[_] Web 2.0 Rant (was: Charging for google analytics)
Tim Beadle
tim.beadle at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 13:14:52 BST 2006
On 04/08/06, Steve Roome <steve at pepcross.com> wrote:
> Yes, but just having the idea that there is any sort of "web 2.0" thing
> shows a complete lack of understanding of the difference between the
> marketing of the industry and the industry itself. It beggars
> belief that technical people take the term seriously enough as to
> even comment on it.
Why? There is a genuine difference in philosophy behind the apps of
2004 onwards vs the last bubble. APIs, rich UIs, Web standards,
user-generated content, collaboration, community as a side-effect
rather than as an aim, user-owned data etc. etc.
> /me too
??
> And at the time people started AOLisms that was for them a 2.0 experience
> of sorts. It's just made up and untrue. Like people who say "the new
> breed of ..." insert anything.
Really? Google maps is functionally indistinguishable from MapQuest?
Could've fooled me...
> It's about perception of technology, and that's probably quite important
> from a sales point of view, but technologically web 2.0 is pants.
I disagree. Some (most) manifestations of web 2.0 are indeed pants,
but the concept itself, IMHO, isn't.
> invisible non-existant vapourware pants.
GMail. Flickr. del.icio.us. All of them (and others) let you take your
data with you should you decide to leave, or the app folds. It
increases user trust, y'see, one of those philosophical differences to
bubble 1.0...
Tim
> Yes, but just having the idea that there is any sort of "web 2.0" thing
> shows a complete lack of understanding of the difference between the
> marketing of the industry and the industry itself. It beggars
> belief that technical people take the term seriously enough as to
> even comment on it.
Why? There is a genuine difference in philosophy behind the apps of
2004 onwards vs the last bubble. APIs, rich UIs, Web standards,
user-generated content, collaboration, community as a side-effect
rather than as an aim, user-owned data etc. etc.
> /me too
??
> And at the time people started AOLisms that was for them a 2.0 experience
> of sorts. It's just made up and untrue. Like people who say "the new
> breed of ..." insert anything.
Really? Google maps is functionally indistinguishable from MapQuest?
Could've fooled me...
> It's about perception of technology, and that's probably quite important
> from a sales point of view, but technologically web 2.0 is pants.
I disagree. Some (most) manifestations of web 2.0 are indeed pants,
but the concept itself, IMHO, isn't.
> invisible non-existant vapourware pants.
GMail. Flickr. del.icio.us. All of them (and others) let you take your
data with you should you decide to leave, or the app folds. It
increases user trust, y'see, one of those philosophical differences to
bubble 1.0...
Tim