Zawodny trying to define Web 2.0

Jeremy Zawodny, Esther Dyson, Mike Arrington, and me are on a panel this week talking about Web 2.0. I guess Charles River Venture partners didn’t get the memo that I’m irrelevant to Web 2.0. Whatever that means.

Which leads me to Jeremy’s post. He’s trying to define what Web 2.0 means.

To me?

Web 1.0 was about pages. URLs.
Web 2.0 was about users. Adding them onto corporate pages. Wikis. Blogs. Myspaces.
Web 3.0 is about getting rid of pages altogether. Being able to make the Web YOU want or need. Is Twitter a page? Or a post? Or an SMS? A graph? Or a map display?

But, maybe this is just undefinable. Which means panel discussions about it are always interesting. Or should be, especially when you have an irrelevant asshat on the panel like me. 🙂

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Zawodny trying to define Web 2.0

  1. Every time I see people writing about whether web 2.0 is definable or not I actually start wondering whether those people are able to read.

    Well, obviously a lot of people think different but in my judgement, Tim O’Reilly did a great job in phrasing and defining web 2.0. Whats so hard to understand of what he wrote?

    That blog entry written by Jeremy Zawodny illustrates my problem pretty well. I guess 90% of all people have a complete misunderstanding of the term in question. Yes it is defined and there is absolutely no need to define it again.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Like

  2. Every time I see people writing about whether web 2.0 is definable or not I actually start wondering whether those people are able to read.

    Well, obviously a lot of people think different but in my judgement, Tim O’Reilly did a great job in phrasing and defining web 2.0. Whats so hard to understand of what he wrote?

    That blog entry written by Jeremy Zawodny illustrates my problem pretty well. I guess 90% of all people have a complete misunderstanding of the term in question. Yes it is defined and there is absolutely no need to define it again.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Like

  3. This is a nice video which explains (tries to) what is Web 2.0.

    Am pretty sure there are many more floating around, but I found this one to be simple yet conveying the message.

    Like

  4. This is a nice video which explains (tries to) what is Web 2.0.

    Am pretty sure there are many more floating around, but I found this one to be simple yet conveying the message.

    Like

  5. As long as it’s user defined, a final definition will never emerge. And Web 2.0 is in essence user defined. Lets just get comportable with something over which the definition will keep on emerging. this I think comment on Jeremy’s blog really got something.

    Like

  6. As long as it’s user defined, a final definition will never emerge. And Web 2.0 is in essence user defined. Lets just get comportable with something over which the definition will keep on emerging. this I think comment on Jeremy’s blog really got something.

    Like

  7. christ1an: Huh? In my blog post I specifically point out that Tim’s original definition worked well for me.

    The problem is that the larger media, pundit, blogger, moron community seems to have largely ignored it and invented their own notion of what “web 2.0” is and is not.

    Like

  8. christ1an: Huh? In my blog post I specifically point out that Tim’s original definition worked well for me.

    The problem is that the larger media, pundit, blogger, moron community seems to have largely ignored it and invented their own notion of what “web 2.0” is and is not.

    Like

  9. I’ll bet Robert knows exactly what “Scoble is irrelevant” means. It means someone is using him for link bait. (Which, of course, proves how relevant he is.) As for what Web 2.0 means, it means someone needs a title for a conference or a panel. I love Robert’s distillation from 1.0 “about pages” to 2.0 “about users.” I love even more his conclusion that it’s indefinable. Which, of course, creates the opportunity for an infinite number of conferences and panels. Have at it. Enjoy Las Vegas.

    PS: we can say of Web 2.0 what Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: It’s indefinable, but “I know it when I see it.” A prophetic statement, as it now appears that social media may be out-pulling pornography on the net.

    Like

  10. I’ll bet Robert knows exactly what “Scoble is irrelevant” means. It means someone is using him for link bait. (Which, of course, proves how relevant he is.) As for what Web 2.0 means, it means someone needs a title for a conference or a panel. I love Robert’s distillation from 1.0 “about pages” to 2.0 “about users.” I love even more his conclusion that it’s indefinable. Which, of course, creates the opportunity for an infinite number of conferences and panels. Have at it. Enjoy Las Vegas.

    PS: we can say of Web 2.0 what Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: It’s indefinable, but “I know it when I see it.” A prophetic statement, as it now appears that social media may be out-pulling pornography on the net.

    Like

  11. ” LANINGHAM: “You know, with Web 2.0, a common explanation out there is Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and making information available; and Web 2 is about connecting people and facilitating new kinds of collaboration. Is that how you see Web 2.0?”

    BERNERS-LEE: “Totally not. Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.”

    Txt here

    However the realityis that 80% of internet users dont care about the term web2.0 or whatever. its like who cares !

    Like

  12. ” LANINGHAM: “You know, with Web 2.0, a common explanation out there is Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and making information available; and Web 2 is about connecting people and facilitating new kinds of collaboration. Is that how you see Web 2.0?”

    BERNERS-LEE: “Totally not. Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.”

    Txt here

    However the realityis that 80% of internet users dont care about the term web2.0 or whatever. its like who cares !

    Like

  13. Hey Asshat, : ), my take on the pending 3.0 of the web is that it (should / will be) a dazzling array of new [shiny things] to plug our information into for variations on the use. I think that 2.0 gave us better use of RSS, better use of distributed web, re-architected platforms.

    I think in 3, we get to buy whatever “TV” [shiny thing] we want, and that the “cable” will be the data. I think Yahoo! Pipes is a starting point perception that will move smarter, faster forces to build something BETTER but that essentially does the same thing.

    Thing is, does my version of 3.0 need even more consumer uptake? In 2.0, we taught my mom to read blogs. In 3.0, does she mix her own blog/podcast/video show networks?

    Like

  14. Hey Asshat, : ), my take on the pending 3.0 of the web is that it (should / will be) a dazzling array of new [shiny things] to plug our information into for variations on the use. I think that 2.0 gave us better use of RSS, better use of distributed web, re-architected platforms.

    I think in 3, we get to buy whatever “TV” [shiny thing] we want, and that the “cable” will be the data. I think Yahoo! Pipes is a starting point perception that will move smarter, faster forces to build something BETTER but that essentially does the same thing.

    Thing is, does my version of 3.0 need even more consumer uptake? In 2.0, we taught my mom to read blogs. In 3.0, does she mix her own blog/podcast/video show networks?

    Like

  15. Jeremy Zawodny: Sorry, I was in hurry while writing that comment, you got it a bit wrong.

    What you’re stating on your blog is exactly what I was referring to, so I agree.

    People seem to notice the hype around the term but due to their natural superficiality and laziness the only thing they actually get is what has already been twisted by their kind or media.

    Result is that those people think big fonts, bright colors and a bit of XmlHttpRequest makes your site popular and web 2.0

    Like

  16. Jeremy Zawodny: Sorry, I was in hurry while writing that comment, you got it a bit wrong.

    What you’re stating on your blog is exactly what I was referring to, so I agree.

    People seem to notice the hype around the term but due to their natural superficiality and laziness the only thing they actually get is what has already been twisted by their kind or media.

    Result is that those people think big fonts, bright colors and a bit of XmlHttpRequest makes your site popular and web 2.0

    Like

  17. Considering for at least a couple of days, my Twitter home page is static, and only updates when I want to, that’s still at the web 1.0 level.

    Like

  18. I hear a lot of discussion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler definition is better such as “user based collaboration and content generation”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut definition on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encompassed by Web 2.0. This is analogous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being discovered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define.

    The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not technology. Most of the technology used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the application of this technology which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a democratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and governments and democracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their application which is different.

    Craig Tobias
    Solutions Architect
    Cisco Systems.

    Like

  19. I hear a lot of discussion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler definition is better such as “user based collaboration and content generation”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut definition on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encompassed by Web 2.0. This is analogous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being discovered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define.

    The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not technology. Most of the technology used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the application of this technology which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a democratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and governments and democracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their application which is different.

    Craig Tobias
    Solutions Architect
    Cisco Systems.

    Like

Comments are closed.