Slashdot Mirror
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. "
It's just CSS mixed with javascript... is it not?
Meh.
That's what really drives the web technology!
I know you guys don't like buzzwords... so here are a bunch of buzzwords.
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.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
MySpace is not 'Web 2.0'. It's 'GeoCities 2.0' if anything.
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.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
The Bozo bit has been flipped!
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
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:
Also, this image 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.
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.
This guy's the limit!
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?
One of my favourite innovations in recent years has been StumbleUpon. 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.
Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
"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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
From something I wrote on this subject:
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 how Web 2.0 will get me AJAX, I want to know how Web 2.0 well get me laid.
When caught in the throes of our meme 2.0 ideations, it should be the social over the technological that inspires. When we do this, not only can we make falsifiable predictions, but we can make actionable business plans and compelling emotional appeals as well.
So if you think it's too late to start a billion dollar AJAX business... You're right. But don't worry; the revolution isn't over, it's barely begun.
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.
Hmmm... let me look that up... Ah yes, it's definition #429 of what Web 2.0 is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
an ill wind that blows no good
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.
...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.
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
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
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?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
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
Meanwhile, supporters will be pleased to hear about the imminent release of the long awaited Web 2.1 offshoot, Azotaemia 2.1.
There has been a major scientific break-in
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.
an ill wind that blows no good