The State of Web 2.0, The Future of Web Software 216
SphereOfInfluence writes "Despite some disdain for the term Web 2.0, the underlying ideas seem to be genuinely taking off from the seed of successful techniques of the first generation of the Web. Here's an in-depth review of the future of Web 2.0 and online software from Web 2.0 proponent, Dion Hinchcliffe. Like or hate the term, the actual ideas in Web 2.0 are turning out to not only usable but a growing cadre of companies are actively being successful with them. This includes the Ajax phenomenon being actively pursued by Microsoft and Google, widespread social software, and massive online communities like MySpace. These trends are all leading to predictions on the ultimate fallout of these changes, something increasingly called social computing. "
Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Q: So what's this Web 2.0 thing, anyway?
A: What do you mean, "what is it"? It's Web 2.0, that's all it is! Don't you get it? It's brilliant!"
Kind of like those interesting circular linkages. Link 2.0.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks to my poor old brain more like yet another crusty hack to get current browser technology to do more than it really is all that capable of. And because browsers, unlike
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Don't feed every mouse movement to the server unless it is specifically requested.
3. Don't call the client the server and the server the client, its confusing!
(yes it made sence in the old unix model wh
The irony of X (Score:3, Informative)
It's rather ironic that we're trying to get browsers to do what other application platforms have been able to do since the late 1970s. I sometimes wonder if the web browser, like the gopher client before it, should be dropped for something, well, a little less kludgy and arcane.
It is also ironic that these days the distributed capability of X Windows (-display host:server:screen) is very portable, efficient, universal, and ignored for a less universal solution, HTTP.
Re:The irony of X (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The irony of X (Score:3, Informative)
HTTP deficiencies (Score:4, Insightful)
Each instance of said application is going to consume massive resources (on the server..again not the X server), and is ABSOLUTELY NOT SCALABLE!
As opposed to spawning a new process or thread to handle the HTTP connection? There really isn't much difference. Your criticism might be valid if the world still connected to the internet through ppp. It is not. Considering the explosive growth in high speed networking I think the X solution has finally come of age.
Compare the HTTP architecture with X. You have a few significantly incompatable browsers that are among the most complex programs ever written. There is no steady definition of what these cesspools of code really are. For all that complexity it is remarkable how little they do! HTTP servers are less complex but must be programmed at an absurdly low level. Get into multi-tiered architectures and you have to wonder if people are designing on acid. Page navigation is a huge problem for programs with dynamic content. Those pages are generated inefficiently again and again. Information is typically passed uncompressed across the wire, which is silly.
X client interfaces (GTK/GDK, Xt/Motif, Qt, ...) are amazingly rich and robust. Your programs work perfectly remotely or locally by definition. As a programmer you never see the X protocol, which is as it should be.
Network-wise this is not ideal either as their is a tremendous amount of inefficient bi-directional communication just to click buttons and type in fields.
Bi-directional communication is sort of essential for any network app. Also all significant actions behind those HTTP button clicks are done on the server side to there is no effective difference. HTTP interfaces are very primative of course they are more efficient. Your point is invalid.
Re:HTTP deficiencies (Score:3, Insightful)
Which HTTP servers do that? The most common architecture is to spawn a few child processes on server startup, not to do it for every connection. Don't forget that because HTTP is a stateless protocol, when a connection is closed, the process can just handle another request again straight away. There's a world of difference between X and HTTP.
Argues like... (Score:2)
Well yes it would be silly if it were true. HTTP has compression and caching built in. You don't seem very familiar with HTTP at all.
You argue like a North Korean arms negotiator - vigorously from a position of weakness.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:5, Interesting)
1. "static" in the sense of not dynamically interacting with the user in an ongoing communication with the server, that is, not in the sense of "not dynamically generated by the server". Note that a page using "regular" Javascript is still a static page; there might be user interaction, but it's not usually going to communicate with the server, so all interaction is local only (akin to writing into a book you bought, for example).
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
I don't think it really is about any particular technology-- nor should it be.
Web 2.0, as far as I can tell, is a nexus of collaboration-focused and location-less activities. The concept of storing your personal data (for example, email, photos and documents) "in the sky" rather than on some particular computer that you own and the concept of sharing your data as though it were a document that everyone could edit has been theorized since the early days of "hyper-text".
Only now is it becoming a reality. Why
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
The fact that a site might use Javascript and XML at all seems pretty irreleve
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2, Informative)
There's lots and lots of hype, but underneath there's some really powerful tools.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
You've confused "Web 2.0" and "Ajax". Not hard to do, both are annoying buzzwords, but they are different in meaning.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's a pretty vague concept, but basically it's an overall design strategy / feature set rather than a particular implementation detail. Read the article, it explains it in more detail.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is just another guy giving his differing opinion on what "Web 2.0" is. You can find those in the thousands, and there is nothing about this one that makes it more compelling (in fact, and all apologies to Mr. Hinchcliffe, but his take seems even more vacuous and ignorant than most).
To quote from the article: "Web 2.0 is not a technology, it's a way of architecting software and businesses and companies see the value in the Web 2.0 way of doing business.". What an awesomely vague and useless statement that is. Basically what he's saying is "We'll pick whatever is successful and call it Web 2.0". The mention of MySpace is telling, given that MySpace is nothing more than a continuation of the sorts of social sites that appeared when HTML first hit the mainstream.
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Yeah, basically the same stuff which has been around since like the 90s.
As more capabile backends and languages (The Java stuff, PHP,
But, yeah, it's still the same ole stuff
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
And five million in VC funds!!11!11eleventeen!!
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
You're using a reductionist argument the focuses on the technologies that are used to drive a new breed of web sites, lamely called "Web 2.0" sites. But "Web 2.0" isn't just about technology... it's about the general acceptance of those technologies and the results produced by using those technologies to increase collaboration and knowledge acquisition and sharing. Technology, despite
Re:Why is it called web "2.0" (Score:2)
Yeah but, what about the porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but, what about the porn? (Score:2)
Facial expression applet [dyndns.biz] (safe for work) [works in FF1.5 and Opera 9]
Just a little thing I'm working on, so that we can tag facial expressions too. Look for the girl that's smiling, or the one that's winking/frowning/pouting, whatever.
Also working on other SVG applets that are even more impressive. Posable 3d mannequins that let you enter in the exact position of the girl in question, so that's searchable too.
Anyone want a beta account?
Re:Yeah but, what about the porn? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah but, what about the porn? (Score:2)
Not anymore... (Score:2, Informative)
Old school thinking. That was only really true years ago when "legit" business was still new to the Internet. In my opinion, Porn really hasn't moved that much since the 2000 timeframe. Sure, there are better video codecs, but they are nolonger the product of porn production.
Summary of the article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely (Score:3, Insightful)
The "killer apps" of tomorrow's mobile infocom industry won't be hardware devices or software programs but social practices. --Howard Rheingold
In his recent essay, Paul Graham pans Web 2.0 because it can't be used to make predictions. Paul is right; the reason is that we have been classing Web 2.0 by its technology instead of its social implications.
Because, really, who gives a shit about technology? I don't care about technology, I care about me. I don't want to know
Re:I agree completely (Score:3, Funny)
Web 2.0 can get me laid?! That's just what I've been looking for! I bet my wife will be surprised to find this out as well.
Re:Summary of the article summary (Score:3, Funny)
More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
You had different tools:
a) usenet: good discussion but no continuity and no usability for non regular users
b) gopher: lots of good information but difficult to find what you are looking for. Directories helped but were hard to maintain
web 1.0:
c) HTML: fixed the graphics problem
d) Search engines: made it possible to find resources
e) commerce: long tail economics
web 2.0
f) Wikipedia: collaborative information creation
g) My Space: I don't know. I think collaborati
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
Wiki/forums/reviews just remove the need for search engines and usenet to find certain kinds of information.
Myspace just removes the need for an HTML editor to run your own crappy website.
In all reality, there aren't any new services being offered in all this, just new tools that make those services somewhat more accessible and centralized. Amazon offers book reviews on their site instead of you having to look elswhere for a re
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
First way - Search engine may be able to find them. Alteration meant a lot of ballache.
Second way - I can quickly navigate tags, build sets, and organise.
To use your example of Amazon, the kind of integration means that not only are reviews in one place, but it's easy to work out if ther reviewer is good (Based on the use
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
This isn't a new web. This isn't a revolutionary web. We haven't reached some magical point where it all seems new again. if anything, I'd call this Web 1.5. We're still years away from acheiving the web a lot of us imagined it becoming years ago.
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
No not all. They go much further. They prompt people to unify and create information. I'll do a Wiki page on all sorts of things I wouldn't bother running a website on. More importantly I'll add to other Wikis even more freely. The net result is much more information in my head becomes available for a wide community. Multiply that by tens of millions of people and suddenly you have an order of
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
Wrong. They let me, John Q Whoever, publish information for others to find, and find information others have published. Now, in one sense this was true before, since every jackass could (and did) make a geocities or aol homepage. What I think is the key difference (if there is one) is that in earlier setups, making web content was seen as a separate process from consuming it. It used different too
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
Web 2.0 makes it sound like some sort of paradigm shift, when, if such a thing even exists outside the minds of technology editorialists and marketers (who, I have a hunch, are the same damn thing), it's merely just part o
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
Email couldn't really become a useful tool for general business use until AOL got millions of joe average people on the web. Hell AOL wouldn
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
that's the main difference between "1.0" and "2.0". the dhtml crap was always there.
Re:More like Web 1.0.2.14 (Score:2)
"It's this piece that often flips the "bozo bit" of technical people, who often have engineering background that demand explanations in terms of technology and often don't appreciate the social dimension. "
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um... (Score:2, Insightful)
MySpace is sort of a step sideways from GeoCities. Or down. Which of those depends on whether or not you're a teenage girl.
Re:Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um... (Score:2)
Re:Um... (Score:2)
This is different from:
S
Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Marketing (Score:2)
IRC -> AIM/MSN/ICQ/Y!M/GTalk
Geocities/generic free homepage site -> Myspace/generice free blog site
Yeah...nothing about any of this 2.0 stuff is really all the new and different. I think it's really just a new generation of internet users--the first generation to never really know life without it--trying to claim that "their" internet is completely different and better than anything that came before it.
Re:Marketing (Score:2)
The only thing I dislike more than the term "Web 2.0" are the people who blindly knee-jerk against anything mentioning it. Whether you agree or disagree with the term or how it is used, there are significant trends emerging lately that are worth paying attention to. If you write it off as a reinvention of Usenet, you aren't paying attention. "Social networking" isn't about people talking on the Internet, it's about applications that include information sharing as a tool, not as a goal in itself.
Re:Marketing (Score:2)
Re:Marketing (Score:2)
The problem with Web 2.0 is that it is nothing more than a marketing term.
It's a label that describes a new way of thinking about product development on the web. Sure, people had similar ideas before, but now they're more pervasive (more heads means more ideas, good and bad). Sure, you could accomplish the same effects before XmlHttpRequest using various methods, but now you get an XML parser and some of the I/O housekeeping done for you. Sure, marketing people coined the phrase, but the product that th
Warning: (Score:2, Funny)
Just to clear things up... (Score:2, Informative)
They mean pursued (I'm assuming), not perused.
This is a pretty long article, so I'll sum it up for you guys by taking the important passages:
200% fully buzzword compliant! (Score:2)
global platform
democratized
decentralized
commoditizing
control structures
power
socialize
engage
interchange
The first thing you should learn is that when someone is using buzzwords, they're attempting to sell you on something, not inform you. Selling appeals to emotions.
Web 2.0? No thanks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Web 2.0? No thanks. (Score:2)
Me too,
I'm waiting for web 3.1
When will this hit e-commerce? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When will this hit e-commerce? (Score:2)
Step 2. Web 2.0
Step 3. Profit!
Re:When will this hit e-commerce? (Score:2)
Apple: linking between customer lists "if you liked X you'll also like Y"
Also you have lots of B2B web2.0 with online collaborative applications. Logistics has been front runners in this.
The state is: It's more popular than it was last x (Score:2)
In all seriousness, though: increased use of virtual machines and security and such will make "lolit'slikeanapplicationbutinawebbrowserzomg" unneccessary. The idea that it is popular for security reasons is actually, from a security standpoint, sickening. That's just a great way to look at how sorry the state of every other part of the security world is.
Applets and AJAX (Score:2)
Given all o
Re:Applets and AJAX (Score:2)
Re:Applets and AJAX (Score:2)
I see it the other way around, with the applets being the kludge. Ajax/JavaScript/CSS/DOM/etc all work with the web - using and manipulating markup, URIs and all the other good stuff that makes the web so powerful. Applets, on the other hand, throw that all away, and cordon off a part of the page to build its own interface in.
That's not a web application, that's a traditional application tha
Who numbered this release? (Score:2)
How about Web 1.21 beta?
Or even better, how about just understanding that the changes in the way the Web is used are incremental and calling it "Web 2.0" in 2006 is just as silly as calling it "Web.com" in 1999 would have been.
Regardless of what it's called, the intent is to make sure people are aware that the Web offers experiences different from what it offered to the mainstream even three years ago. Because we all need to feel good about the newfangled Web we're using, right? We
StumbleUpon (Score:5, Informative)
One of my favourite innovations in recent years has been StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]. It's a very simple idea — you install a StumbleUpon Firefox toolbar and click the "Thumbs Up" button when you come across sites you like, or the "Thumbs Down" button for sites you don't like. This way, StumbleUpon builds up a profile of the sorts of web surfer you are, and will then offer up a suggested website when you hit the "Stumble" button.
Using StumbleUpon, I've been presented with many really cool websites I woudn't have been able to find using Google, because I wouldn't have known to search for them. It seems my own interests are interactive flash websites, mathematics news, food, and philosophy. You mileage will vary, but will be catered for none the less.
Re:StumbleUpon (Score:2)
Re:StumbleUpon (Score:2)
Re:StumbleUpon (Score:2)
Yes, TiVo can figure out that I'm interested in science, history, cooking and comedy, but I could've told it that directly.
Re:StumbleUpon (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Assume 200 site ratings each (so 2b total ratings)
3) build an IOT (call it X) on site:rating:user index this table on user
4) when I log in pull up all the 200 blocks I'm in (basically a list of other users with the same sites). This is easy because of the user index
5) do a frequency count for username
6) Using the index on I pull up sites they like
I can make this better if I like by having a user/frequence count table and for example adjusting 5 (so that heavy raters don't end up
Web 2.0 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Web 2.0 (Score:2)
I have no mod points here, but kudos on the Illiad reference.
the future of web technologies (Score:2)
Web 2.0 = low-contrast pastel colors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Web 2.0 = low-contrast pastel colors (Score:2)
One of the points of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is that the author's styles cascade with the user's styles. If you've got problems with a colour scheme, set up your browser to use a different colour scheme. Some browsers make this easier than others, but a rule like * { background: white !important; color: black !important; } fixes a lot of contrast problems.
But ignore anybody who says that XHTML makes things more accessible, they don't know what they are talking about.
It's Marketing, People! (Score:2)
What is Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Re:What is Web 2.0? (Score:2)
Along the same line of Synergy and Proactive.. .. (Score:2, Funny)
Granted, there are a lot of new development and trends going on, and things from ajax to user created contents are really going to change the way we view the web, that does not make the web to
Replace MySpace!! (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be IDEAL, however would be a fully interactive metaverse, ala quake 2 with real time voice for people within 50 "yards" of each other. And virtual houses that could still house the virtual MySpace replacement on one wall.
I've got $50 for anyone with a working prototype.....
Let me know when you've got it up and running....
rhY
More Management Bafflegab (Score:4, Insightful)
But all that other crap? Like (and I quote):
Key Aspects of Web 2.0:
- The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data
- Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data
- Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly
- Rich and interactive user interfaces
- Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution
Good God where does this dross emanate from? These are the engineering principles that bind together Web 2.0 concepts? It's notable that these attributes can also describe a client/server or 3-tier application, if you hold head just right. They could also describe how my grandmother's recipee book worked. Very interactive... encouraged user participation and contribution (that's what the pencil dangling from it was for).
If you're the hard-core engineering type, spare yourself a disorienting tour of pseduo-engineering psycho-babble and skip to the graphs at the end.
Was I too harsh?
Re:More Management Bafflegab (Score:2)
But it raises perhaps two salient questions:
1) Why does this guy write in a style that is clearly imprecise (and therefore, somewhat unhelpful), and
2) Since the stated qualities apparently apply to so many other forms of applications, is this guy really communicating anything at all?
When I think of answers to these questions, I'm somewhat disinclined to ever read another word from this guy.
Web 2.1 is the future (Score:2, Funny)
If you're not running Web 2.1, you might as well go back to the bad old days when people actually used client software for email and instant messaging. 2.1 is the only way of doing stuff online.
You can get a demo of what's on offer here: http://cheese.blartwendo.com/web21-demo.html [blartwendo.com]
Meanwhile, supporters will be pleased to hear about the imminent release of the long awaited Web 2.1 offshoot, Azotaemia 2.1.
Web 3.1 (Score:2)
Personally I'm sticking with eXtreme Web.
morfik (Score:2)
everyone stomped by a long shot.
The still however have large strikes against them.
Their visual development environment only runs on windows...strike one. The platform
thus far is closed source...strike two. On a plus note the compiled applications run
cross platform. On another plus note you can deploy locally disconnected as well
as connected. It supports 4 major languages as well which is another plus.
No I do not have any inte
Semantic Diversion (Score:2)
Re:The state of "Web2.0" is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Web 2.0 exists. It's all about making it easier for end users to create web content. That's it really. No big deal, except of course when you multiply it's effect by all the new users now able to create content. Then what you get is a hell of a lot more rough out there, but consequently a few more diamonds.
Re:The state of "Web2.0" is... (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm... let me look that up... Ah yes, it's definition #429 of what Web 2.0 is.
Re:What marketing BS. (Score:2)
Sorry, you're 11 years too late for that.
Re:What marketing BS. (Score:2)
Insert close-italics tag where appropriate.
Re:What marketing BS. (Score:2)