there is no "Web2.0", get over it; it's a slow and steady progression of layered technologies and services over time.
i don't disagree with the detail you've pointed out, it's valid and noteworthy, but drop the buzzword, it makes you look silly.
Vinny Lingham
· 3 years ago
Thanks for the comment :-). I absolutely agree, but I'm just trying to emphasize how ridiculous this whole Web 2.0 thing is. It's like all of a sudden companies need a new term to justify their actions and impress investors on how the Internet has evolved.
Johan Bosini
· 3 years ago
In agreement, there is no set standard for what Web 2.0 actually means or requires. Many feel the new naming convention will result in a second bubble - developers building hype about nothing much really - only for investors to discover they are still just websites...
However I think you are both missing the point (as I see it anyway). Web 2.0 is the movement away from static webpages to interactive webpages with ajax technology and feeds etc. In this way users can update the site themselves to see what they want to see. It is referred to as a second generation of services available on the WWW that lets people collaborate and share info online - previously most sites were static in nature.
The term was popularized by O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International as the name for a series of web development conferences that started in October 2004. It really is the same internet - but it just highlights that those in the industry are trying to work together in making better products online. So why a new name you ask? What was wrong with Web 1.0? Well, in I think that in order to build something better you need to know that the old one was not good enough - it just puts a peg in the sand to say "that is where we were - and that is where we are heading".
The whole thing may be silly - but it may also help some people to understand the "evolution" of the internet and what it is both capable and not capable of. In truth - it is marketing of the web really - to get some interest from both investors and users. Is this such a bad thing though?
All Comments
i don't disagree with the detail you've pointed out, it's valid and noteworthy, but drop the buzzword, it makes you look silly.
However I think you are both missing the point (as I see it anyway). Web 2.0 is the movement away from static webpages to interactive webpages with ajax technology and feeds etc. In this way users can update the site themselves to see what they want to see. It is referred to as a second generation of services available on the WWW that lets people collaborate and share info online - previously most sites were static in nature.
The term was popularized by O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International as the name for a series of web development conferences that started in October 2004. It really is the same internet - but it just highlights that those in the industry are trying to work together in making better products online. So why a new name you ask? What was wrong with Web 1.0? Well, in I think that in order to build something better you need to know that the old one was not good enough - it just puts a peg in the sand to say "that is where we were - and that is where we are heading".
The whole thing may be silly - but it may also help some people to understand the "evolution" of the internet and what it is both capable and not capable of. In truth - it is marketing of the web really - to get some interest from both investors and users. Is this such a bad thing though?
Johan Bosini