The Truth About Web 2.0
Have been thinking about Web 2.0 recently and it's seriously annoying me. Just wanted to see if anyone has any different viewpoints, and thereore can enlighten me, or whether you agree.
Web 2.0 is touted as being:
wikipedia wrote: The term "Web 2.0" refers to a second phase of development of the World Wide Web, including its architecture and its applications.
As used by its proponents, the phrase refers to one or more of the following:-
- a transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a computing platform serving web applications to end users
- a social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterised by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
a more organized and categorized content, with a more developed deeplinking web architecture.- a shift in economic value of the web, potentially equalling that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s.
Got this from Wikipedia (a purported Web 2.0 "application" in itself) so the article is quite likely to change. This is a good definition though, so we'll use it here. The problem is that Web 2.0 actually means:
- a way for people heavily into AJAX, Ruby on Rails, Web Standards and other Web "fashions" to make themselves look cool.
- a method by which a clique of hardcore web fashion icons can create a mythical and unachievable objective for their devoted followers to hanker after.
- a fancy name for something that's happening by itself, without the need for a fancy name thank you very much.
Web 2.0 doesn't exist! It's just some hazily defined group of technologies, something people who don't understand the underlying functionality of the Web say on their self-serving blogs and at parties. Just yet another tediously interchangeable buzz-word.
This is potentially dangerous, Web 2.0 is another way in which that cool gang of Web fashion icons can distance themselves from the average web designer/developer. Unfortunately they're becoming a closed group, when they should be opening up, accusing those who still use tables for layout of: "Not being professional." Using abstract terminology to describe very real and simple technologies (AJAX for instance), and then using more abstract terminology to describe something that is really imperceptible!
This is an organic change, it's been happening for years, no-one woke up and was struck with the idea of inventing something called "Web 2.0" so why do we have to label it?
Not only that, but labelling the change in this manner is implying that everything before, everything that doesn't conform to the cool clubs specification is defunct, obsolete and "Web 1.0" the problem doesn't lie with individual sites either, it's the term and it's implications that are dangerous
The implication is that when someone asks for a simple web site we should tell them to go away unless they want to pay for AJAX, tag clouds, and Wiki, although this is not what they need. What happens when the general public start using this term? What will you say to that customer who asks for something "Web 2.0" when they don't understand the implications of what they've just said?
Perhaps there is a need for some of these fashionable zealots (and that's not meant to be accusatory) to step down from the pedastal and discover what people actually need the Web for.
So what does everyone else think? Am I wrong about what Web 2.0 actually is?
a Padded Cell our articles site!
timjpriebe posted this at 14:34 — 9th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
You raise a lot of good points, Jeeves. Web 2.0 may end up being something that uneducated clients learn about just enough to ask for it. It will end up being like Ajax is today, where those who have heard about it want it without realizing what it is.
I'm fortunate in that I deal with a lot of small business owners who aren't too web savvy. At least, they don't have any clue about the technology behind the web pages. These are the type of people who don't realize that there's anything unusual about Google maps, except that it's neat.
Speaking of which, I do like the fact that Google does not have something like "Powered by Ajax" plastered all over Google maps. So they're helping a little bit by that omission.
Of course, I'm also of the opinion that it's kind of unnecessary to slap labels on everything, and I think that's really what Web 2.0 is about. Like you said, Jeeves, it's things that are happening anyway. Why give it a pointless label.
My $0.02.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
demonhale posted this at 17:14 — 9th December 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
its a bunch of bull I might say, I read somewhere that web 2.0 is not the way as defined above... Web2.0 is actually getting the net organized, the proliference of web standards, the respect and widespread use of this standards as well as the way pages are made... semantic, accessible and well-designed. The more it gets to a point that codes are readable to a machine and also to a human and regular laymen... thats web 2.0...
timjpriebe posted this at 17:32 — 9th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Sorry, but if web 2.0 is as you defined it, demonhale, then I say it's not going to happen. As is apparent from current websites, you can't force any kind of web standards on people. They have to be willing to use them. There's just no way to enforce the sort of thing you're talking about.
Where did you read that, demonhale? Without telling us your source like Jeeves did, I find it hard to believe that any credible website (or book) defined Web 2.0 like you did. It's just an unenforcable standard.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
demonhale posted this at 17:35 — 9th December 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
I just read it not that it "is" going to be that way... By the way a proper term should be I watched and listened to it, as I recall theres this net, the net boom, silicon valley interview with tim berners-lee on discovery channel where this one guy is explaining the web2.0, but tim explained that if ever that it happens, it would be more like as ive written above... the main thought of those people actually is semantic markup...
timjpriebe posted this at 17:48 — 9th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
The official Web 2.0 document is located here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Honestly, I don't see anything in there related to what you mentioned, Jeeves. Sounds like Wikipedia may have more unconfirmed rumors than actual fact. I've always been somewhat suspect of an online encyclopedia that literally anyone can update.
From my quick read-through of the document, it sounds like it's just a formal way of saying "My website is well-coded." While this is good for search engines and handicapped web-surfers, it is by no means anything new.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
JeevesBond posted this at 19:41 — 10th December 2005.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
What?! That's the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines you pillock!
demonhale, you are right that is part of what web 2.0 is all about. Wikipedia was just a good source for the relevant information, it is more than just semantic markup and indeed more than the small amount of information I quoted.
It's also a lot more vague than that, which is why we're having problems defining it here, there is no "official document." It's just a way of describing and categorising a set of changes that are already happening.
There's no problem with the changes themselves also, what I'm annoyed about is that people have to give it a name, can't possibly have something happen without some annoying buzzword attached to it that they can use on their self-serving blogs.
What starts as an annoying buzz word has the implication that it wishes to discount almost everything on the web so far: "You don't want to look through that content, that's Web 1.0 that is." So we miss the beauty of how the Web is slowly evolving and being able to look back at old sites. See how things really were and how much further we've really come.
Remember Megans site that's still there? Well what version of the Web is that? But it's nice to look at as a small bit of history, a view of what someone was doing and thinking at a particular time.
It seems that we shouldn't be looking at that stuff though, we've upgraded to Web 2.0!
a Padded Cell our articles site!
timjpriebe posted this at 14:40 — 12th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Doh! Sorry about that wrong link. I followed it in from somewhere else, and obviously didn't read the beginning well enough.
I am indeed a pillock. For now...
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
Busy posted this at 20:10 — 12th December 2005.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Bring back NS4.x
hehe haha
JeevesBond posted this at 20:20 — 12th December 2005.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Hehehe, I was only teasing Tim, that's half the problem with web 2.0: It is a bit of a non-entity!
Megan pointed out this article by Cameron Moll to me, he seems quite proud to have spent an entire article on the future of web fashions without mentioning web 2.0 once
[edit]
Ah yes, I currently quaffing a '97 vintage Busy, was a very good year for browsers if I may say so!
[/edit]
a Padded Cell our articles site!
demonhale posted this at 05:30 — 13th December 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Hmmm so lets say were currently now on web2.0 beta . . . since were busy standardizing our sites, and making them cross-browser compatible... Good News! Ive converted a whole net neighboorhood successfully to Firefox!...
timjpriebe posted this at 17:56 — 13th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Way to go, Demonhale! I've always recommended FireFox to people, and finally had a client come in a couple of months ago who was already using it. It's spreading!
I think I'm going to randomly assign a buzz-word to my car. I'll call it a Vehicle 2.0.
Yep, my car uses Vehicle 2.0 technology. Of course, what you don't know is that just means it uses electricity in addition to gas.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
demonhale posted this at 14:28 — 14th December 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Your trying to brag? About your NEW HYBRID CAR... just teasing tim, anyways its a toyota? or american car?
timjpriebe posted this at 14:53 — 14th December 2005.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
I wasn't referring to a hybrid, every car uses electricity in addition to gas. Thus the car battery. But since hybrids are relatively new, let's call them completely Vehicle 2.0 compliant.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
demonhale posted this at 15:19 — 14th December 2005.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Hmmm I was trying to get a little 007 and I thought you were using sipher codes to tell us about a new car or something, well anyways, my car is cross-roads compatible, it can run on any kind of road...
Megan posted this at 18:26 — 4th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Some talk in the blogoshpere that "Web 2.0 is Dead"
http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1763
bja888 (not verified) posted this at 19:09 — 4th January 2006.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
Like I said int the other post (How does the Future of Web Design/development look?). There has little or no introduction of cutting edge or new technology to the html side of the web. The troops are losing faith and need encouragement! No one on this form wants to hear that xhtml and browsers have reached their peak.
Then there is the other side of the argument. Businesses want to have the best website possible regardless of web standards. So if/when web 2.0 hits the world they will have to face the fact that their cool looking flash site was a step in the wrong direction for web 2.0. (I'm talking about a small business)
JeevesBond posted this at 20:14 — 4th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Exactly, this was what I was griping about. Well I'd like to think someone listened to what I was ranting about, but no, seems like my standpoint has been around for longer than I've even known about Web 2.0, well not suprising really.
Thanks for that Megan, glad to hear that others are thinking like I am, even if I'm late!
Ahhh, but will they even realise they're site isn't Web 2.0? After all the problem is that it has lost almost all meaning, a funky Flash site might have even been sold as Web 2.0 - just try to prove that it's not!
a Padded Cell our articles site!
dk01 posted this at 22:00 — 4th January 2006.
He has: 516 posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Ok this is going to take a while but I'd just like to say...
Web 2.0 is someone's buzzword. We all agree that it is not an actual framework like .NET or XHTML. It is however a certain method. If you don't like AJAX/httpxmlrequest/ etc then simply don't use them. Its kind of like switching to tableless layouts, writing serverside, code, switching to Firefox, etc. You have choices!
The best way for you to voice your opinion is to boycott these options. My question is why be anti-innovation? If a group of designers wants to do their own thing then so be it. Granted using Web 2.0 wasn't the best idea, however, they have the right to do this. That's the great thing about the internet. People can do WHATEVER they want!
As I have started my own business recently, some of the things I have been reading have taught me some great lessons. The key one is this:
"No matter what service business you are in. You are in the business of selling. You're sole purpose to your customer is to make them more money or to save them money."
I think this is key because its true. If I overcharge a customer because I want to use AJAX and he looks back on the site I built him and sees that I didn't make him any money off it, is he really going to use my company again? No. If, however, I give him a smaller, more appropriate solution that he makes $5000 dollars/year off of then he will most likely refer other people to me or at least use me again.
This isn't saying AJAX isn't useful. Its just that it is not applicable for all situations. Its like any other tool. You use it when you need it. Not just for the sake of using it.
Don't take this in the wrong way. I just wouldn't throw a tool out the window because of hype. I'd just make sure to use it with caution and care.
Maybe some of you guys can post some of your own tests you've done with AJAX and Web 2.0? I guess I remain the noob on this subject. I've seen GoogleMaps and Gmail but I am sure that you have looked into this more than me so maybe you can enlighten me.
Megan posted this at 22:15 — 4th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Web 2.0 as it was/is used generally is not just Ajax and sites that use Ajax. Ajax is a component of what the term refers to but it is not the only piece, by a long shot. "Web 2.0" is/was generally more of a reference to new ways of uisng the web with increased interaction. Sites like Flickr, Google Maps , Basecamp etc. that operate more like software (often facilitated by Ajax). The read/write aspect was also key (blogs, wikis, things that allow people to create content easily; social tools like del.icio.us). That's my understnading, although as the above articles and Jeeves' rantings suggest, there was never any clear definition of the term.
Web 2.0 != Ajax
Web 2.0 > Ajax
As Jeeves said, nobody is throwing the idea or the techniques out the window, just the monicker.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
JeevesBond posted this at 22:06 — 4th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Whoah there skippy! I have nothing against AJAX or Wiki or any of that malarky (well perhaps the way the Web is becoming very centralised around only a few sites, but that's another story).
I have an issue with that damn buzzword and the people that insist upon using it on their self-serving blogs and at daft cocktail parties without having a clue of what they're talking about.
Also the consensus is that the term "Web 2.0" is dead, not the underlying technologies! People will still use Basecamp, program with Ruby on Rails, they'll still tag in Flickr, they'll just not refer to it as Web 2.0
a Padded Cell our articles site!
JeevesBond posted this at 22:21 — 4th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
How rude! And I thought I was writing an unbiased and informative article. *chortle*
bja888 (not verified) posted this at 00:21 — 5th January 2006.
They have: 5,633 posts
Joined: Jan 1970
Wow Megan! I am impressed! You got a some basic programming syntax in there!
It took me a while to under what side you where going to take dk01. I have had encounters with the buisness class before. I am familior with you money makeing motives.
The proublem is though... Your avarage buisness does not understand web standerds and why they are practiced by professionals. If/when web 2.0 takes over the internet it is my theory that the mistakes that amatures make (example; too much flash) will
not be tolerated.
So, if flash sells today... tomarrow it will not work. Thus the buisness will have to start all over again.
WARNING! that was an extream example. It has errors..
1) If web 2.0 ever happends it will take place over a few years. People will have time to adjust.
2) What ever web 2.0 consists of, I am sure macromedia will be a part of it.
Summary....
If web 2.0 is real...
If web 2.0 ever changes the internet....
If web 2.0 really is more than a cheep buzz word...
You better hope you hired the right web designer.
Megan posted this at 14:45 — 5th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Ehhhhh.... um... sort of. The term really needs to go because it's really just a shift in the way things are done - a shift that has been evolving for years. And it's not that old techniques are obsolete as the name implies (although when it comes to web standards that would be true). It is true that the internet is changing in many ways but the problem comes when you attempt to put a label on that that, by implication, throws everything else out the window.
I can see business catching on to the buzword and asking for "Web 2.0" sites without knowing what that even means (since nobody really knows what it means). Flash has got nothing to do with it. Other macromedia products might, since they may be able to integrate some "Web 2.0" functionality more closely into Dreamweaver, for example. Actually, they may be able to use Flash to do more collaborative things which would be interesitng. I think Flickr might use some flash (or used to, anyway).
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Megan posted this at 14:30 — 17th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Great, now Zeldman's got an article about "Web 3.0"
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0
(haven't read it yet...)
Jack Michaelson posted this at 14:56 — 24th January 2006.
He has: 1,733 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
great article
Shakespeare: onclick || !(onclick)
rtroxel posted this at 11:08 — 4th May 2006.
He has: 286 posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Another way of looking at Web 2.0 is that it might be a new resurgence of the IT industry. Hopefully, however, the industry has learned from its mistakes and excesses of the 1990s.
According to an article on Internet Week:
Certainly, the Internet is back in favor, and with good reason. We now have a high-speed Internet that works, whether it's to connect gossipy teens, deliver software as a service to businesses, or allow truly global IT operations, including large-scale outsourcing. That helps explain why about half of all VC deals last quarter involved Internet companies. With stocks rising--the tech-heavy Nasdaq is up 22% over the past 12 months, the broader S&P 500 up 15%--there's exuberance in the wind.
But this isn't your father's--er, older brother's--tech boom. VC investment in Internet companies last quarter amounted to a mere 15% of what investors plunked down in the typical quarter in 2000. Total tech and internet-related venture investing is less than one-quarter what it was in 2000, and there are one-fifth as many IT venture deals. There were 23% fewer acquisitions of venture-backed tech companies last year than in 2000, with 85% less money changing hands.
rtroxel posted this at 12:59 — 4th May 2006.
He has: 286 posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Hopefully one that wont end in a boom-bust scenario this time!
I did some research on the 1990s boom-bust (to aid me in my investment choices) and one of the factors fueling the boom was low interest rates. This meant it was very easy for startup businesses to get loans. These days however, interest rates are rising in the US, so I don't think you'll see a rash of dot-coms in the near future.
If you're interested in investments, you might enjoy reading The Future for Investors by Jeremy Siegel. Among other things, he traces the history of various booms, including the South Sea Bubble in the early 1700s. (That's the one in which people like Isaac Newton lost heavily.) All booms seem to have one thing in common: At some point, they become totally irrational.
Megan posted this at 15:00 — 17th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Well, that was .... ummm....
WTF???
I've been losing respect for Zeldman pretty quickly over the past month or so. I read Designing for Web Standards over the holidays (or skimmed, more like). What a bunch of blather.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
demonhale posted this at 15:14 — 17th January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Its a bunch of blabber (thanks for the link Meg)...
Atlantis posted this at 23:24 — 21st January 2006.
They have: 11 posts
Joined: Jun 2005
I found this:
Complete List of Web 2.0 Applications
demonhale posted this at 02:12 — 22nd January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Hey btw I noticed under bja888 is the word banned... Is he banned? Since I havent seen him around lately...
robbluther posted this at 14:13 — 24th January 2006.
He has: 73 posts
Joined: Jan 2006
That's great... you are all right on the new fangled terminology... I will use it too... I have Wife 2.0. (I consider her upgraded because we had a kid) The really cool thing is that she is Wife 1.0 backwards compatable.
JeevesBond posted this at 20:48 — 26th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Yep Zeldman is nuts, but heck, he agrees with us!
This is exactly what I'm talking about! Am very glad to hear Zeldman agrees, and when he says he's jumping to Web 3.0 that is most definately tongue in cheek.
To summarise what he's saying:
Of course the dot com boom didn't work, this is different, this is Web 2.0, yah?
Well no of course not, do you guys feel any different? Feck it, I'm actually with Zeldman here - even though he waffles a lot - I'm going straight to Web 3.0!
Perhaps we could define Web 3.0 as:
"A gimmick created to highlight the worthlessness of the Web 2.0 gimmick."
How does that sound?
a Padded Cell our articles site!
Megan posted this at 21:30 — 26th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Yep, you're both completely incoherent
No, I agree - I just couldn't make much sense of that article because I was skimming all over and he, like you, was talking too much crap.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
demonhale posted this at 09:13 — 27th January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
bwa ha ha ha! That was a huge block by meg, to the great dunk attempt by jeeves...
JeevesBond posted this at 09:47 — 27th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Did I mention the synergies between this thread and Zeldman's articles? Did I mention that be leveraging an encapsulated clicks-and-mortar approach we could achieve inherant transverse co-operation in the e-marketplace?
Now that's crap. Maybe someone should stop skimming and read things properly.
a Padded Cell our articles site!
demonhale posted this at 14:15 — 28th January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
To keep everybody from arguing about this again, their are actually a proponent developing the internet2 project...
Go here... http://www.internet2.edu/
JeevesBond posted this at 10:46 — 30th January 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Nonono, the Internet is not the Web. There's a fundamental difference, those guys are working on infrastructure and low-level software (protocols and all that malarkey).
This has nothing to do with Web 2.0!
a Padded Cell our articles site!
demonhale posted this at 10:56 — 30th January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
yup but as you read, it leads to the web2, because of the increase, new technology emerges... So comes with internet2 is web2... Thats why there are news about certain enterprising companies trying to regulate speed and such forward of technology so they can only be the one offering this service...
demonhale posted this at 11:03 — 30th January 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Here are some definitions article for web 2.0
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
and the web 2.0 Conference
http://www.web2con.com/
Megan posted this at 15:19 — 30th January 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Kind of telling that O'Reilly needs a 5 page article to explain what it is.
However, I don't think that anyone is dusputing the value of what is listed in that article - it's just the label that's a problem and the blanket approach that is taken with it.
Internet2/web2 is completely different from what is talked about as web 2.0. Not directly related. Internet2 has been around a lot longer.
Jeeves - everyone knows that nobody reads on line. People just skim, so things should make sense when read that way
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
JeevesBond posted this at 21:25 — 27th February 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
I just read the following at ALA: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/vdaymassacre
Seems Web 2.0 is indeed the new XML! I was pleased to see this at the top of an ALA article (even if it wasn't written by the ALA team). Reinforces my point and indicates that anyone with a clue thinks Web 2.0 has become a nasty buzzword.
Sorry for bringing this up again, but it was a "I saw this and thought of you," moment.
a Padded Cell our articles site!
JeevesBond posted this at 12:09 — 4th May 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
That's an interesting article Roy, thanks for that.
I hadn't considered it like that actually, definately a valid viewpoint. Problem with Web 2.0 is that it's become a catch-all term, like XML was a few years ago, you'll see it on lots of idiots CV's next.
This viewpoint is different and welcomed by me, economically the Web is in a renaissance, a second phase. Hopefully one that wont end in a boom-bust scenario this time!
a Padded Cell our articles site!
demonhale posted this at 14:35 — 4th May 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Thoughts to ponder:
They even name actual designs now as web2.0 ... some people require such logos or banners as "I want a web2.0 style"...
JeevesBond posted this at 12:30 — 5th May 2006.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Good point, was not aware of the economic climate at the time (especially in the US). I would also expect that having been bitten once, investors would be twice shy.
It's also interesting that there have been so many booms, despite all the predictions of companies being massively over-valued, and lessons from the past the dot com boom/bust still happened.
I remember watching a TV programme at the height of the boom that referred to it as the "dot com bubble" and warned it was going to burst. So why did this still happen even though people were warned? Surely seasoned investors, and even an amateur would know when to take good advice?
It's like house prices in the UK, £200K for a semi-detached 2-bedroom rabbit hutch. No normal person can afford even that and people are still trying to buy, thinking that prices will carry on going up? Are they mad?! There are no first-time buyers, so the market is stagnating, no growth will mean a drop in prices. Yet these silly people carry on, just like during the dot com boom.
Is there a mental syndrome for this, like groupthink but on a massive scale?
a Padded Cell our articles site!
rtroxel posted this at 13:02 — 5th May 2006.
He has: 286 posts
Joined: Mar 2003
was not aware of the economic climate at the time (especially in the US).
Another investment practice was "buying on margin." Simply put, the investor would take out a loan and invest the money in a high-tech company. If he was paying 5% interest on the loan, but receiving 10% return on his investment, he was making 5% in profits. However, by 2000, he was probably getting no return on his investment, but still paying the 5% interest. Not a good thing!
Is there a mental syndrome for this, like groupthink but on a massive scale?
I guess so. Maybe it means that people are always looking for the easiest way to make money. One condition for a boom, I've read, is that intelligent people must support it. In the US, many college professors, professional economists and politicians spoke enthusiastically of the "information highway", so the average investor figured if these people were putting their money into it, it must be valuable.
rtroxel posted this at 12:45 — 3rd September 2006.
He has: 286 posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Back to Web 2.0....
According to Wil Harris, behavioral marketing is at the bottom of many Web 2.0 sites:
The one thing the Web 2.0 sites have in common is that they are furiously mining information about you and your buddies. What you like. What you like that your buddies like. Digg knows what stories you've submitted, what demographic you're in, how other people in your demographic react to what you post. MySpace can break its users down by almost any statistic imaginable, then mine that data for more information about what it is you're doing and sharing online, and how that relates to your friends in the same (or different) demographics.
Flickr is perhaps one of the most interesting ones. Search for 'cat', and Flickr will record the most popular photo clicked. By associating the colour and picture data within photos with keywords used to search, Yahoo is slowly building a database of human identification. It has often said that the differentiator between Yahoo and Google, going forward, is that Yahoo wants the web processed by humans and Google wants it done by robots. Google uses algorithms to generate anything to do with its business. Yahoo, with its acquisition of Flickr and Delicious and whatever else is on the horizon, wants people - and social networks - to define how it does business.
..................."Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy"
Nameslot posted this at 14:56 — 3rd September 2006.
They have: 29 posts
Joined: Dec 2005
Interesting Read.
Well everyone has their won agenda for the things. And internet is moving at great speed.
autoecart posted this at 05:55 — 11th September 2006.
They have: 24 posts
Joined: Sep 2006
Web 2.0 is all hype besides if you have ever taken a look at a supposed Web 2.0 compliant website they are down right ugly with alot of bold contrasting colors and whitespace (blah)
I need link exchangesA Myspace Layout
Arch posted this at 20:41 — 17th December 2006.
They have: 31 posts
Joined: Sep 2006
(bump)
There are some things I agree with you there. But I do think Web 2.0 is more than just a marketing catch-phrase and it's definitely something that is rapidly catching on in certain areas of web development. The thing is, a lot of these "Web 2.0" technology didn't happen overnight and it's something the O'Reilly publisher want to coin and define. I do feel, however, that the "2.0" in "Web 2.0" is a bit condescending toward simple, but efficient, web design that doesn't have all that AJAX, Flickr, and understandable URLs and that's probably why some may feel awkward to brand sites as Web 2.0.
At any rate, I plan to incorporate elements of this "Web 2.0" into an upcoming website, but certainly won't want to tout it that way.
rtroxel posted this at 16:12 — 8th August 2007.
He has: 286 posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Web 2.0 is back in the news again. Check out these people:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0707/gallery.web_world.biz2/
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.