Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters 227

jg21 writes "Dion Hinchcliffe, who is becoming the closest thing outside of Tim O'Reilly to being a Web.2.0 popularizer and evangelist, has summarized what he considers to be the five major benefits of Web 2.0 best practices. Hinchcliffe singles out the tactical potential of aligning with Web 2.0's increasingly ballistic trajectory: 'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:23PM (#14222134)
    Because it's still just hype. Why was this even posted?
  • by Malc ( 1751 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:26PM (#14222175)
    "I've been spending a lot of time lately with folks around the mid-Atlantic region and talking to them about Web 2.0."

    Firstly that there are a lot of people on Ascension Island. Secondly that there are a lot of web type people there!

    Maybe he was referring to the Azores...
    • Your post was funny, however; for those who don't know, the Mid-Atlantic region (in U.S terms) referes to Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, D.C., West Virginia, and Virginia...

      More info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_States [wikipedia.org]

  • by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:26PM (#14222177) Homepage Journal
    See this [wikipedia.org] if you're confused.
  • by peterdaly ( 123554 ) * <petedaly&ix,netcom,com> on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:27PM (#14222182)
    Web 1.0 - Documents
    Web 1.5 - Documents + Web Applications that pretend to be documents
    Web 2.0 - Documents + Web applications acting like the interactive applications they are

    Web applications are now free from the "static document" paradigm that previous chained them down. The web is no longer pretending to be static. That's not to say Web 2.0 is "mature" by any means, but the groundwork as certainly been laid.

    BTW - There are a bunch of concepts and methods here that truly are revolutionary. The more I use it and understand what it means, the more I think Web 2.0 is not a bad name, and may even be justified.

    -Pete
    • Damn, my sig was chopped. I'm sorry my sig makes NO sense!
    • Just don't abuse it. There's nothing I hate more than people implementing stuff like AJAX where it isn't even needed. I run an auction site. This interactive stuff isn't necessary for such a site or service. Yet, of course, there are plenty of people who will think web2.0/AJAX type stuff is absolutely necessary for everything under the sun.

      I doubt I'll ever use it, because I just don't have the kind of time to dedicate to learning everything involved to do it (especially since that isn't what I do for a liv
      • Frankly, I kind of prefer a more static web anyway. I don't want everythign to behave like a locally installed application. Loading another page or refreshing won't kill me.

        I second that sentiment. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how the web will be the platform of the future. If the browser will be my platform, then what platform will I run the browser on?
      • Exactly. Web 2.0 is about web applications (ie it is an addendum to the web, not a replacement). DON'T put AJAX on sites that are not applications. And keep the webapps small. Things like Google Maps are perfect. GMail fixes a lot of the stuff that was wrong with web mail, but I still only use it when I can't hook up my notebook and use a real mail application. I do not want my word processor on the web, nor my photo manipulation software.
      • For the most part, I agree with you. AJAX/Flash/whatever really is stupid on sites that don't need it. However, there are plenty of applications for which web access is really useful, but any sort of a reload - or even touching the mouse - is disasterous.

        My company has an application that processes health insurance claims. In the past, we used to install systems at the customer site. Now, we're working toward the goal of having only one system (or cluster), located at our site, that everyone accesses remote
    • Speaking from inside the Web 2.0 sphere (in which we get our oxygen by breathing liquid fluorocarbons, just like in The Abyss), people here are aware of (and somewhat amused by [flickr.com]) the buzzword nature of "Web 2.0," but we also see that the technology is extremely useful and has the chance to change how people use computers and software.

      --Pat my blog [blogspot.com]

    • Really.

      I see online games that seem very "interactive". I see online stores that interact with me. What is the difference between now and "Web 2.0"?
      • Actually I think the GP is onto something here (or at least it's the first even remotely plausible definition for Web 2.0 I've heard). The answers to your question would presumably be:
        • Those games (assuming you're talking about java games here) are indeed Web 2.0-ish, but they're enclosed parts of the site. Sufficiently active (can't think of a better word) Flash sites also count, except that Flash is evil (standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards!). But we'll know that Web 2.0 for games is here when
  • Blah, blah, blah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:27PM (#14222185)
    That's how I sumamrize this article. There's not a single nugget of real information in this article. It's a lot of marketing, blogging bullshit, which quite honestly, doesn't mean anything. "synergy" and "critical mass" and "collective intelligence" are just buzzwords with as much meaning as "Web 2.0".
    • If "Teh" Web 2.0 is anything like what that guy was saying, it must be all design and process documents; pages upon pages of content free words. I swear to gord [actsofgord.com] I read that 3 times and I have no idea what he said. Aside from Feng Shui. And then how he said he doesn't believe in mystical BS. Which is Ironic, because all he's talking is mystical BS.
    • by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:50PM (#14222466) Journal
      My favorite is point 5: "Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory"

      I mean, it's undoubtedly true but I think he's severely confused about what it means.

      • "Ballistic Trajectory" is what happens when an object is given an initial thrust and completes it's motion only under the influence of gravity.

        Toss a ball up and you'll see "Ballistic Trajectory" as it comes crashing to Earth at 32 feet per second squared.
      • It means it'll skyrocket upwards until it loses all of its initial velocity, then will come plunging to the earth at 9.8m/s^2

        It will hit you at the same horizontal speed, however.

        So basically it will be hyped and hyped until the hype expires, but all of the venture capital will come a-crashing in when it hits the ground!
    • by gg3po ( 724025 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @04:09PM (#14222640)
      There's not a single nugget of real information in this article.

      I, on the other hand, found the article easily comphrehensible. In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that all Web 2.0 really needs is to leverage the repurposing of synergistic, best-of-breed e-markets into more scalable, cross-platform action-items, allowing us to harness the power of the aggregation of one-to-one metrics in a way that will simultaneously optimize and extend several world-class, out-of-the-box web-readiness initiatives and give us the disintermediated mindshare we're all after. What could be easier?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:27PM (#14222189)
    Once you find out [oreillynet.com], you'll realize it's just a bunch of "synergistic ideas."
  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:28PM (#14222210) Homepage
    Why exactly did that handwaving sprinkled with buzzwords make the front page?

    Feng Shui on a ballistic trajectory, my ass...
    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Mille Mots ( 865955 )
      Feng Shui on a ballistic trajectory, my ass...

      I'm pretty sure I didn't parse that the way you intended it. Oddly, it makes a pretty decent pseudo-haiku.

  • No trolls?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:28PM (#14222211)
    Web 2.0 fundamentally revolves around us and seeks to ensure that we engage ourselves, participate and collaborate together, and mutually trust and enrich each other, even though we could be separated by the entire world geographically. And Web 2.0 gives us very specific techniques to do this and attempts to address the "people problem" directly.

    Sweet! It gets rid of trolls, uneducated users, and the typical "Dumbass Element" that prevails on the Internet?

    No? Oh, then Web 2.0 sucks just as much as "Web 1.0".
  • Marketing Hype (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sglane81 ( 230749 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:29PM (#14222221) Homepage
    FTFA:
    It's when software developers naively use technology to try to solve our problems instead of addressing the underlying issues that people are actually facing.

    This is nothing more than marketing hype. First step in marketing hype is to identify with your audience so they feel you're one of them.

    Why does this matter? It has to do with critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces.

    Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
  • by n8ur ( 230546 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:29PM (#14222228) Homepage
    "You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization."

    In other words, hype building on hype. Just what the world needs...
  • by Errandboy of Doom ( 917941 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:30PM (#14222230) Homepage
    The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0. One of the lessons the software industry relearns every generation is that it's always a people problem. It's not that people are the actual problem of course. It's when software developers naively use technology to try to solve our problems instead of addressing the underlying issues that people are actually facing. Then the wrong things inevitably happen...

    Or does someone have a link that's translated from PR bullshit to English?
  • The real 5 reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:30PM (#14222236) Homepage Journal
    The real 5 reasons why Web 2.0 matters:

    1. VCs can make a ton of money
    2. People with MBAs who know nothing about technology can make a ton of money
    3. VCs can make a ton of money
    4. People with MBAs who know nothing about technology can make a ton of money
    5. VCs can make a ton of money

    The average Joe will get stuck holding stock in companies with AJAX-enabled web sites for pet food sales. Joe's rationale will be the result of all of the hype he read about Web 2.0.
    ~
  • Paul Graham (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hobotron ( 891379 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:31PM (#14222250)

    has a better 'Web 2.0' summary that I prefer. http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html/ [paulgraham.com]
  • Web2.0, AJAX, DHTML, .NET, Open Source, Frameworks, Standards, Paradigms, SDLC, RIA, SOE, SEO, WMD, etc.

    TGIF!
  • Another reason why Web 2.0 matters socioeconomically: more people will have jobs!
  • by squoozer ( 730327 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:32PM (#14222259)

    I like the look of Web 2.0 (from what I have read about it) but I some how doubt we will be using it anytime soon and the reason: M$. Unless they start updating IE on a fairly regular basis Web 2.0 will just never take off. Yeah there will be implimentations of it (probably FF and Opera) but it won't get to got truly mainstream. M$ are playing catch-up with the release of IE7 but I don't see a big driving force for them to then produce an IE8 with Web 2.0 and other new technology. The browser wars are over there just isn't really all that much to fight over any more.

    Personally, I'm more interested in Web Forms 2.0 that represents some really needed technology.

  • Normally, I'd try to be helpful and provide a translation link when TFA isn't in english, but I couldn't find a "Marketing" option on Bablefish....
    • It is fairly easy.. whenever you find a world that does not mean anything to you, make a permamnet rule to delete that word. That way you wll build up the dictionary of words to ignore in marketspeak.

      Agfter you have gone through the document in that manner, remove any sentences that do not make sense after the word removal, this is the time consuming part and cannot really be automated excep for sentences like "or and ." or such.

      After that you are normally left with 0-5 sentences that actually had som

  • "You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization."

    So in otherwords, you can use new ideas to make your business applications better. Well no shit sherlock!

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to take our language back from the marketing people. We keep cramming more and more words in to a sentence while the real information content is falling. People, please, start using English rather than this marketing horse-shit. Language is about communciation and not obfuscation!

    Simon

  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:35PM (#14222294)
    OK, I'm not a theoretical physicist, more of the practical variety (I shoot things). Assuming we're talking about things happening down here on the planet, the term "ballistic" is generally meant to suggest "propelled with an impulse, and not guided" (like a kicked football, or a bullet). The trajectory of such items usually involves:

    1) Slowing down
    2) Dropping (literally) like a rock

    That is not the mental image I'd like to paint of some exciting new IT initiative. Honestly. Might as well say, "We've got to get in on this now! Why, this technology's going postal!"
    • The trajectory of such items usually involves:
      1) Slowing down
      2) Dropping (literally) like a rock

      Perhaps this is how they satisfy the SEC truth-in-advertising requirements. "We told you our trajectory is ballistic; what, you didn't know that meant halfway through we'd start moving rapidly toward the ground before making an enormous crater? That's your problem, then!"

    • Who said anything about on Earth, in our atmosphere?
      What if the "ballistic trajectory" is in LEO?
  • Leviathan enthusiam and attention forces the swirling around powerful Web 2.0 enablers to happen, making your organization something important and exciting.

    I'm sold already.
  • woo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by lbrandy ( 923907 )
    Woo, web 2.0. I hope they fixed all the bugs from the first version.
  • by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:37PM (#14222307)
    Rant coming, I got karma to loose :P

    All I want to say is, those people who are trying to market things, technologies, products, etc. which already exist in some form are always tagging new names on their stuff and try to sell it as something overly superior. I don't like these kinda guys :P

    To put things straight, I am all and full on the part of the technologies that are converging the web and the web development process towards what buzzworders call web2.0 for a time now. But, just like with AJAX, I just feel the urge to throw things in different directions when I see new names tagged on existing technolgies and say everything else is just stupid and also those are stupid who don't ajax (yes, that's a verb) from now on.

    That said, IMHO there are plenty of benefits of the emerging web2.0. But, if someone wanted to sell (as in persuading to use) me a programming/engineering/etc. model with the line "Has Excellent Feng Shui" I would just stand up, throw my tie in the garbage can and go out for a beer :P

  • This article (and for that matter the writeup) sounds almost like the result of some graduate student AI experiment.

    Looks like people are nostalgic for the glory days, when some fictional pseudotechnical concepts no one even understood could echo across boardrooms and bathroom stalls and stir venture capital investments and make you cool at parties.

    Is there anything to this, at all, other than taking several unrelated, incremental and entirely unremarkable improvements in user interface and style and puttin
  • "# The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0."
    And the technology's been WHERE before? Focused on aliens?

    "# Web 2.0 Represents Best Practices."
    Yea, that's because it's not the standard. Wait until everyone starts using it, and then it gets raped by developers. If people don't start using it, why do we care?

    "# Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui."

    "...critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decen
  • To address this, I've thought fairly long and hard, and come up with a starting point at least. I've tried to create the most distilled, direct explanation of the benefits that Web 2.0 best practices can provide in using and building engaging, useful software on the Web.

    I found this article lacking. Lacking in details, lacking in explanation, and especially lacking in specifics. I have addressed my complaints inline:

    The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0. - One of the lessons the software ind
  • We're better off waiting for Web 3.11.

  • BTW, I will also use this moment to state that Web 2.0 is a terrible name for this new vision...

    Okay, how about
    Network Interlaced Complex Entaglement 2.0
  • You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.

    In other words, "Pleeeeease Mommy! All the other kids are going to the party! Why can't I?"
  • I wish I had that sorta time to meta-wank all day.....
  • Web 2.0: Now 100% buzzword compliant!

    ...Web 2.0's increasingly ballistic trajectory: 'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'

    I don't know about you, but those 2 sentences alone completely clogged up my bullshit filters! And isn't a "ballistic trajectory" what a bomb usually follows?

    • Smart bombs have engines or at least fins to modify their otherwise ballistic trajectory. But the dumb bombs... yeah, they're ballistic.
      • Yes, I'm aware that a ballistic trajectory is actually what a bullet follow, but used the word "bomb" as it makes for a better joke. But seriously, Dion's use of "ballistic trajectory" (a curve that tends downward due to gravity) when he means an exponential growth curve makes we wonder: does this guy have ANY idea what he's talking about, or is he completely full of bullshit?
  • by rho ( 6063 )
    I don't care that much about IPv6, either.

    This sounds more like a pump-job for venture capital financing than a distinguished advocacy of a new paradigm. The thing about Web2.0 is that you don't need people to "buy into" Web2.0. If it's so damn great, your Web2.0 application will sell itself. See LiveJournal, Blogger, Flikr, MySpace and others for examples.

  • A few weeks back The Register ran a reader poll [theregister.co.uk] on Web 2.0. Say what you want about El Reg and their brand of satire, but there are some pretty amusing readers' responses in that article.
  • ....and for one reason.

    The word "synergy" was used.

    Yech!
  • 1. New book sales! Everyone who wanted a copy of Learning Perl has one.
    2. It makes him look like a visionary
    3. Something to talk about in Foobar camp
    4. It sounds better than AJAX
    5. Cowboy Neal
  • ...but now I do - a load of bullshit marketing-speak!

    Still, as long as it's not a world where every site is some Flash-laden excrescence that claims to offer 'a rich user experience' while trying to sell me things I don't need rather than, you know, actual useful information...

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @04:21PM (#14222755) Homepage
    From the article:

    It has to do with critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail are quite powerful ... You need a core set of Web 2.0 techniques in order to be successful and then the value curve goes geometric. This is why the ROI of software built this way is so much greater. ... Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result. And simpler software is invariably higher quality.

    Yeah, right.

    What really matters, if you're selling stuff on the web, is that people can 1) find what they want, 2) order it without much hassle, and 3) get what they ordered without delays or screwups. It's 2) and 3) that matter, because they determine repeat business. Serious retailers talk about the "abandoned shopping cart" ratio, or how many people started the process of buying something but never finished the transaction. One screwup in the fulfilment process usually loses the customer. Most profit is on repeat customers, remember.

    The "Web 2.0" stuff is mostly about the front end, the advertising/marketing part of the operation. That only matters in attracting first-time customers.

    In the end, all the "Web 2.0" stuff gives you roughly the capabilities Flash has now. If that was so great, we'd see more all-Flash sites.

  • by Spinlock_1977 ( 777598 ) <Spinlock_1977@@@yahoo...com> on Friday December 09, 2005 @04:21PM (#14222763) Journal
    Where do these people come from?

    Web 2.0 - A term for the technically illiterate denoting the passage of time

    Best Practices - A term describing what the technically inept do to avoid getting fired

    Web 2.0 Best Practices - What the technically illitate ask the technically inept do to, giving rise to the world's worst, bug-ridden software.
  • Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui.

    And it was at this very moment of RTFA that I realized I cannot take this author seriously for even another instant. Anyone who has only five points to make his case, and proceeds to express them in such empty vacuous feel-warm-and-fuzzy terms such as this has lost me entirely. He has convinced me there's no beef in this burger, and that Web 2.0 is a bunch of intellectual ideas that will never leave the university campus for any serious home in the real world in its pr

  • Well, I'm exaggerating a little. But I *am* sick of people trying to shoe-horn every possible computer application into a web page. I'd much rather see network-aware desktop applications. The user interface can be better adapted to the task and the speed is about 10x better. And with a little bit of careful encapsulation of your network layer from your content layer you can create a network-aware app that also works offline, for those times when the net isn't available.

    I think Google Earth is a good example
  • by mlinksva ( 1755 ) on Friday December 09, 2005 @04:51PM (#14223008) Homepage Journal
    1. The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Bathroom Tissue.
    2. Bathroom Tissue Represents Best Practices.
    3. Bathroom Tissue Has Excellent Feng Shui.
    4. Quality Is Maximized, Waste Is Minimized.
    5. Bathroom Tissue Has A Ballistic Trajectory.

    Certainly there are other reasons why Bathroom Tissue is important and you're welcome to list them here, but I think this captures the central vision in a way that most anyone who craps can grasp and access.

    BTW, I will also use this moment to state that Bathroom Tissue is a terrible name for this new vision of paper-based people-centric product. Except that is for every other name we have at the moment (for example, like "next generation of the arsewipe"). So I will continue to use Bathroom Tissue until something better comes along.

    OK, don't agree? Please straighten me out. Why does bathroom tissue matter (or not) to you?

    Toilet paper anyone?

  • 'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'

    /s/Web 2.0/in this mixed drink
    /s/organization/pants

    Fixed?
  • Notwithstanding the booster drivel [sys-con.com], it both amuses and saddens me that "Web 2.0 [theregister.co.uk]" is indeed turning out to be just another exit strategy and hype spew for tool makers, as many people said all along.

    "When you are old, you become impatient with the way in which the young applaud the most insignificant improvements - the invention of some new valve or sprocket - while remaining heedless of the world's barbarism"
    (Julian Barnes - Flaubert's Parrot)

    The young and the naive at least have an excuse for credulous opti
  • Yes my heads starts to spin when I read this stuff. My bullshit detectors go off too. But if someone with bags of money decides to start a dotcom 2.0 company in San Francisco and pay me $120,000 per year to go slap together a few applications, I'll pretend I believe.

    I feel like I am reading Wired or Mondo 2000 circa 1997 when I read about Web 2.0.

    Honestly, though, what novel and useful things have happened lately? The only thing I can think of is the potential that SVG (vector graphics) in mozilla offers. R
  • I got it! After reading all the comments above this one, I've got. Of course you can't understand it. If you could understand Web 2.0 it wouldn't be new enough, cutting edge enough, object oriented enough. Nothing that's really good can actually be understood by the common man, woman, or Slashdot reader. If we understood it we wouldn't need people like the author to explain it to us. Then he'd be out of a job. But because he is so much smarter than we are we need him. We need him to distill Web 2.0
  • El Reg ran a competition to out-Dilbert Tim O'Reilly, and some of the answers are fucking hilarious -
    • Web 2.0 is made of .... staggeringly beautiful silken threads of links through hyperspace, capturing the purity of the morning's dew of condensed ideas and the rotting remains of semi-digested beatle-blogs.
    • Web 2.0 is ... the vapourware output of people moving forward in pushing back the envelope of the corporate paradigm (to the sound of whalesong)
    • Web 2.0 is made of ... the skin that forms on the top of
  • "Web 2.0". Sheesh. When people say that I dissolve [theregister.co.uk] into fits [theregister.co.uk] of laughter [wordpress.com].
  • You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization. Use this opportunity to seize the initiative, ride the wave, and build great software that matters.

    So basically you wave a Web 2.0 sign in front of VC and investment bankers and wait for one to be duped and give you loads of cash so you can go off and do something real?
    --
    Q

I program, therefore I am.

Working...