Enterprise 2.0

Getting to the bottom of a buzzword: What is Web 2.0?


Are you a Dilbert fan? I find his strips not only hilarious but they often hit close to home. It's as if Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) has a cube in every office in America. This explains why so many people relate to his comic strip and his immense popularity. I found this strip to be particularly timely and amusing.

I found it timely because I had a coworker recently ask me what Web 2.0 meant. As I started to explain it, the further I got along in the explanation, the more I realized that perhaps I really didn't understand what Web 2.0 really is? Then coincidently, I came across a magazine article which seemed to imply that Web 2.0 was nothing more than building better customer relations through communities -- kind of like CRM on steroids. Hmm, I thought to myself, that sure isn't what I thought Web 2.0 was about.

So like every good researcher, I turned to Google. (How did we ever know anything prior to the Internet?) I googled Web 2.0 (yes, now it's a verb too <g>), and I received 76,200,000 hits. After perusing about 100 links, I have come to realize that either everyone knows what Web 2.0 is (and has an opinion on it) or no one really knows what the heck it is (but has an opinion anyway.)

My explanation of Web 2.0 to my coworker focused on the Web as a platform, Web services, AJAX, and lightweight applications. Depending on who you read, I am either spot on or I am a million miles from the truth.

According to Tim O'Reilly in a September 2005 article in which he claims to be co-inventor of the term, I came sort of close in my explanation. However, in his five-page definition of Web 2.0 (if it takes five pages is it really a definition?), I must admit I found some areas a bit vague and subject to interpretation.

As I dug further, reading through white papers and Wikipedia, user comments on the O'Reilly article, and anything else that looked informational, I began to realize that Web 2.0 is either (a) just a buzz word that means nothing at all, (b) a term that means whatever the user thinks it means, (c) the Web as it exists today, (d) the technology of the future. If I had to vote on one of these choices, I'd pick C, however that is a rather broad explanation isn't it?

I would define Web 2.0 as the Web as a platform, but not only is that definition a bit trite but there are many of you (myself included) who viewed the Web as a platform well before the dot-com bubble burst and well before Web services. I for one jumped on the "death of the thick client" as quickly as that bandwagon arrived so I was seeing the Web as a delivery platform and as a savior in corporate computing.

So what then is Web 2.0 really? My definition is: stable and reliable high-speed bandwidth and the tools and applications that spring from it that allow the "network to be the computer" rather than being bound by your local PCs capabilities. Is my definition worth a hill of beans? Based on the plethora of competing definitions, why not?

Seriously though, the gist of this article is to point out that you should be highly suspicious every time you see the words Web 2.0 and more importantly, try to understand the intended definition of its user -- particularly if they are trying to sell you something!

So what do you think Web 2.0 is? A bunch of tripe or a significant movement in the way the Web and Web applications operate? Is it even necessary to understand it? Your opinion is just as valid as the 76 million I came across - so chime in and let me know.

55 comments
hcmgowan
hcmgowan

What are you talking about???????????????????

jeff
jeff

Why not go to the W3C, the organization that manages Web 2.0 standards. This article is just a story that's a waste of peoples valuable time. The right question wasn't asked and there was no answer given. A writer shouldn't write about a standard unless they know what a standard is.

peter.weir
peter.weir

I think the point of the article was that "Web 2.0" is talked about as a "standard" but there isn't even consensus on what it is (which begs the question on how you would refer to it as a standard). If there is a clear definition and it is in fact a standard I for one would be interested in reading what this is. :)

jeff
jeff

I just replied to her with a longer answer, but my feeling concerning your question lies in the fact that not all standards (in fact, many) are not complete or conclusive. A few examples... On the technical end, SVG is a standard that's been around for years but is still not finished. UNIX System V was a finite standard until every hardware manufacturer started developing their own flavor. Still, what they wrote, was based on a standard and therefore a private standard that was a variation of a public standard. And as an odd example... Wooden crates, which the US Military and NASA consider very important and valuable. (Imagine a $15M component being shipped across country from Calif. to Cape Canaveral that got broken because of a bad crate.) There are no standards for items that weigh between 2500# to 4000#. This is simply the result of how some standards must be written. For me standards are the most boring and by far, the most difficult things in the world to read and that's probably why most people (like this author) don't take the time to understand them fully. This adds to the confusion and defusses (sp?) the benefit of the standards. I don't like posting negative statements online, but IMHO, I feel this article was very inappropriate and that an organization of the size and authority of cNet should have screened this before publishing it.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"I think (respectfully) that you are missing the context and that you need to define yourself." If each person is supplying his own definition, then none of us mean the same thing when we use the term. As you note, that's not a problem in casual conversation. The problem arises because the term IS being used in board rooms, business strategies, panel discussions at conferences, etc. Then the V.P. of Marketing comes by and asks what I.T. is doing about it.

jeff
jeff

I'm saying that they are not a standard. Calling something a 'Buzz Word' implies that it's something without meeaning. 'Buzz' meeaning that it's meant to create conversation about the subject matter, irrellivent to stanards, truth or anything else. Something doesn't have to have a difinitive meaning to have a noun applied to it. In the most generic terms, I would say that the term Web 2.0 is best defined as the change in technologies that seperate the software layers to better facilitate the development of web based technologies by multiple persons at one time. But I would also say, that this is just one way of looking at it and others may define it differently. Everyone doesn't have to agree exactly what it is. I simply feel that there is a (blurred) line at which web technologies have changed. I would imagine an inquiry to the W3C would provide a more finite answer.

I.T.Services
I.T.Services

Just because you feel the need to put a name to the jumbled mix of technologies that currently exist in / on the internet you think that it should be call ?Web 2.0?, and that these technologies when put together are a ?standard?? Not because there is a definition somewhere, but because of the lack of one?uhmm. That seems like a very self serving argument. I believe that what you are referring to is a ?Criterion? and not a ?Standard?. Taken from dictionary.com: A CRITERION is a rule or principle used to judge the value, suitability, probability, etc., of something, without necessarily implying any comparison. A STANDARD is an authoritative principle or rule that usually implies a model or pattern for guidance, by comparison with which the quantity, excellence, correctness, etc., of other things may be determined. There is no current authoritative principle, model or guidance that marks what ?Web 2.0? is or is not. Lacking that there can be NO standard for anyone to follow. Calling something a standard without the authority to make it one gets you nowhere, it just becomes ?a buzz word? with no real meaning behind it. On the other hand there / is lots of criteria to follow, loads of convention, and more best practices then you can shake a stick at, but again I must say that ?criteria, convention, and best practices? even all taken together do not a standard make?until an ?authoritative? body says this is THE standard.

jeff
jeff

Sorry, I'm new to this style of forum and am not clear yet as to where and how everything shows up. The original post to CurlyGirl would have helped out. I'm not saying that there is a standard termed 'Web 2.0' just as there was never a standard named 'Web 1.0' but I am saying that it's not a buzz word either. Below is the exact (second) reply I just made to CurlyGirl who expresses similar questions as yours (I removed one irrelivant paragraph). I hope I'm more clear here and this helps. ------------------------------------------- I can see where in the way you're looking at it, Web 2.0 is a buzz word. But consider that there never was a Web 1.0. If you think of the Web, you inherently know what it means simply by the use of it in society. Most people who use it have no clue about CSS or even HTML but they know it as the Web (1.0). Spoken languages are ill defined, especially in America and by Americans. If I asked you "What's up", you would know not to look up to the sky to see what's up there. Yet when the phrase was starting to be used, it wasn't defined in any dictionary. And if it wasn't in a dictionary, you could argue that the term really doesn't exist and is, say, mythical. But in reality, everyone in America quickly came to know what it meant and now it likely is defined in some reputable place. But even now it could be usad as 'Hello' or 'What are you doing?'. Neither of these two definitions even nearly resemble each other but when someone says 'what's up' you take the statement within the context that it's presented. I think (respectfully) that you are missing the context and that you need to define yourself. In a geek party conversation, I would never argue that XHTML is or isn't Web 2.0 because there is no defined context (which is what I think you are searching for). There is a blur between Web '1.0' and Web 2.0 but I don't think that makes it a buzz word. Originally we had HTML, now we have XHTML. We now have CSS and SVG and others. All of these work together. SVG, for example is relatively new (about 9 years old or so) and got strong about 2002 then died down and is now coming back. It's still not entirely defined, and considered unfinished. Yet still it works with CSS. If it wasn't developed to work with CSS, there would be no use for it and it wouldn't survive. Thus I would consider it a Web 1.0 technology. I know this is all fuzzy and I think that's where the author had the problem. Web 2.0 is a concept similar to driving home from a long trip and saying "We're almost home." There is no line as to where 'almost' is but just the same, that place does exist. There isn't a clear line where Web 2.0 starts, but it is here. I would call it more of a brand name though rather than a buzz word. Many knowledgeable web consumers and novice developers (myself included - I'm considerably more experienced in developing, managing and interpreting standards than I am as a software developer) need a simple name for these types of changes that have occurred and Web 2.0 is a simple way of putting it.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

1) What reply to CurylGirl? 2) "...standards are the most boring ... things in the world to read and that's probably why most people (like this author) don't take the time to understand them fully." Okay, we still aren't communicating here. peter.weir and I are looking for a standard, but I at least haven't been able to find one. You suggest the author should have read the 'Web 2.0' standard before he wrote the article. I'm about convinced a 'Web 2.0 Standard' doesn't currently exist; there's no way he could have read what isn't out there. I can't find a proposal, working document, suggested framework, or any other evidence that anyone is even working on a standard for the term Web 2.0. Once again, if you've got a link to this Abominable Lock Ness Unicorn of a standard, please post it. Neither the author nor I can read it if we can't find it. If 'Web 2.0' is XHTML as you suggested to me above, then isn't the phrase 'Web 2.0' merely a marketing buzzword for XHTML with no technological meaning of it's own? Edited repeatedly for clarity.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

A search of www.w3.org for "Web 2.0 Standard" yielded no relevant results. Perhaps you can provide a link? Please note the original article was not about technical standards.

jeff
jeff

Different industries are guided by standard written and managed by one or more standards organizations. In the case of the web, it's the w3c. They provide standards for html, css, svg as well as others such as the foundation upon which JavaScript is written. Standards always come from somewhere. Someone has to write them and for a reason. For example JavaScripts and SVG's functionality is greatly improved by Web 2.0. Withouth consideration, none of these would work toghether.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"Most people who use it have no clue about CSS or even HTML but they know it as the Web (1.0)." I know about CSS, HTML, and most of the other abbreviations you've used here as web page development tools. I don't think of them as the web, and I don't think the average Joe Keyboard means them either. I think of the web as tools to develop web pages. I think Joe means interacting those pages. He doesn't mean the background technology any more than I mean the factory when I talk about driving my car. However, I do accept your marriage proposal and have registered us at Best Buy, Tiger Direct, and CDW.

jeff
jeff

OK, I don't know you but if we keep this up and neither of us think we're being clear, we should be married. (joking of course). I can see where in the way you're looking at it, Web 2.0 is a buzz word. But consider that there never was a Web 1.0. If you think of the Web, you inherently know what it means simply by the use of it in society. Most people who use it have no clue about CSS or even HTML but they know it as the Web (1.0). Spoken languages are ill defined, especially in America and by Americans. If I asked you "What's up", you would know not to look up to the sky to see what's up there. Yet when the phrase was starting to be used, it wasn't defined in any dictionary. And if it wasn't in a dictionary, you could argue that the term really doesn't exist and is, say, mythical. But in reality, everyone in America quickly came to know what it meant and now it likely is defined in some reputable place. But even now it could be usad as 'Hello' or 'What are you doing?'. Neither of these two definitions even nearly resemble each other but when someone says 'what's up' you take the statement within the context that it's presented. I think (respectfully) that you are missing the context and that you need to define yourself. In a geek party conversation, I would never argue that XHTML is or isn't Web 2.0 because there is no defined context (which is what I think you are searching for). There is a blur between Web '1.0' and Web 2.0 but I don't think that makes it a buzz word. Originally we had HTML, now we have XHTML. We now have CSS and SVG and others. All of these work together. SVG, for example is relatively new (about 9 years old or so) and got strong about 2002 then died down and is now coming back. It's still not entirely defined, and considered unfinished. Yet still it works with CSS. If it wasn't developed to work with CSS, there would be no use for it and it wouldn't survive. Thus I would consider it a Web 1.0 technology. I know this is all fuzzy and I think that's where the author had the problem. Web 2.0 is a concept similar to driving home from a long trip and saying "We're almost home." There is no line as to where 'almost' is but just the same, that place does exist. There isn't a clear line where Web 2.0 starts, but it is here. I would call it more of a brand name though rather than a buzz word. Many knowledgeable web consumers and novice developers (myself included - I'm considerably more experienced in developing, managing and interpreting standards than I am as a software developer) need a simple name for these types of changes that have occurred and Web 2.0 is a simple way of putting it.

jeff
jeff

Actually, I think it was me that wasn't clear. I saw you're reference to w3.org and didn't realize that was a correct URL. For the most part (very most part) I'm not a web developer, but I have written many standards for government and bridge technical to non-technical government standards. That being said, I haven't read the specs in detail but generally Web 2.0 is XHTML. You can read up on the site about XHTML (2.0). In part, Web 2.0 is a buzz word and is fuzzy, but is not without a basis. It's not a cloud as the writer would imply. A great example is PHP. It's a well established, well defined internet standard, but ask anyone what PHP stands for and the answer will usually be somewhere between "I'm not really sure but..." to "I've heard..." Just like different human languages; some words or expressions don't translate well from one language to another, but they still all have distinct meanings. I feel the story implies that Web 2.0 doesn't have any meaning.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I went to the W3C web site, searched it, and could not find any standards or definitions for the term 'Web 2.0'. Plenty on HTML, CSS, etc., but nothing explaining or defining them in a Web 2.0 context. Can you provide any links to their site defining the term 'Web 2.0'? I don't think there is a standard.

david.dartnell
david.dartnell

I figure that Windows Live Mail is a good example of Web 2.0! Live Mail behaves like a local program even though it is a webpage! This is particularly evident in the lack of general page refreshing that was found in the original version of Hotmail! Therefore I believe that 2.0 describes a persons program usage experience....and to be Web 2.0 there should be no overall page refreshing, the webpage / website should behave like a locally installed program!

jasondlnd
jasondlnd

The way that the Internet works hasn't changed, but what can be done with it has. The Internet works as the result of the transmission of packets through TCP/IP protocols, nothing more. The concept behind the technology that drives communication between two computers has not changed. What has changed is the way it is being used. Web 2.0 is a change in that use. Much like how black and white TV broadcasts gave way to color, the way the Internet is used has evolved. Previously, content on a webpage was highly static. The only one who could change it was the administrator or webmaster. Now, with Ajax and PHP, users are able to add their own content. This makes web pages more dynamic. This website is an excellent example of some of the concepts of Web 2.0, as individuals are able to add content as they see fit. Web 2.0 is a change in the way the Internet is used, not how it is structured.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"This website is an excellent example of some of the concepts of Web 2.0, as individuals are able to add content as they see fit." This site, including most of the current feature set, predates the first .com crash. I don't see much going on here in terms of content modification by users that didn't exist with bulletin boards or newsgroups. Sure, it looks prettier, but I don't think it's even that much easier to use. linnen_jason, maybe I'm not recognizing the Web 2.0 concepts as you see them on this site. Would you point them out for me? We had member web logs for a while, although they were removed several months ago. Ramon, do you or any TR staffers consider this site to be "Web 2.0"?

jasondlnd
jasondlnd

Perhaps I should clarify. The web forums on this site are examples of Web 2.0. Think back to the mid-1990s. Web forums like this simply did not exist because the way the technology was being used. I can recall when the first web boards were introduced, and subsequently popularized by Yahoo!, who embraced the technology. Now, user generated content has become commonplace as a tenet of web 2.0, and, yes, this includes web boards.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

This forum has been here in essentially this form since the spring of 1999. Granted, that was the late 1990s, but it still predates "Web 2.0 by at least five or six years!

jodyharris5016
jodyharris5016

Web 2.0 is like many of the buzz words that pop up from time to time. They are simply geared to get management types CEO's and CFO's on board a train that has already left the station. Rather than tell them they are being left behind you tell them about something new and innovative so they believe they are getting in on the ground floor of something big. IT has always worked toward security and innovation steadily and methodically and it takes the sales types to get everybody else on board with these wonderful buzz words.

jli
jli

The reason that there still isn???t a concrete definition of Web 2.0 is probably there isn???t one, yet. Buzz words sell, and that???s fine. It is an evolving thinking and smart using of available technologies. One observation, Web 2.0 seems to use much of the open source technologies, as compared to the traditional, enterprise-scaled (=expensive) platforms. A devoted geek, a one-man shop can claim that he is in this Web 2.0 thing. The knowledge became more shared and new ideas keep surfacing. It may take a while before we can really have a grasp on a definition.

rclontz
rclontz

My understanding or definition of Web 2.0 - A dynamic (non-static) richer web experience that allows users more interactivity. Ron Clontz

dbabcock
dbabcock

Ron, You did a great job in stating what many of us who share this mindset have been saying. It's a great definition, and the one I'll use in further discussions on the matter. THANKS! David Babcock

LawrencRJ
LawrencRJ

"Web 2.0" is a lot like "floxynoxynihilpilifaction." I think in a multiple choice test the safest answer would be "(5) all of the above" ... so ... when a word has so many meanings it might be best not to use the word at all! A better term for it according to YOUR definition would be "Web Platform". That would bring to mind AJAX and a number of other similar web based applications. Frankly -- I prefer to compute on my own computer and use the web as reference tool and a means of communication so I will stick with Delbert's "Web 1.0". :o)

balajie.k
balajie.k

Since I am a regular reader of this kind of articles, my comment about the article: You had said that you had went through 100's of links to give this useful article. But the content about WEB 2.0 is found only in 3rd para from last which reads: "So what then is Web 2.0 really? My definition is: stable and reliable high-speed bandwidth and the tools and applications that spring from it that allow the ???network to be the computer??? rather than being bound by your local PCs capabilities"

bob2
bob2

Ramon stirs up vague feelings of anxiety when he points out that it might take 5 pages to define Web 2.0. And I'm still struggling with Bill Clinton's famous definition of "is"? Why not agree that Web 2.0 is more of a concept based on a technology leap for personal and business Web users that results from new front end interactivity (a la Myface and Youtube) and the behind the sceneds backend innovation in how data and interface is handled (Ajax, Ruby, CSS 3.0). Hardware innovation of that scope and scale hasn't happened recently. Well, that's my 2 bits. Bob

Nerdmax
Nerdmax

My recollection of the meaning of Web 2.0 when I first heard the term (at least 3 years ago) was that it was used by dotcom startups with genuinely viable business plans to distinguish themselves from the earlier generation of pre-bubble dotcom failures. It had little or nothing to do with the technology that they used to create their web sites -- new technical approaches like AJAX weren't a strong factor at that time. It had to do with a new realism about how to make money out of the Web.

macroof
macroof

I thought web 2.0 was ajax and all the other web based application platforms that is making thin applications possible. But there also seems to be a "consumer web 2.0" that is a usuability measure superior to old school and requiring broadband. Facebook, Myspace, flixxy, & Youtube are non-commercial examples of this new usability where customers are building pages with no knowledge. Amazon where books are being selected for you pages can be read music can be previewed you can practically do anything but hold the thing you are buying are commercial examples of web 2.0.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[i]Facebook, Myspace, flixxy, & Youtube...customers are building pages with no knowledge.[/i] Expand it from the web and it's Life 2.0: the ability to function without demonstrating any sign of intelligence.

jansie
jansie

Web 2.0 is marketing. Does one try avoid it? No. You quietly slip onto the back end of the bandwagon, preferably wearing a hooded garment so no one can see your face (for that time that the bandwagon gets a flat wheel and you have to get off), and sing along with all the other suckers caught up in the moment. The guys over at yootheme.com sell their joomla templates as 'oh so web 2.0'. So some people see web 2.0 as a certain look, rather than an application of use. The same thing happened (well, still is happening) with the whole XHTML vs HTML debate. One person says something, and the whole world changes their opinion, for better or for worse. We need to be careful of hitching rides on these bandwagons. The same thing that makes you trumpet the one day, makes you hide your head in the sand the next. Can't wait for web 3.0...

Stepenlite
Stepenlite

It's not Web 1.x. 1.x is that "old" stuff which was okay, but 2.0 is better? Maybe it became Web 2.0 when I was able to live my life without leaving my home? If my doctor and dentist delivered, I'd be set. Perhaps the Web evolved, a day at a time, to what it is now, and some PR hack "came to" and shazam, Web 2.0! I'm too lazy to reach an explination on my own, so I guess I'll begin asking what a speaker means by Web 2.0. Or we could ask ANSII. I have faith in ANSI. Let's go with your definition, pound google with it, and promote it using Wikipedia. Cheers

gregg.oliver
gregg.oliver

The term "Web 2.0" appears to be used to create the impression that the use of the internet for social connection (blogging, general-interest social groups like My Space and You Tube) represents a significant shift in the fundamental use of the internet and thereby differentiates it from Web 1.0, in which people had individual web pages in yahoo or msn (instead of blogs, which are supported by applications designed to make it easy to change the text on a page) and special-interest social groups (which tended to be centered around a particular interest, like GarageBand.com). In other words, it represents the demarcation between two periods: the first when individuals posting web pages were expressing their thoughts without expecting feedback other than the occasional email and the second, when the degree of interaction to what is posted is higher and expected (even sought and measured). I see this as more of an evolutionary step than revolutionary, but agree that it proliferated after the development of easy-to-use blogging and networking applications, and wide availability of broadband service. These were created out of the demand to have more flexible content on the web and to make the connection between "poster and postee" more immediate and transparent

robocso
robocso

Web 2.0 is merely the latest marketing spin for web technology-snake-oil salespersons. The web has two elements the physical network of interlinked computers and the websites that are accessible on the physical network. Both the physical structure and the websites have gone through many changes in both speed and design and in truth if the web was versioned we would be using version 3 by now. Any new web technology simply extends or enhances the existing. We will always have continuous evolutionary advances in web technologies with the single HTML page hosted next to the latest AJAX or later web application. This is the magic of the web where we have an environment that gives everyone a place in the sun. Compuserve predated the www and even though it did not have fancy graphics and video clips it had many of the features found in social sites like facebook. We are merely enhancing the user interface and speed of the web for users, not creating Web 2. Unless a whole new network is created from scratch that does not use the existing www infrastructure we cannot talk about Web 2.

Quasar Kid
Quasar Kid

I agree. Web 2.0 is nothing but a marketing term designed to separate you from your money. It means absolutley nothing at all!

yihongd
yihongd

Hi Toni, I have a new post about what Web 2.0 is at: http://yihongs-research.blogspot.com/2007/09/simple-picture-of-web-evolution.html Hopefully you enjoy it. -- Yihong

aseib
aseib

You have put together a great summary

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"At Web 2.0, not only writers but also readers can both read and write to a same web space. ... This advance allows establishing friendly social communication among web users without enforced disclosure of private identities." Other than ease of use, how does this differ from Usenet groups or the old pre-web bulletin boards?

Rndmacts
Rndmacts

Back in the 90's Web 2.0 was readily defined as an improvement to delivering rich media content, new fibre optic technologies with increased bandwith. The dream then was that fibre optic would deliver to the curb. This capability is still being rolled out to ever increasing numbers of users. Applications like MySpace, Facebook, Flikr, YouTube and Digg-it are just that, Applications, they are not the technologie that makes it possible. They are just taking advantage of larger bandwith capabilities of Web 2.0 to deliver a rich medium that happens to be two-way versus one-way as in Web 1.0.

raintree
raintree

It used to be that language was used to label something in our environment to make it possible for humans to communicate about it. When someone named fire I'm sure they didn't come up with the word and then look around for something to apply the word to. Now some marketing type comes up with a word or phrase that seems to appeal to people and sends lots of people running around trying to find something to apply it to so that it will have real meaning...

OldER Mycroft
OldER Mycroft

"From a user standpoint, Web 2.0 is about community and networks. It's MySpace and Facebook, Flickr and YouTube - a feast of opportunities for sharing, and for taking streams of data and managing them, via user-friendly and flexible online tools. There's a design ethic of sorts - bright colour, reflections, far too many gradients - but the core foundation of Web 2.0 is technology." I hope that has made it clearer for everybody. Mainly because I'm still wandering around trying to find a one-liner I can rely on.

professordnm
professordnm

Web 2.0: "Tech grovin' the 'so there' place to be!"

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"It's MySpace and Facebook, Flickr and YouTube...bright colour, reflections, far too many gradients" So it's about entertainment, kinda like cable TV on steroids? "...the core foundation of Web 2.0 is technology." If the foundation is technology, which technologies? I'm in the "buzzword" camp, myself.

peter.weir
peter.weir

In my uninformed opinion Web 2.0 is the internet equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes. Its nothing.. its a loose description of a combination of concepts. Heck.. lets bundle it and see how many we can sell.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I've heard it so often in so many contexts from so many people with geek levels varying from absolutely clueless to walking knowledgebase, that I'm inclined to go with choice [b](b)[/b]. It means whatever the user thinks it means. But it's still just a buzz word, and as such has no further meaning.

DanLM
DanLM

Because, I really wasn't sure what it meant. Ok, so I will take your article and run with it as to what I think you said. Web 2.0 is not necessarily a technoligy but is more a philosophy of how is to communicate to it's users. This philosophy dictates that the web be a bi directional experience with it's user. Ie, not static, but dynamic. Depending on an action a user takes on a web page, a dynamic result will be given. Ie: User comes from Cleveland Ohio(identified by ip), results shown will deal with that area of Ohio with results being geared to what the user arived at the page looking for(google search of cars)? The web is to become what the user expects of his home computer? No matter what the technoligy it takes to deliver. Based on the information stored on the web, the results being much more in depth with their results provided. Ok, this was probably a really STUPID reading of your article. But it shows how little I really know about web 2. Dan

pr.arun
pr.arun

This was put forward by Yahoo's Jerry Yang I believe and it briefly brings to light the fact that it is the bandwidth we have that makes these applications of the web possible. Its all about the bandwidth.

curlergirl
curlergirl

All I could think of was: remember "Marshall McLuhan"? Does anyone else remember the medium is the message, the global village, etc.? Those books were first published in about 1967-68. Web 2.0 is an extension of what's been going on in the technology of communications for a century or more.

Angel_Tech
Angel_Tech

I think that video give us the big picture of what article is about.. probably not with words.. but with the idea of what web 2.0 is.. I liked the video.. Excellent

sagar.toshniwal
sagar.toshniwal

I remember the story of elephant I heard in my childhood. The story is about how four blind people accedently bump upon an elephant and then describe it in their own way as they touch different body parts of the elephant. Actually, they all were talking about the same object! In my opinion, same if the story of Web 2.0. We all are talking differently, but essentially the same thing! To me, Web 2.0 is nothing like a rocket-science. It is simply a very intuitive, fast and customizable user interface, intertwined with high performance (yet easy to use) software tools.

lastchip
lastchip

It took a little boy to say, "but he's got nothing on! As far as I can see, it's a "buzz word" that has very little meaning in the real world.