CATEGORIES
- WEB STARTUPS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB JOBS
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- VIDEO
- AMAZON
- ALL TOPICS
CONTRIBUTORS
What Web 2.0 really means…
As I speak with CEO's and top executives at companies claiming to be "Web 2.0", I have started to scribble in my notepad about the definition of the term "Web 2.0".
Andy Gutmans has a great video on the technical definition. I had a conversation with Mark at Emeriti last week who loosely defined Web 2.0 as:
- Technology (cheap and accessible)
- New formats (transportable and open such as podcasts, videos and rss…)
- People (people coming to the web, using software, talking to other people)
In my interview with Dogster CEO Ted Rheingold, I asked him if he considers Dogster.com a Web 2.0 site. His reply was:
If you define web2.0 as a type of web company that is profitable and focusing on its customers, then yes. If you consider Web 2.0 as meaning offering all types of bells and whistles that technologies offer, then no.
I have a different take on the definition of Web 2.0. In my opinion, Web 2.0 is about a shift in the thought process and currently available technology. It is this combination that really has moved the Internet light years ahead. We are moving now at a speed that is 10x faster than we did in 1998. And it is because of both the people and the technology together.
First the change in thought. Many of the leaders of this new web were brought up using computers. My generation (mid 70s) was basically the first generation to partially use computers in our teenage years and have exposure to video games. It is a different when you are brought up using a computer from birth rather that having to learn how to use it at mid-life.
I can remember building sites for Citibank and IBM in the mid-90's and being turned down time after time with ideas the team had. The managers at that time could not see the potential. So many times they were either afraid or just didn't understand what could be done. I still think the Corporate world has a long way to go to utilize the Internet to its fullest potential. At some point, the new Web experts will start to consult and work with the Corporate world to bring them up to speed. I am quite shocked at how few of the Fortune 500 are utilizing the available web techniques. Especially companies in the consumer arena.
Now the available technology. Today we have millions of developers around the world just waiting to code your web application for you. Quicker, cheaper and better quality than ever before. And even more importantly, the technology has finally caught up with the thought. We have content management systems that you can install in mere minutes and there are ways to integrate content that were just not available years ago.
I really love where we are today and where we are headed. I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. One of the speakers at a conference I attended recently said, "We are at a special time." I can't echo that comment enough. We really need to remember what a special time and place we are at today.
This is an interesting article, and even more interesting is the perspective on “Web 2.0″ that you share.
One of the things that got me thinking reading it though – how do you define what is cheap technology?
In general I personally do not like the buzz that comes along with “Web 2.0″. For example, suddenly people are sharing! But really, is it all so suddenly? Have we not exchanged pictures, links and ideas before?
Then with Web 2.0, there seems to be no idea not unique enough to be copied again. The majority of start ups are “me too’s”.
Woah – another Flickr! Or, look here: Another digg clone!
The minority of people involved in development of what they call “Web 2.0″ are creative and do the inventive part, the rest just patiently waits and copies the idea. And while this probably happened before, people today are less concerned when confronted with the fact that they are just living off of someone else’ dream.
I am not sure if the times are really so special. In my opinion, it rather smells a lot like the late nineties – before it all went downhill.
By the way, when you are talking about Web 2.0 and the enterprise, there is a really interesting article (and some people waiting for comments):
http://newsride.org/discuss/?uriId=@@@@51
Great article, good comments. I’ve tried to follow up on some of the mentioned bits.
re: “Cheap Technology”
Cheap technology (as I was quoted and asked above) includes $299 workstations with mutlimedia capabilities, includes affordable broadband connections at a monthly flat-rate. Last but not least cheap technology includes software and services such as file sharing tools, management software or communication services (e.g. voip technology) that people can use on a daily basis and on a private or professional level. All the above represents “technology” to me and it becomes available as it is affordable. While a personal computer wasn’t cheap in 1988, today it is, because many people can afford it. While paying 2.99 for a minute on dialup, today 19.99 for a monthly flatrate broadband connection can be considered cheap. of course 14.99 or 5.99 would be cheaper and 14.99 would be a monthly income in other places of the world, but that’s not the point. While you had to choose from only one telecom provider a few years ago, today you can choose one of 20 all at affordable prices and just right for your needs.
“90′s type hype”
While there are similarities to the 90′s, I believe they mostly lay in the fact that there is enthusiasm about the web. The fundamental differences is how this buzz or hype was created. Back in the late 90′s it was investors and money, “elite users”, people having access to the web through their workplace mainly. Today it’s the people, applications, software, users who create the hype – or buzz from anywhere in the world, through any device that’s out there. Of course the financial world and investors don’t hesitate to jump in on this, but the root in the hype is not created by investors but by it’s users.
Through the high expectations back in the 90′s, everything that did not generate revenue was a fail. Today you have long beta phases, changing concepts and before generating revenue it’s about generating value, users, community, exchange and ideas. Funded or unfunded. This is a fundamental difference to the late 90′s in my eyes.
“Cloning and Copying”
You know how to make fire? I am going to watch you and make a bigger one.
You know how to hunt an elephant? I watch you and figure out how to kill an entire herd with less efforts.
Cloning and copying is a tool of society, “skill” of humans and animals alike.
So why do people clone? Because they can, because it has proven in the past to be extremely efficient. The same has happened on Television: a cooking show was successful, other TV channels cloned the concept. There are more clones (shameless and blatant ones as well) becasue more and more people make fire, because more and more people hunt elephants. The web becomes social in a way that a broad mass can not only use it, but also create it (writable vs. readable web). If you can create something, I can. A lot of todays “innovative” and widely accepted web2.0 concepts have their direct roots in traditional web1.0 models. And it’s not to anybodies surprise that a lot of web2.0 concepts have their direct roots in other web2.0 concepts some more, some less (copy, clone) and some just partly (remix, mash). I do not approve all of this, but you can’t stop it. I forgot where I read it, but to sum it up: signals are ideas and innovation. Noise is clones. Signals will always be heard and follow through in the end.
“Special Times”
I do think the time is special, because the web has slowly but surely arrived where Berners Lee had always outlined it: It arrrived at the peoples homes, workplaces, mobile phones. People have always shared, but today more people can do it online or more efficient, in less time, less costs or easier. The web has become editable not only readable. It has become the bottom-up medium that it was meant to be. Everybody with an internet connection can be a publisher today and create the web. I can talk for free through the web with people from around the world. I wouldn’t have been able to 10 years ago, or at least not to this extend. So this change did not happen by calling something Web2.0, but it’s just a simple evolution of technology, new formats and the users. People’s habits change, society changes, technology advances. Hence We finally seem to share this interconnected world that Licklider had written about in his 60′s memo “Galactic Networks”.
We call our projects under construction, final, beta, so why not call the next generation internet “web2.0″ – it’s just a name, but most people and users will understand even though they are not tech-related. Such as people understand that V8 is more than V6, beta comes after alpha. With or without hype: us talking about it here creates just a bit more of it.
There are many more aspects to cover and talk about:
Advertising, Networks, Design (oh yeah), OpenSource … and I am sure this will be discussed here as well.