The State of Web 2.0, The Future of Web Software

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"

It's just CSS mixed with javascript... is it not?

Re:Why is it called web "2.0"

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.

HTTP deficiencies

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:Why is it called web "2.0"

Pretty much, yes - Javascript, CSS and XML. The funny thing about this is that this is pretty close to what Tim (Berners-Lee, that is) had in mind right from the beginning - that users would actually be able to collaborate on things using the web rather than just getting a bunch of static [1] pages thrown at them.

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"

Read the article, it explains it in more detail.

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.

Yeah but, what about the porn?

That's what really drives the web technology!

Summary of the article summary

I know you guys don't like buzzwords... so here are a bunch of buzzwords.

More like Web 1.0.2.14

This "web 2.0" isn't some massive leap in technology. Nothing really revolutionary has been done to warrant the coining of the term or the implication that it's something new and improved. In the 10 years I've been on the internet, I've watched the slow evolution from barely-useful tool to amazing source of information to social phenomenon. Much of what is being heralded as new and amazing existed in very basic form early on; techniques are simply steadily improving.

Um...

MySpace is not 'Web 2.0'. It's 'GeoCities 2.0' if anything.

Marketing

The problem with Web 2.0 is that it is nothing more than a marketing term. We've had social networking for decades in the form of Usenet. There hasn't been any major shift in the way we use the internet. At least not one that deserves the 2.0 moniker.

Warning:

The Bozo bit has been flipped!

Just to clear things up...

This includes the Ajax phenomenon being actively purused by Microsoft and Google.

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:

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

...
In a way similar to how open source software (OSS) democratized and decentralized control of software creation, commoditizing it relentlessly along the way, Web 2.0 sites is doing same thing with the control structures of society and business. Web 2.0 represents the unyielding shift towards putting the power to publish, communicate, socialize, and engage, using an almost-dizzying array of methods, in online two-way discourse and interchange. The Web is the medium, but it's powered by people.
...
We are seeing surprisingly active interest in the conference circuit, with a large number of sessions about SOA, Ajax, and Web 2.0 in the enterprise in the next few months.

Also, this image [hinchcliffe.org] is a particularly interesting comparison of the growth of various Web 2.0 sites. The author finishes with some predictions:

Remaining predictions: 1-The hype is going to ramp down quite a bit this year. 2- People will focus much more on using the ideas and ignoring the Web 2.0 hypesters more often. And 3- A lot of folks will still hate the term Web 2.0.

Web 2.0? No thanks.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's forced upgrades. I'll stick with my Web 1.1.19 (experimental), thank you very much.

When will this hit e-commerce?

It's interesting that the majority of these "Web 2.0" companies are still making their money off of paid advertisements, which seems to be a very "old web" business model. Are there any companies that are doing new and interesting things with commerce itself?

The state is: It's more popular than it was last x

"Web 2.0" has been around since 1654. It's more popular now than it was then. Tune in next week for the exciting revelation that it isnt popular anymore.

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

Much of the interactivity and cross platform capability we're being promised with AJAX sounds suspiciously like the buzz surrounding Java applets 10 years or so ago. However, AJAX is currently in a pretty primitive state. You still have to worry about browser compatibility issues. Tools and libraries are pretty simplistic. You also face the fun issue of dealing with yet another programming language, in addition to whatever HTML, SQL, and XML you're using, plus your server-side language of choice.

Given all of this, is AJAX really worth it for web applications?

Who numbered this release?

Web 2.0? Hardly.

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 shouldn't take all the goodiness for granted, right?

The Web is a utility, that's all. It's not new and improved version 2.0! It's the same constantly evolving data transfer utility it's ever been.

StumbleUpon

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.

Web 2.0

Since people were looking for a name which reflected the parallel with 'AJAX', they were forced to select another name which made you want to stab yourself.

the future of web technologies

... mobile phones. It's rather accepted that JApan in some respects is ahead of us as far as technical innovation and acceptance of tech. For the Asian countries - phones and functional mobiles are sprinting out ahead. A couple of Japanese contractors I recently worked with, in my age range, were rather disdainful of terminals and preferred to do a lot of things on handhelds. One was actually surprised that I was always notebook equipped. There are logistic issues involved - namely, the Japanese are a small people with smaller hands - suited well to handhelds, but nonetheless.... mobiles are the future of web tech.

the mobile companies here stifle innovation. it's the mobiles that are missing the boat.

Web 2.0 is not about tech. It's about marketers finally realizing what the fuck has been happening on the web since its dawn - and their need to put words to it. the future of the web is that you take it with you - not fucking MySpace.

 

Web 2.0 = low-contrast pastel colors

For all the talk of CSS and XHTML making content more accessible, I find it funny that color-blind people are brushed under the rug with all the low-contrast designs most of these Web 2.0 sites are sporting.

It's Marketing, People!

It doesn't matter that terminal apps have been doing it for 30 years. It doesn't matter that web apps are kludgy because http is stateless. It doesn't matter that you have to keep a lot of data server side. Joe Average User likes the Web and doesn't disable JavaScript, so he's going to respond favorably to anything that improves the interface. If you can present him with what seems like a more responsive application, he's going to be happy. It doesn't matter that you could build an executable that he could download and run that would be just as fast if not faster.

We can be interactive application snobs all we want to but the corporate PHBs are already eating this stuff up. That's why there's all the buzz right now. That means that for the next several years until the next buzzword item comes up, there'll be good money in knowing this stuff. I'd rather be an employed Web 2.0 programmer than an unemployed COBOL programmer.

Since the trend seems to be going this way, it should be possible to predict what the next buzzword item will be, too. Just look at what UNIX was doing 28 years ago and the answer should be there somewhere...

What is Web 2.0?

From articles I read 3 or 4 years ago, I was under the impression that Web 2.0 technologies were mostly focused on adding semantic data to the web. Web 2.0 was supposed to enable increased machine interface to the web. It seems that this keyword has been reassigned to simply encompass any recent web technologies as the semantic information trend hasn't really yielded any big results yet (I think we can all agree that rss and such are having less impact on users than AJAX interfaces that everyone and their mother are adding to web apps. They really do change the user experience significantly, especially for novice users.)

Along the same line of Synergy and Proactive.. ..

Web 2.0 is the word you are going to hear in the staff meeting of IT department for years to come. Just call it what it is, a buzz word and nothing else. I can hear every CIO telling their drones "We need to build a site in this new age of 'Web 2.0' and proactively create synergy between our e-business and client".
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 the stage of "2.0". For me, web is (hopefully) ever evolving, and it will just be THE web, with no version number attached at the end.

Web 2.0 is getting old already

I've got your web 2.0 right here. [port80ware.com]

Replace MySpace!!

We really need an "open source" replacement for MySpace. It's dangerous to allow a private corporation to run a network that is gaining so much importance, particularly among the youth.

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..... ...I'm recommending we treat it like a p2p app so it scales well, also. Say every computer on the node houses 100 of the nearest houses and avatars and MySpace walls of the other 99 users in that "node".... Then whethter the other 99 people are on or not, other people can still visit any house (or myspace wall) in that node, so long as at least one member of the node is online. Maybe 100 is too high a number, but given what the average pc is capable of these days, I doubt it.

Let me know when you've got it up and running....

rhY

More Management Bafflegab

I must be thick (come guys, tell me), but this article strikes me as falling into the "meaningless bubble diagrams connecting unconnectable things" category. I did like the graphs at the end that give you some numbers on ajax traffic.

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?

Web 2.what?

When I read the headline I thought the article was referring to Internet 2, which of course is REAL. Its what my university is connected to and it makes for very accessible high-speed porn from other Internet 2 capable universities.

Web 2.1 is the future

Bah! Web 2.0 is so outmoded.

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

Web 2.0? As Microsoft is involved everyone knows it won't be usable until Web 3.1 is released... although it will be named Web 2010.

Personally I'm sticking with eXtreme Web.

morfik

I have been investigating some of these tool sets and so far I would say morfik has
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 interest in morfik just stating some observations.

I'm Already on Web 3.0

Let's start Web 3.0. Just an idea and a phrase for the next level of web browsing. It will include smell-a-vision, of course, as well as touchable sites (the later more successful for the porn industry).

Semantic Diversion

This is all semantic diversion, to put it politely. Some proponents of Web 2.0 are apparently hoping that by changing the definition of Web 2.0. they can make it look like Web 2.0 has actually proceeded in a meaningful direction. Web 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with AJAX (AJAZ is just a fancy name for doing more on the client side with JavaScript and CSS, which is why they call it AJAX, because if they said 'client-side user interface development in JavaScript across an asynchronous network connection' everyone would rightly turn around and flee), social networking, or uploading your photos to Flickr.

If you read the original articles and specifications, such that exist, you will see that Web 2.0 is an envisioning of logical markup to enable machine intelligence in agents that work for the user. Web 2.0 envisions intelligent spiders that can follow logical paths (x is contained by y, y is a type of z, etc.), as well as a whole host of software serving the user living on top of this content and process. Look at the New Scientist article by Tim Berners-Lee awhile back (someone will have to find the link). Now, whether or not that's feasible anytime soon is debatable, but let's not be fooled by marketing chicanery into thinking that Web 2.0 has come about just because JavaScript development has been given a pretty name, social networking sites are all the rage (sixdegress.com was around from before the last bubble, it's just the new fad), and some Web services actually exist.

I know What it means.

Which community was quick at embracing the WEB when Al Gore created it?
The Adult industry..

Which community use the most of the WEB as we speak?
The Adult industry..

Which community has the most apeal to the common techy/nerdy crowd of today $lazy selfconciensious teannager?
The Meat Your Match Only For a Quick Fantasy/Laid and share it with the world ala MySpace, Hi5...

WEB 2.0 will be built on community based phenomenon. And guess what, the OSS crowd was doing it, was enjoying it WAY before mass media pickted it up.

WEB 2.0 is nothing new. Its just a term invented by "thinker" for the unwashed mass.

Just like "World Wide Web" came about.

Wash, Rince, Repeat..

Regards,

Akoma

Old news at Microsoft, IBM

Of course, Microsoft and IBM have had researchers and, indeed, research groups studying social computing since the mid-1990s.

• Microsoft Research Social Computing Group [microsoft.com] (formerly Virtual Worlds Group)
• Microsoft Research Collaborative and Multimedia Systems Group [microsoft.com]
• Microsoft Research Community Technologies Group [microsoft.com] (a more recent creation)
• IBM Research Social Computing Group [ibm.com]

They've known for at least a decade that these were important areas to study. TFA should know better.

2.0 already?

Dammit, and I just finished downloading Web 1.9!

Anyone got a torrent?

Do as I say, not as I do

"Web 2.0" ..... hmmmmm ......

Is that the brand new,shiny piece of crap he's using to host his blog that insists that IT knows how wide the article shold be instead of adjusting itself to the size of my browser window?

Until the pontificating wanker can show even basic web design competence, I don't think I'm going to bother reading the article.

Re:The state of "Web2.0" is...

Why do I have to tell this to /. readers?

Most /. readers already know this. In fact it's pretty humorous that the submitter mentions MySpace, given that MySpace is very much Web 1.0.

More and more people are using the internet for more and more things. Woot. More like Web 1.1 than Web 2.0 [yafla.com]. The term rightly gets derision because it deserves it: the continual growth and continual technology evolution is suddenly noticed by some that are unaware, and they decree that they've witnessed a revolution rather than an evolution.

Re:the brilliant idea...

2) Value is shifting from ownership to experiences

so I meant to say "These business folks are AMAZING." Now I feel really badly because I just lowered the level of experience for some slashdotters, thus bringing down the value of slashdot and the entire web... Sorry!

Re:The state of "Web2.0" is...

"Web2.0" is still-another-stupid-buzzword and, technically, doesn't exist.

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:What marketing BS.

Let us not let the marketeers ruin the Internet/I

Sorry, you're 11 years too late for that.

keywords, not "Marketing bullshit"

I don't understand why the coining of an umbrella term that describes a set of technologies and technique receives so much backlash from the /. crowd.

Think Google "keyword" -- have you ever tried to search for ambiguous technical terms on Google? If I search for "web 2.0 *insert any relevant term here*" I have an excellent chance of finding what I'm looking for. Same goes for "jboss" or "ubuntu" etc.

I, for one, welcome our umbrella term-coining overlords.

Re:missed a couple of ajax gotchas

#1

It's actually not that bad, although I'm sure results vary. I played around with a reader awhile back (something everyone should try, it's an eye-opening experience...or ear-opening? whatever...) and it dealt with changing page contents quite easy, notifying the user that something had occurred and reading the new contents.

Re:it's for all the idiots out there

C'mon guys, it wasn't THAT bad! It was a joke!