just a farce

47. usb guitar left...

Monday, 26 February 2007 2:46 pm :: http://www.usb-guitar.co.uk

yeh they made up web2.0 its just a word

48. EU-Capital left...

Thursday, 21 June 2007 3:57 am :: http://www.InvestEU.de

Why are Web 2.0 so important?

49. güzel sözler left...

Tuesday, 15 January 2008 4:28 pm :: http://www.guzelhikayeler.net

yeh they made up web2.0 its just a word

50. Lamar Gregory left...

Tuesday, 22 January 2008 8:30 pm :: http://limewire.all-downloads-now.com/

Web 2.0 is definitely the future as far as internet marketing is concerned, and gives the online entrepreneur more tools to defeat the Goliaths.

51. film izle left...

Sunday, 17 February 2008 3:37 am

Thanks a lot.

52. George West left...

Sunday, 9 March 2008 9:02 pm :: http://www.gamecareerguide.com/forums/me

Great post. I think a lot of the general public are underestimating the power of web 2.0.

53. Jim Gonzalez left...

Sunday, 23 March 2008 4:13 pm :: http://www.carroll.edu/boards/member.php

Web 2.0 is the future of the internet - great insights

54. Dr. Stealth left...

Tuesday, 25 March 2008 8:13 am :: http://youtube.com/watch?v=z1aqjoJi5GY

Video has definitely had a huge impact on the web and one of the driving forces behind web 2.0

55. Bill left...

Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:43 am :: http://cingular-tone.com/

Great article Dion. Web 2.0 is the future!

56. Sherry Smith left...

Tuesday, 25 March 2008 3:46 pm :: http://cingular.ringtones-free-now.com/g

Right on Dion. Web 2.0 has changed the entire face of the internet.

57. Don left...

Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:01 pm :: http://verizonringback.net

Great article Dion. Web 2.0 is here to stay!

58. B. Smith left...

Wednesday, 26 March 2008 11:12 pm :: http://bearshare.all-downloads-now.com

Great article - Web 2.0 is where it's at.

59. Stephen left...

Thursday, 27 March 2008 7:03 am :: http://cingulartonesnow.com/

What an insightful post. Web 2.0 is the biggest thing to hit the internet since email.

60. Ted left...

Saturday, 29 March 2008 8:35 pm :: http://forums.ugo.com/member.php?u=45199

Brilliant! I love web 2.0!

61. Gene left...

Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:55 pm :: http://www.perldesk.com/forum/member.php

Fantastic post about a very important topic web 2.0

62. Ben left...

Sunday, 30 March 2008 4:46 pm :: http://scottishlists.com/generic_cialis.

Web 2.0 is exploding!

63. Bob Ryan left...

Thursday, 17 April 2008 8:10 am :: http://verizontone.com

Great post; you were ahead of your time.

64. seks left...

Tuesday, 6 May 2008 9:34 am :: http://www.seksex.net

Great, thanks

Blog Feed

Subscribe By E-Mail

What is Web 2.0?

Dion's Facebook Status

Dion is back from a great run, including a side tour of the National Gallery, and is back in the office.

Twitter Updates

Recent Readers

Web 2.0 Blogs

Web 2.0 Ajax SOA Power Panel

Web 2.0 Pieces

Web 2.0 Places

Monthly Archives

The State of Web 2.0