This afternoon, I was in a Skype discussion with an old friend in the UK and part of our conversation strayed into a discussion about Web 2.0.
My friend thinks it’s just meaningless marketing hype and similar to all the talk that we heard in the late 90s dot-com era (or Web 1.0, as I pointed out to him) and early 00s on how everyone would make a fortune and change the world with things like web services, e-commerce, and sticky websites.
You could even go back a bit further into the mid 90s when we heard about the Information Highway (remember that?), ubiquitous video on demand and the networked computer. If you were around in those days, you may remember Larry Ellison of Oracle proclaiming that this was the age of the networked computer and the end of the PC as we knew it. A great concept but quite some years ahead of its time.
In trying to explain to my cynical friend why I don’t agree with him, I was actually a little stumped at one point in recalling some simple ways to illustrate why Web 2.0 is different to Web 1.0.
Yes, we have blogging and other social media. And I’ve seen lots of posts and other online content talking about Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 Meme Map. This type of illustrative description isn’t really helpful to cynics like my friend who say they’ve seen it all before (and who said, incidentally, that the image helped confirm his negative opinion about Web 2.0). I don’t like it much either, as it is very similar to such diagrams in the 90s – they weren’t called “meme maps” in those days – that hyped how e-commerce (for instance) was what you just had to be in.
So is Web 2.0 just a load of old cobblers as my friend would say?
That meme map was part of “What Is Web 2.0,” a lengthy article in September by Tim O’Reilly in which he goes into some length to explain how he sees Web 2.0. I think it’s a very good article which should be a starting point for gaining a better understanding of how the technologies and tools we’re using today (which I’d call Web 1.5, perhaps even 1.7) are evolving into what, I believe, will be Web 2.0.
Yet stuff like this can seem a pretty dense read when what you want to see more easily is the wood amongst all those trees. Tim O’Reilly’s article actually does contain a way to do that which was probably over-shadowed by the snazzy meme map.
Here’s how to get a sense of Web 2.0:
This is perfect for a right brain individual like me. This I can explain. How about you?
And by the way, here’s a neat quiz that will help you determine whether you’re left brain or right brain (although if you’re left brain, you probably already know that).
Interesting. You are graphic averse and favour the tabular approach which suggests you are left-brained.
But, knowing you, I suspect you are correct in your assertion that you are right-brained.
But maybe, like most people, you are a balance of the two.
Interesting post, nevertheless. Or should I say Nevontheless? No – that sounds like an insult. Sorry.
Old Fashioned Information Superhighway and in com
Podcasting, new media advocate Neville Hobson put up a post today titled Understanding Web 2.0. When Web 2.0 first started becoming a topic in the technology sites that I visit I didn’t really sit up and take notice. There was so much talk of Microso…
No, not graphic averse, David. And you are very much left brain to see that approach as purely tabular!
Taking the test was fun – it says I’m right-brain…but only just. As I get older, I think things change. I’m more concerned about the fact I may not be clinically schizophrenic, but I’m finding it easier to hold equal and opposing views at the same time. Or was it all those years living in France…?
But to the more important point. I’m not a fan of Web 2.0 – it’s like SOA – over-hyped and totally confusing. I’d rather say that whatever this phrase represents, it doesn’t ‘feel’ to be anything other than an evolutionary step. An interestring and at times exciting step. But not a great leap forward.
It’s the ease of doing things that has changed along with the participatory nature of web interactions. Which isn’t much different to the kind of collaboration being talked about 1997-2001.
But if someone asked: “Oh..is that Web 2.0?” I’d probably answer in the affirmative just so’s not to confuse them any further.
It is a fun test, Dennis. Heh! Holding equal and opposing views at the same time clearly is a right brain thing! Or it could be the wine, French or Spanish…
As for Web 2.0, I’m not a big fan of trendy labels either. Yet it’s an apt one for labeling the shift. It does help others focus on understanding that shift.
I don’t think it’s over-hyped: it’s only just starting.
Do you really believe that things aren’t much different to what we saw in that period you mention? It seems to me that a great deal is already different, such as outlined in Tim O’Reilly’s article.
Web 2.0
http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2005/10/web_20_the_nake.html
I took the test you posted and I am left brain dominant, as I thought. Although I don’t know how much accuracy this “test” has since I am not quite 60% left brain and about 35% right brain. I think knowing about your personality can help when you’re working in a group/team situation or just knowing what you need to personally improve on to help yourself succeed.
As far as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, I think that it is just a lot of Internet nerdiness. I don’t mean that as an insult to anyone, but part of it is kind of like a “what’s hot/what’s not” column in a fashion magazine. For instance, when I was in high school, you were really into the Internet if you had a personal webpage, such as one on geocities. Now, most of my friends have personal blogs, such as a Livejournal or a Xanga. It also shows the increasing technology and improvements, such as Britannica Online to Wikipedia or Ofoto to Flickr.
I don’t think that it needs to be classified as Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 then to Web 3.0. Instead, it’s just an evolution as knew things become popular and what people perceive as being “the thing” to use. Instead, we should look at what used to be used and what is being used now to evaluate which is the better service. Which program/software helps to make the project I’m working on succeed. Also, some things should not be discarded simply because they are “old” if it’s a positive part of a campaign. Fads come and go, but the important part of technology is using it to help you perofrm your job the most effectively way possible.
I have blogged quite a bit lately on Web 2.0, and although the term is over-hyped, I think it would be too easy to ignore it just because it is being hyped. Blame the game, not the player. See more at loekb.blogspot.com.